Would having the report simply return each turn's totals with a button to expand a specific turn be a viable solution? If the totals aren't stored in the database and needed to be calculated for each page load I imagine it would wreck the database, but pulling a single row from the database (if the calculated totals were stored) for each turn when loading the report, then just pulling the data on demand for a specific turn shouldn't be any worse than the current situation right?

Wreith42 wrote:

I can't believe people want he guild bank more than the order logic.
If y'all just agree and do it, you can do the shared funds thing yourselves.

To answer Dread's last comment, the only report I can think of that I would like to have would be a much longer accounting report. After three turns or so things aren't visible any more, so if something unexpected happened since I was on last, I may not have a way to figure out what it was.

That is a legitimate complaint. It goes by row count, not turns so as to not break the page but you Megacorps out there make 500 rows of logs in a single turn. The database is keeping track of accounting for 3-5 days back. I think I can at least add a paging row no problem and maybe a specific turn field? That accounting page is unwieldy with big corps I'm not sure how to make it easier to read.

*edited post for relevance*

From my perspective the thing that I would find the most important is to work on those aspects of the game which would make it more likely to retain new players.

Note that I say retain, not draw - drawing in new players is something which is done separately from this by and large but it is something which can certainly be done in other ways.

In this sense I was drawn to many of the aspects which are relevant in the field of getting players to work together because it is when you have a community and friends which you are working with that you can actually enjoy the game in the long term. This would be great.

That is why I was rather interested in those aspects of the game which fostered cooperation - specifically the guild bank and the use of trades without contracts (which would make trade between corps much much easier).

I also very much liked the idea of the Unit Order Management because it would be a great UI improvement but not sure if every player would actually use it and benefit from it so I was a bit on the fence with that one.

But I also wonder if that is the right approach to retain players, it might be but I am not sure.

Another way of looking at player retention is to give them great long term goals. In that respect the follow-up to the guild banks is also very valuable - specifically when you look for the longer term huge megastructures projects - but also the new anomalies/quests and the strategic locations.

I do think there is a bit of confusion as to exactly how a guild bank would work - JBD has touched on a few of the key aspects but it boils down to the simple question of whether a unit being paid out of the guild bank still contributed to the logistics penalty of the player who owned the unit. (I have had discussions with a bunch of players, some believe it would not, some believe it would, and it might be part of the reason why that option is so popular, only Seren would be able to clarify).
edited by Vulpex on 8/17/2018

I can't believe people want he guild bank more than the order logic.
If y'all just agree and do it, you can do the shared funds thing yourselves.

To answer Dread's last comment, the only report I can think of that I would like to have would be a much longer accounting report. After three turns or so things aren't visible any more, so if something unexpected happened since I was on last, I may not have a way to figure out what it was.

... Aaand what we've forgotten - better reports for everything. Or just a possibility to access at list a flat table of some data - fore resources, demands, units etc, like accounting page with different sections. This would be really, really necessary. Now there are a lot of similar stuff is made on external side.

https://image.prntscr.com/image/hVVO9O1IQcapM1iMUQfUiw.png

Doctor Dread, I'm sure you've seen this suggestion floating around multiple places.... SHRINK THE GALAXY back to a suitable size for the player base I would think this could be a fairly easy thing for you to do (maybe I'm wrong?). Like down to 3-4 systems. We close 2 systems/week to allow players to adjust to the changes. We keep the the most populated systems active (Sol, Gul, Sirius, Centauri. Close the rest.

I believe this would do more long-term good for the game than any of the above changes, at much less effort to you.

I had a megastructure idea: Auction House

It would have cargo hold and hangar space. You could transfer products or items or load units inside it then you would be able to set prices for products, items and units stored inside.

Fixed price sales: Buyers wouldn’t need to buy the complete stack of products or items listed, they could buy parts of it.

Auctions: You could also start auctions for products, items and units. In this case buyers must buy the complete stack of products or items offered. You would be able to set the end time for your auctions.

If someone buys something then at the end of the turn it will be automatically unloaded and transferred to the buyer.
edited by Serenity on 8/14/2018
edited by Serenity on 8/14/2018

In my view this is already feasible, does already exist, by preparing a stack of products separately or away from the main storage location, then when setting up a contact in -List my products- the stack can be chosen, and with this the proposed feature is achieved: contracting a stack of product at a specific location, where the concerned will change hands upon acceptance of the contract. Now if one or more separate stacks of the same product could be prepared at the same location (by giving them a name, like a units group or fleet, so perhaps even a stack of mixed products?) this would then make sense as an innovative feature and certainly come in handy.

When you say "without contracts" does that mean I don't need to ask someone to accept my contract, load a transport with goods, and drop them off? If so, I like that idea.