#Show "Previous Clear Resources Used" even if missing ships/stats

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

timid schooner
#

Galaxy encourages users to retry and refine their strategies given the same resources.

Currently, "Previous Clear Resources Used" is not shown if you are missing ships/stats (ie cannot repeat previous clear), such as if you select a different ship to build from the L1 node at the start of the galaxy. This means that you can only tell that this new strategy might be better for this later node if you use the same ships/stats, or separately keep track of how much you spent on it before.

It is shown in the battle screen if you clear the battle, but it may be useful to have it available from Galaxy view--such as to view the potential change over multiple nodes, such as in Galaxy 2 where you might compare B3A+B4A+B5 to B3B+B4B+B5.

timid schooner
#

Maybe also have something like "previous clear" and "best clear". I ran into a case where, with the same purchases, I got two different "Previous clear" messages after battle depending on my composition.

My last run of Galaxy 2, B2 was my best clear so far running two Frigates. It showed after battle as my previous clear (Commited 20, used ~17) if my new run used two Frigates again. If I reorganized to one Frigate, one Corvette, the previous clear message compared to an older clear that used two Corvettes and one Frigate (Commited 30, used ~19).

ancient garden
#

The problem is just that it's not looking up a previous clear in a vacuum it's the previous clear with your current setup

#

And what will be used if you auto complete

timid schooner
#

That is indeed helpful, and I also haven't seen past galaxy 2 so I don't know how well it works there.

But it also leads to some complications like not being able to see how many resources you used in battle if you aren't actively in the galaxy. Any battle cleared using extra ships from L1 will just tell you that you don't have the stuff used in a previous clear, limiting the ability to use the displayed information to plan a future attempt.

I haven't used auto-complete yet, so I hadn't considered how that'd complicate choosing what to display. Especially with more opportunities for setups to diverge as we progress further.

timid schooner
# ancient garden The problem is just that it's not looking up a previous clear in a vacuum it's t...

My example of B2 was also about the ambiguity behind "current setup". Though this is only for what's displayed post-battle.

In both of the deployments I mentioned, my "setup" (choice of ship made in L1) was the same. My fleet was 1 Corvette + 2 Frigates. But because "1 Corvette + 1 Frigate" was ambiguous regarding which Previous Clear to reference, it ended up referencing an older, out-of-date clear--I imagine because however the Previous Clear data is stored, it's sorted so that "Corvette Corvette Frigate" comes before "Corvette Frigate Frigate", and it compared to the first result instead of the most efficient result.

ancient garden
#

no it shouldnt do that

#

You mean you had both a clear with two corvettes and a clear with two frigates and it showed you the worst one?

timid schooner
#

yeah.

The old clear was Corvette Corvette Frigate
The previous clear was Frigate Frigate

ancient garden
#

no corvette?

#

thats super wrong then

timid schooner
#

yeah, one sec for before/after screenshots

ancient garden
#

Oh wait you had two frigates

#

That sequence of pictures looks correct to me I mean correct behavior wise?

#

Two frigates is the lowest used and matches the text

timid schooner
#

For the last two pictures, I swapped a frigate for a corvette (not the L1 purchase, just the battle deployment), which changed the required setup from "buy frigate at L1" to "no required purchases"

#

And it compared it to a run that used more resources, and did not match my current setup

ancient garden
#

oh, ya, It was just the best match. It's comparing those based on what you had available and what you deployed. So the only one that matched was the one where you used all three.

#

I can see how that's a bit weird though since it's not the same composition exactly