Cancel the in-process queue item last

[roy7]

Say you are making 5 slow items... modules, power armor, whatever. The one in your personal crafting queue is 50% done but you decide you only want to make 3 instead of 5. So you right click on the "5" queue picture twice. Instead of removing it off the back of that queue so the one that was 50% done is still going, the 50% progress is lost and it restarts from scratch.

I think changing the stack size in a single queue slot should just lower the queue # without resetting the progress.

Since bugs are so few now, maybe you can add in this new feature.

[ssilk]

Hmja. The problem is more complex and already discussed a lot. In short: It could be used to cheat.

Say you want to bake a cake and need 3.5 eggs for it. But there are no 3.5 eggs, so you need to take always 4.

Now you want to bake 5 cakes. For that case you don't need to take 20, you need need only 17.5 eggs, because you can make all at once. So you take 18.

Now you change your mind, cancel one cake. You receive 3.5 eggs back. But that's not possible, so you get 4.
Now you change your mind, cancel one cake. You receive 3.5 eggs back. But that's not possible, so you get 4.
Now you change your mind, cancel one cake. You receive 3.5 eggs back. But that's not possible, so you get 4.
Now you change your mind, cancel one cake. You receive 3.5 eggs back. But that's not possible, so you get 4.
Now you change your mind, cancel one cake. You receive 3.5 eggs back. But that's not possible, so you get 4.

You give in 18 eggs, but received 20.

There is no way to make this correct working, so this will not come in this way. What we all are thinking about is to shift the crafting queue, have priorities, interrupt crafting for more important stuff.

[roy7]

How does cancelling the item off the back of the queue instead of the front change the results of your example? Can't you just queue 5 and cancel them one a time and cheat exactly the same way, regardless if you restart the progress of the current item over each time you cancel or not?

[ratchetfreak]

indeed if you have to craft by twos then you should cancel by twos (front or back of the queue doesn't matter)

[ssilk]

It makes a difference if a job contains to craft 1 or 2 or 5 items and want to simply remove one item from such a job (canceling a part of a job). Because you miscalculate the difference items you get back for that.

The problem comes with the mathematical associative property, that the order in which you do differences makes a difference. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associati ... ociativity

One more example:
One copper plate is two copper wire. If you need 3 copper wire, you need two plates and get 4 wires. If you do that 5 times you need 10 copper plates and have 5 wires left at the end.

Now you need 15 wires at once: Here you need to take only 8 plates and get 16 wires. One wire left.

Or in short: it is a difference to built 5 times 3 wires instead of building 15 at once. Which makes it impossible to cancel parts of jobs, because you don't know how to pay back the difference correctly.
It makes no difference, if the job is in the beginning or end of the queue.

[roy7]

Which makes it impossible to cancel parts of jobs, because you don't know how to pay back the difference correctly.
It makes no difference, if the job is in the beginning or end of the queue.

The game already lets you cancel jobs. And you just agreed front or back doesn't make a difference. So then why not cancel off the back instead of the front so your crafting time isn't wasted when you decide you want fewer items?

It sounds like you are arguing against people being able to cancel jobs at all, and not actually arguing against my suggestion.

[daniel34]

ssilk: This is not about changing the amount of the items in the crafting queue when you cancel one item, compared to how it is now. It's about keeping the progress of the current item in the queue.
When you cancel the item currently processing, it's count goes down by one. However, the game resets the progress you already made on the current item. It cancels the one being processed and not the one being processed next (or last).
What OP wants is that the progress of this item is preserved and just the number of items to craft goes down by one.

[roy7]

ssilk: This is not about changing the amount of the items in the crafting queue when you cancel one item, compared to how it is now. It's about keeping the progress of the current item in the queue.
When you cancel the item currently processing, it's count goes down by one. However, the game resets the progress you already made on the current item. It cancels the one being processed and not the one being processed next (or last).
What OP wants is that the progress of this item is preserved and just the number of items to craft goes down by one.

Exactly correct. Apologies if I was unclear.

[daniel34]

I did write my reply while you wrote yours and I didn't see your reply before posting mine, but we both meant the same

[ssilk]

The game already lets you cancel jobs. And you just agreed front or back doesn't make a difference. So then why not cancel off the back instead of the front so your crafting time isn't wasted when you decide you want fewer items?

Perhaps I misunderstood you. But If you want to cancel from the end of your job-queue, why don't you just do it? Right click on the job you want to cancel... or is it because the queue is too long and you cannot reach the end? There are a lot suggestions about more control to the job queue.

It sounds like you are arguing against people being able to cancel jobs at all, and not actually arguing against my suggestion.

No, your suggestion is about canceling one item from the last job which is the same as canceling parts of jobs, which is - as explained - not possible to handle mathematically correctly.

EDIT: Ah, read the explanation above and could not cancel the last message-item.

