Rounding in UI?

[kalauer]

I noticed numbers in the UI are not rounded but cut off? For example Influence is at 4, althoug it is 4.5 or more (two months in a row, it increased by 5), or the saved amount was cut off.

Is there a reason to do so?

I mean I would be in favor of at least one more Digit anyway, but if one Displays only one Digit, why cur it off and not round it?

 

[LastLeviathan]

I believe it's just to declutter the UI. If you want to know the exact numbers you can mouse over it.

 

[praftd]

I believe it's just to declutter the UI. If you want to know the exact numbers you can mouse over it.

Probably the reason.

No reason the user has to see 4.6521 on the UI. If you REALLY need to know, you can just mouse over it.

 

[kalauer]

Only partly my point. Yes, I would argue one more digit would be better, but if there is only one digit, why not make a real "4.5" a 5 instead of a "4"? It is just closer to the truth.


edit: make that 4.5 a 4.9, to be more clear.

 

[corny.1234]

Only partly my point. Yes, I would argue one more digit would be better, but if there is only one digit, why not make a real "4.5" a 5 instead of a "4"? It is just closer to the truth.

Because it represents the ressources you can use. Try to buy a pizza which cost 8 € with 7.70 €. The values you see are just an approximation to get an idea what you can buy. Not what you could buy

 

[Yenzen]

You get the full number by hovering over it i seem to recall.

 

[kalauer]

Because it represents the ressources you can use. Try to buy a pizza which cost 8 € with 7.70 €. The values you see are just an approximation to get an idea what you can buy. Not what you could buy

So much for the stock, makes sense. But how about the income? I gain 4.9 each month, but the game shows 4?

You get the full number by hovering over it i seem to recall.

Yes, you do.

 

[corny.1234]

So much for the stock, makes sense. But how about the income? I gain 4.9 each month, but the game shows 4?



Yes, you do.

Displaying 5 would still be a false value for planning
It's the same problem but postpone in the future

 

[kalauer]

Displaying 5 would still be a false value for planning
It's the same problem but postpone in the future

4 is just as wrong in the case of 4.5, and "much more" wrong for 4.9.

I get your point, you like this to be as conservative as possible. And while this may have been the intention behind this, claiming it was the more "correct" value for planning is wrong.

When you can only present Integers, but are working with doubles, cutting them off is the most prominent way to lose information. You can not do anything about the fact you lose them, but you can influence how much you lose. By cutting, you lose more.

Besides, if you are planning ahead, you most likely would use the detailed numbers. The representation in the top bar is for a quick information and overview (although I'd still say that one more digit would do no harm). And having 4.9 but displaying 4 obscures information instead of presenting them.

 

[corny.1234]

4 is just as wrong in the case of 4.5, and "much more" wrong for 4.9.

I get your point, you like this to be as conservative as possible. And while this may have been the intention behind this, claiming it was the more "correct" value for planning is wrong.

When you can only present Integers, but are working with doubles, cutting them off is the most prominent way to lose information. You can not do anything about the fact you lose them, but you can influence how much you lose. By cutting, you lose more.

Besides, if you are planning ahead, you most likely would use the detailed numbers. The representation in the top bar is for a quick information and overview (although I'd still say that one more digit would do no harm). And having 4.9 but displaying 4 obscures information instead of presenting them.

In mathematics, physics and informatic, rounding numbers up or down is a loss of information.
Anyway, these numbers should be considered as an economic value which represents the potential investments you could do. Regarding the fact that normally you will be handling values which are greater in your empire, it doesn't matter if you have 5000.9 or 5001 minerals. For your income, if you say you get 5 monthly but you are calculing with 4.8,after 10 months you will have a deficit of 2 minerals.

Imagine building a rocket which needs 5 tons of fuel to go to his destination, but in fly you notice that there is only 4.9...

 

[BobbyDylan]

Lol. I thought this was about rounded corners for the boxes.

