feat(code): Custom outfit/ship prices and sell type

[TheGiraffe3]

Enhancement

Summary

A re-PR to Delta of endless-sky#6404.

See the original PR for more details.

Examples

pricing outfits "remnant broken jump drives"
  import
  location
    government "Remnant"
  conditions
    has "Remnant Bounty Hunter: completed"
  
  value
    "Jump Drive (Broken)" 1000000

pricing outfits "remnant broken jump drives"
  import
  location
    government "Remnant"
  conditions
    has "Remnant Bounty Hunter: completed"
  
  offset
    "Jump Drive (Broken)" 0.1%

Testing Done

None so far, though the original PR was tested throughly.

[Zitchas]

Awesome! Thanks for taking this on!

[TheGiraffe3]

Looks like ship support may be harder than I thought it would be.
TheGiraffe3#31

[TheGiraffe3]

Does anybody have ideas on how to fix the failing checks?
It appears that they don't like CustomOutfitSaleManager::customOutfitSales but I'm pretty sure I defined it correctly, and I'm not sure how to redefine it.

[Zitchas]

I'm going to take a look at it, but my coding skill is weak. Might need to get a better coder to take a look at offer advice.

[Zitchas]

OK, Visual Studio provides a bit more detail:
error : undefined symbol: private: static class std::map<enum CustomOutfitSale::SellType, class CustomOutfitSale, struct std::less<enum CustomOutfitSale::SellType>, class std::allocator<struct std::pair<enum CustomOutfitSale::SellType const, class CustomOutfitSale>>> CustomOutfitSaleManager::customOutfitSales

And a list of places that it is referenced by (CustomSaleManager 38, 147, 53) (referenced 5 more times beyond that, but it only lists those)

Followed by the similar error:

error : undefined symbol: private: static class std::map<enum CustomShipSale::SellType, class CustomShipSale, struct std::less<enum CustomShipSale::SellType>, class std::allocator<struct std::pair<enum CustomShipSale::SellType const, class CustomShipSale>>> CustomShipSaleManager::customShipSales

in CustomSaleManager.cpp L65, 154, 80; and referenced 5 more times.

I hope this is helpful info, anyway.

Doing a search for the error message turned up this stackoverflow article:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20439003/clang-linking-error-for-c-static-class-undefined-symbols

[TheGiraffe3]

That gave me a really random idea, so we'll see if it's that.
I think maybe the problem is that functions were private and not accessible by others.

[Zitchas]

@Hurleveur I know you're busy and can't do a deep dive on code or anything, but if you could take a look and offer a few pointers or insight sometime, it'd be much appreciated.

edit: TheGiraffe3: Don't hold up your work waiting for Hurleveur, as there's really no timeline as to when they may be able to provide some advice. It may be weeks or months. But they're probably the most familiar with how it works, so hopefully someday they'll be able to comment.

edit: I just downloaded your recent changes and ran it through VS's build process, and it's turning up the exact same errors as before.

I'm not sure why, but something in my head is nagging me thinking that those things being private is fine, but there needs to be something public but internal to those sections that calls them and makes their stuff available to be called.

[Hurleveur]

There's not really an easy way to fix it, I could explain but someone would need a good setup to use for debugging along with understanding of what's going on in order to resolve it.
It could be broken due to smth else changing in the game or bad conflict management on my part.
The different integration tests allow knowing what exactly is broken but figuring out how requires knowing how they interact with one another.

[Zitchas]

I think for the moment, I'm more concerned about the build failures than the integration tests. Both are important, I know; but picking a place to start, the build failures seems the logical place.

[warp-core]

static class fields need to be initialised outside of the class definition. Or, they can be made inline and initialised inside the class definition.

[warp-core]

You only need to make CustomOutfitSaleManager:customOutfitSales and CustomShipSaleManager::customShipSales inline, not any of the methods.

[xobes]

The different integration tests allow knowing what exactly is broken but figuring out how requires knowing how they interact with one another.

I want to learn more about the tests, didn't see anything in the wiki.

Also, per #15:

Instead of creating a new comment if you want to reply, write a reply on the comment instead just to keep things nice and tidy.
... how?

[warp-core]

Also, per #15:

Instead of creating a new comment if you want to reply, write a reply on the comment instead just to keep things nice and tidy.

... how?

The comments on a GitHub Discussion are arranged into two dimensions.
The first being the "top level comments". You create a new one of these with the text box at the very bottom of the page, similar to comments on an Issue or Pull Request.

Unique to Discussions is that each of these comments can also have a chain of comments following it. You can add to one of these with the smaller text box at the bottom of each group of coments.

