Roadsign, Connecting. Only one way ?

[mvgulik]

It seem to me that making a trail connection can only be done from an extended trail-point.
Why ?

Any attempt to make a trail connection from a Main-RS trail-point to an other existing RS-trail-point has so far failed.
Yes, including same name cases.

Its either "no more trails allowed". (Main-RS towards Extended-RS)

Or the Connect-Trail icon just disappears whiteout doing anything. (Main-RS towards Main-RS) (no action, no ping, no message. )

(Don't know about Milestone's)

[Jackwolf]

Wooden Roadsigns only allow 1 road

[mvgulik]

Wooden Roadsigns only allow 1 road

Sigh.
And you really think I did not know that little roadsign specification.

So explain to me.
Why would the current system allow for connecting two roadsign points in one direction (linking Point A to Point B)
But it will not allow the reverse (linking Point B to Point A). Even when both points are using the same trail name string.

[Jackwolf]

I think I might be starting to grasp what you're trying to say, your beginning post was a bit convoluted.

Do you mind add some pictures of what you're attempting?

[mvgulik]

Convoluted: Better than "xxx not working, please fix" I think.
Images: Naa. Text art in this case works fine.


Your basic Roadsign trail: "O--------x----|----x--------O"

"--|--": Any number of x connections.
" . . . . . ": No connection (forced text spacing).

In this case, "O . . . . . O", the game just ignores you when you try to connect the two O's. (would be useful, and logical, for narrow river crossings)

If this case: "O--------x----|----x . . . . . O". It will only allow a connection to be made from x to O. but not from O to x.

Last experiment from a few minuts ago.
In this case: "O--------x . . . . . x--------O"
It will not allow a connection between the two x's. (Same trail name ... Blank string in my case, although 'That Should Not Matter' in my view)

If you than remove and rebuild one x like: "O--------x--------x . . . . . O". It still wont allow you to make a connection between x and O. Either way. Now this is interesting.
It seem to me the moment you extend a O by adding a x it is given some unique, and permanent, trail-id (independent of the used trail string it seems). Well, that at least would explain the behavior I'm seeing.

Potential background/code logic's aside, it just feels illogical from a in-game/user point of view to me.

[Jackwolf]

If this case: "O--------x----|----x . . . . . O". It will only allow a connection to be made from x to O. but not from O to x.

Ahhh, yeah because in this case the game / sign thinks you're making an entirely new road.

Last experiment from a few minuts ago.
In this case: "O--------x . . . . . x--------O"
It will not allow a connection between the two x's. (Same trail name ... Blank string in my case, although 'That Should Not Matter' in my view)

Same thing with this case, you've already made a whole new trail with a completely new ID to it.

If you than remove and rebuild one x like: "O--------x--------x . . . . . O". It still wont allow you to make a connection between x and O. Either way. Now this is interesting.
It seem to me the moment you extend a O by adding a x it is given some unique, and permanent, trail-id (independent of the used trail string it seems). Well, that at least would explain the behavior I'm seeing.

Potential background/code logic's aside, it just feels illogical from a in-game/user point of view to me.

I get you, it does feel a bit awkward. But even from at a glance I can tell that having it coded this way, rather than a different way to allow pass of this rather niche situation is vastly simpler coding. From a user point of view... I can't really think of any time I've ever felt the need or desire to extend off two different roads and extend them to one point, unless I was already planning on making a Milestone at that point anyway as a check point.

[mvgulik]

game / sign thinks you're making an entirely new road.

That totally ignores the fact a new and unconnected main-Roadsign, "O", has a "[_] connect" option. But it has!
But ... there is no case where it is actually used, ... or even works when it would/should make no difference.

Simple coding: Fine for personal stuff where one is the only user. Not for something to be used by meany, in that case its more laziness and/or lack of coding skills in my book. (the fact for 'relative' fast code aside)

One part of this game is about using whats available in whatever way you see fit, but than it also should be clear and unambiguous (also for none coders) in its limitations or applied rules.

[mvgulik]

Hm.
The ID part is just a hypothetical potential.
Alternatively. Things also feel a bit like it might be related to the Archery Tower (exclusion zone behavior)(Feb 2021) and milling machine (Dec 2016) issues.

Potential patch coming up today ... but other stuff calling for my attention. We'll See. (next time perhaps. But than again. Dev's seem fine with it, so probably perfectly working as intended.)

Moving on.

[mvgulik]

This:

If this case: "O--------x----|----x . . . . . O". It will only allow a connection to be made from x to O. but not from O to x.

Is not completely true (anymore at least). You can make a connection from O to x

Or else this would not have been as easy(relative) as it was.

The trick is to know what not to do. Which I think classifies/proofs the connection process as a unintuitive implementation/feature.