 

[kalauer]

In mathematics, physics and informatic, rounding numbers up or down is a loss of information.
Anyway, these numbers should be considered as an economic value which represents the potential investments you could do. Regarding the fact that normally you will be handling values which are greater in your empire, it doesn't matter if you have 5000.9 or 5001 minerals. For your income, if you say you get 5 monthly but you are calculing with 4.8,after 10 months you will have a deficit of 2 minerals.

Imagine building a rocket which needs 5 tons of fuel to go to his destination, but in fly you notice that there is only 4.9...

If you want to plan ahead this tight (where you might miss 0.1 minerals after five months), you should use the detailed values. If you just want a quick overview, you'll want to know how much you make approximately. This is much better represented by rounded values, not cut-off ones.

The only instance I can think of where this rounded value might cause harm is when you need to build a e.g. ship and you are one-month income short. Then you wait for this first of the month to find you still lack 0.x. IF you only used the overview, which would be odd if you need it this urgent!

But consider this: You see you have the tech fo a new edict. You like it, but a quick view at the top bar tells you you can not afford it, because you are already at +2 influence and you want to have a backup income. You don't do it, although you had +2.9.

Now, this is all speculation and we the impact depends on play style. But while rounded values can create shortages in situations, where one should have used detailed numbers anyway, cut-off numbers can give a wildly wrong impression of the actual income (especially for little values where 0.9 represents a considerably share, like influence). Granted, for minerals and energy, this will be less of an issue after some time in the game.

 

[corny.1234]

If you want to plan ahead this tight (where you might miss 0.1 minerals after five months), you should use the detailed values. If you just want a quick overview, you'll want to know how much you make approximately. This is much better represented by rounded values, not cut-off ones.

The only instance I can think of where this rounded value might cause harm is when you need to build a e.g. ship and you are one-month income short. Then you wait for this first of the month to find you still lack 0.x. IF you only used the overview, which would be odd if you need it this urgent!

But consider this: You see you have the tech fo a new edict. You like it, but a quick view at the top bar tells you you can not afford it, because you are already at +2 influence and you want to have a backup income. You don't do it, although you had +2.9.

Now, this is all speculation and we the impact depends on play style. But while rounded values can create shortages in situations, where one should have used detailed numbers anyway, cut-off numbers can give a wildly wrong impression of the actual income (especially for little values where 0.9 represents a considerably share, like influence). Granted, for minerals and energy, this will be less of an issue after some time in the game.

In my opinion if you don't care that much about the value itself, rounding down is as good as rounding up.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

So long as it is actually rounding down, and not simply truncating, there's no issue.

e.g. -4.x should be displayed as -5; to do otherwise would create inconsistencies.

 

[kalauer]

In my opinion if you don't care that much about the value itself, rounding down is as good as rounding up.

Because having +1 is the same as having +1.9? Isn't the latter like 90% more?

But well... I guess one will get used to having to look at the detailed values at some point. Still, simple mistakes like that keep bugging me.

 

[Njordin]

4(4.5) instead of 4.5 for stock - yes - you want to know what you CAN buy
4(4.5) instead of 4.5 for income - no - you want to see how your income is influenced exactly ( +5% income modifiers, or slowly raising and falling income )

 

[Summin Cool]

Its correct, because when you purchase things they require an integer, ie by showing the minimum value you show what you can buy at a glance.
If it was rounded up you wouldn't be able to purchase items occasionally due to the rounding error

 

[kalauer]

Its correct, because when you purchase things they require an integer, ie by showing the minimum value you show what you can buy at a glance.
If it was rounded up you wouldn't be able to purchase items occasionally due to the rounding error

It is about the flow. i already agreed on the stock being a cut-off integer.

 

[corny.1234]

Because having +1 is the same as having +1.9? Isn't the latter like 90% more?

But well... I guess one will get used to having to look at the detailed values at some point. Still, simple mistakes like that keep bugging me.

If at the end of the month you have more money left than you thought, you will be happier than having less money left ... That's the practical use.

 

[kalauer]

If at the end of the month you have more money left than you thought, you will be happier than having less money left ... That's the practical use.

So you say the UI should give you wrong numbers on purpose to make you a pleasent surprise?

Generally speaking, having wrong information about the flow in any direction causes harm. My point is that rounded, this error is smaller.