[roy7]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. But If you want to cancel from the end of your job-queue, why don't you just do it? Right click on the job you want to cancel... or is it because the queue is too long and you cannot reach the end? There are a lot suggestions about more control to the job queue.

Yeah we're talking past each other a bit. I'm talking about the in-process item currently being crafted, the one furthest on the left (at the front of the queue). The one you are already partially finished making. It takes 60 seconds to make, and you have 3 of them being made. It shows the icon for the item with a 3 on it. After 30 seconds, it is 50% complete. You decide you want to cancel one of them. So you right click on it. The icon with a 3 is now an icon with a 2. However, you aren't 50% finished on the first one you are making, now you are suddenly 0% finished. So the 30 seconds is wasted, and you spent another 60 seconds to make it. 90 seconds for a single item that should only take 60 seconds.

No, your suggestion is about canceling one item from the last job which is the same as canceling parts of jobs, which is - as explained - not possible to handle mathematically correctly.

Right, there's the confusion. I don't mean last job in the whole queue, I mean last item in the in-process stack at the front of the queue. The item you are working on right this second.

[ssilk]

Well. Perhaps it's too late. I make one more try.

So your suggestion is:

If the item in my next job of my crafting queue is the same type as the current, then deleting the first job should not loose the progress for the second.

Right?

[daniel34]

There's only one progress and it's for the item currently processed, the first item in the crafting queue.

Simple example:
You're crafting 2 of one item that takes 60 seconds each, and the crafting queue only has that one item because you have all the other subitems needed.
After 30 seconds of crafting, you decide you only need one of this item, so you cancel one.
What currently happens: there's one item left in the crafting queue, and it takes 60 seconds to craft because it restarts from 0% progress (was reset).
What is desired: one item is discarded, but the currently crafting item is still crafting, only taking 30 seconds to finish.

It's not about the crafting queue, it's just about the first item in it (the one currently crafting).
If you craft 2 and you cancel 1 in the middle of crafting, it has to start from scratch, even if it was almost finished.
It cancels the currently crafting one, not the one crafting next.

[roy7]

Well. Perhaps it's too late. I make one more try.

So your suggestion is:

If the item in my next job of my crafting queue is the same type as the current, then deleting the first job should not loose the progress for the second.

Right?

Hmm. Possibly yeah. daniel34 I think answered fine. I think of it as one stack of items being made because visually it shows you one icon with a number on it for the # you are making. Queue up 20 of the same item, and if you have all of the ingrediants already made, it'll just say "20" on the icon. But if you work on the first one for a while and cancel, dropping to 19, you lose all the progress.

So yeah I guess I'm saying if you have multiple identical items in the queue all in a row, cancel the 2nd one not the 1st one when you right click it. Or overflow the progress meter to the 2nd one if it's the same item would give same result.

Regardless, it's my only complaint I can think of about this almost perfect game.

[Ranakastrasz]

Hmja. The problem is more complex and already discussed a lot. In short: It could be used to cheat.

Say you want to bake a cake and need 3.5 eggs for it. But there are no 3.5 eggs, so you need to take always 4.

Now you want to bake 5 cakes. For that case you don't need to take 20, you need need only 17.5 eggs, because you can make all at once. So you take 18.

Now you change your mind, cancel one cake. You receive 3.5 eggs back. But that's not possible, so you get 4.
Now you change your mind, cancel one cake. You receive 3.5 eggs back. But that's not possible, so you get 4.
Now you change your mind, cancel one cake. You receive 3.5 eggs back. But that's not possible, so you get 4.
Now you change your mind, cancel one cake. You receive 3.5 eggs back. But that's not possible, so you get 4.
Now you change your mind, cancel one cake. You receive 3.5 eggs back. But that's not possible, so you get 4.

You give in 18 eggs, but received 20.

There is no way to make this correct working, so this will not come in this way. What we all are thinking about is to shift the crafting queue, have priorities, interrupt crafting for more important stuff.

Nonsense. No recipe in the game takes half an item. Closest comparison is Circuit taking 3 wires, and wires making 2. So, you tell it to make 10 circuits.
That requires 30 wires, so 15 sets will be made, and 10 circuits. So, you cancel one of the circuits immediately before anything had time to happen. As it is now, It might cancel one wire set as well, since you only need 27 now, which due to recipe granularity, rounds to 28, or 14 sets. After its done, you would have a wire left over.

But wait! You cancel another one. Now you have only 8 circuits queued, requiring 24 wires. That is 12 sets, meaning two of those circuit sets can be taken out.

No cheating, no item creation, nothing like that. You can't have a recipe use half an item, and you can already cancel any recipe with no loss as is.

-----
Say you want to bake a cake and need 3.5 eggs for it. But there are no 3.5 eggs, so you need to take always 4.\
<Error, Recipe cannot use fractional items>
Or, maybe it can. If it is like random output, meaning it takes 3 or 4 with 50% chance, then you could, if you wanted, gamble excessively and maybe get another egg, or lose one. Gamblers pitfall (or whatever that mathematical concept is called) ensures that you will eventually run out of eggs.
Or you could, on cancel, round down.

I don't really see how this can be considered a valid counter-example.
Edit:
Especially since the game already handles this fine, and it isn't even pointed at the request. That is, if you cancel, directly or indirectly, the first item in the queue, and it still has at least one set left to make, don't interrupt the progress... Circle.

[ssilk]

Nonsense. No recipe in the game takes half an item
...
<Error, Recipe cannot use fractional items>

Well it does. Create 5 electronic circuits (=cakes) and use copper plates for it (=eggs). Then it uses 1.5 copper plates for each electronic circuit.
If you make more than one item, then there are for many recipes different brutto- and netto-item-values.

...gamble excessively and maybe get another egg ... Or you could, on cancel, round down.

You can, but then the next players come and mark that as bug.

I don't really see how this can be considered a valid counter-example.

If I don't see something, I try it out.

[Ranakastrasz]

Nonsense. No recipe in the game takes half an item
...
<Error, Recipe cannot use fractional items>

Well it does. Create 5 electronic circuits (=cakes) and use copper plates for it (=eggs). Then it uses 1.5 copper plates for each electronic circuit.
If you make more than one item, then there are for many recipes different brutto- and netto-item-values.

...gamble excessively and maybe get another egg ... Or you could, on cancel, round down.

You can, but then the next players come and mark that as bug.

I don't really see how this can be considered a valid counter-example.

If I don't see something, I try it out.

Ah, well, If you were to imagine that the cake used 3.5 eggs, then you need to have an intemediary, (bowl of egg?) which produces 2 per egg. Cake then uses 7 bowl of egg.

Say you want to bake a cake and need 3.5 eggs for it. But there are no 3.5 eggs, so you need to take always 4.

----
Now you want to bake 5 cakes. For that case you don't need to take 20, you need need only 17.5 eggs, Specifically, you need 35 Egg Bowls, 36 due to set limitations
You queue up 5 cakes. The game realizes you don't have enough Egg bowls, but have the eggs. It inserts, in front of the cake, 18 sets of egg bowls.


Now you change your mind, cancel one cake. The game would cancel 3.5 egg bowl sets, but can only cancel 4. You have 14 Egg Bowls queued and 4 cakes. You get 4 eggs back.
Now you change your mind, cancel one cake. The game would cancel 3 egg bowl sets, because there would be a spare egg bowl left over. You have 11 Egg Bowls and 3 cakes queued.

Repeat 3 more times
You end up with one egg bowl Queued for some reason, even though you canceled all the cakes.

You give in 18 eggs, and get 17 out, because one of them doesn't cancel if you cancel all the cakes, and you have two extra egg bowls you can't use.

That all said, that is actually how it works in game.
-----
More importantly, that isn't the intent of the OP.

Simply stated, If the first Crafting node is partly canceled, manually or as a result of a later node being canceled, then the progress should not reset on that node.

In the Egg-Eggbowl-cake example, suppose eggbowls take 10 seconds to craft.

You craft 5 cakes
Wait 9 seconds
Cancel one cake
The egg bowl, with one second remaining, is canceled, and the next egg bowl takes the full 10 seconds.
Cancel all the cakes
The whole queue is cleared, except for one egg bowl for some reason, which you have to clear manually.

The Wanted behavior is this.

You craft 5 cakes
Wait 9 seconds
Cancel one cake
The egg bowl, with one second remaining, continues crafting, but the count of how many egg bowls must be crafted before it crafts cake is reduced by one.
Cancel all the cakes.
The whole queue is cleared, including that rogue egg bowl.

[ssilk]

Oh, man. What did I begun here with this stupid comparison of cakes and eggs? I drunk red wine yesterday, eat some of my tomatoes and then read through the forum and found that comparison fun (I thought: a half egg is either the white or the yellow part ), but well, this morning it isn't anymore, I'm sorry.

To shorten this all up: I mean the whole crafting queue will get more love in the future. Perhaps in 0.14? Next year? I really don't know. But there is a big list of stuff, that will be worked into. And then they will find surely also this one (or perhaps someone (me?) has put it into a overview thread in frequently suggested) and hopefully they understand better than me , what is meant. (no, I really understand what's meant, but think it's more complex, than just this; I won't discuss this anymore, because it's clear enough, what's wanted )


EDIT:

This is a potential list of threads about changes in the crafting queue:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/sea ... mit=Search

This is an article which tries to bring one aspect together:
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 67&t=10222
Especially this post
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... eue#p79095

[roy7]

There's an interface improvements thread on reddit, the summary of what I mean in this thread is basically "if you are cancelling the under construction item, and the next item in the queue is the same item, cancel that item instead". So your partial construction progress isn't lost.

[ssilk]

Link?