The request you have quoted is for comments following on from an existing comment to use the chain nested under that comment, instead of creating a new "top level" comment.

More information from GitHub htemselves: https://docs.github.com/en/discussions/collaborating-with-your-community-using-discussions/participating-in-a-discussion

[TheGiraffe3]

Alrighty. If this is up and working, then the next step will be testing it.

A few good examples:

• Having a selection of advanced ships and weaponry in the pirate sales list sell for significantly more than their typical list price.
• Have one or two of the cheapest ships in the pirate sale list (shuttles, maybe?) sell for somewhat below normal price (say, about 75% or so)
• Have the Remnant outfitter buy Hai quantum keystones for something close to the price of Remnant Key Stones but without making them visible in the outfitter.

Added all those, plus the Remnant and UHai buying JD for more.
Any other thoughts?

[TheGiraffe3]

I'm thinking perhaps the Wanderers wouldn't buy Pug technology (or rather, would pay very little for it).
Maybe same with the Hai/humans for the Quarg, and pirates will pay more for the forbidden Quarg technology?

That could get a little labor-intensive though.

[Zitchas]

I'm not sure about the Wanderer/Pug one. It'd be good to get input from those teams on that.

But definitely, human space by and large shouldn't pay much for Quarg tech. (I suspect that some specific groups, like pirates, within that who certainly would pay good money for it, but most would probably keep it very quiet; so just having the pirates as the only place to really be able to sell the stuff at a good price for now)

Don't feel the need to do a full pass or anything on this. Just having a few items so that we can test a selection of different situations (outfit being sold for more somewhere, outfit being sold for cheaper somewhere, a ship or two similar example.

The bulk of the changes I would expect to happen in later PRs.

[TheGiraffe3]

I'm not sure about the Wanderer/Pug one. It'd be good to get input from those teams on that.

Just throwing the thought out there. Not sure about it either.

But definitely, human space by and large shouldn't pay much for Quarg tech. (I suspect that some specific groups, like pirates, within that who certainly would pay good money for it, but most would probably keep it very quiet; so just having the pirates as the only place to really be able to sell the stuff at a good price for now)

Probably the Unfettered as well.
I've also added the Hai as a bad place to sell technology - it's quite easy, and makes sense.

[Zitchas]

They generally don't come across as super interested in acquiring alien technology, yeah.

Remnant are the opposite of that. Aside from the Pug, they are quite interested in acquiring alien tech and would generally pay more for most of it.

[TheGiraffe3]

Remnant are the opposite of that. Aside from the Pug, they are quite interested in acquiring alien tech and would generally pay more for most of it.

This could run into balance problems where people buy a whole bunch of technology, cart it across the galaxy, and sell it for more than it was bought for, so it would probably have to be a smaller price increase (like 5%).
I'm not super interested in compiling a list of every alien outfit by hand, though.
I noticed that in the Command Line Arguments wiki page, you said it was possible to tell ES to print a list of every outfit. Does that put them on separate lines with quotation marks? And if so, could somebody run the command and send me the output over GitHub?
Those command line arguments don't seem to work on MacOS.

[Zitchas]

It outputs the data as a CSV file, which is trivial for any spreadsheet program to open. I can do it, but it may not be until tomorrow.

[xobes]

This could run into balance problems where people buy a whole bunch of technology, cart it across the galaxy, and sell it for more than it was bought for, so it would probably have to be a smaller price increase (like 5%).

Is this really any different than commodities? It would make sense for Human space to fetch a higher price on higher tech, and vice-versa -- Human tech worth less in higher-tech space.

... to that end, wouldn't tech pricing be something that is more variable like commodities, as well? Rather than fixed/hard-coded pricing locked in?

Calculating depreciation will be fun. But then again, there's already a multiplier at work (100% down to 25%) that could be leveraged -- shops could sell at 125% or 90% (custom tech multipliers) to cost. Actually that multiplier would work the whole way down the chain.

System A = 125% for Tech X
System A = 90% for Tech Y

System B = 105% for Tech X
System B = 110% for Tech Y

Could also be somewhat dynamic -- fluctuating (like commodities do)

[Zitchas]

Here you go:

Outfits:
ESD-outfits - Copy.csv

Outfit with sales: At a glance, it looks like it lists each outfit, and then next to it lists every outfitter that includes it (this probably does not take events and missions into account)
ESD-outfits-sales - Copy.csv

[TheGiraffe3]

This could run into balance problems where people buy a whole bunch of technology, cart it across the galaxy, and sell it for more than it was bought for, so it would probably have to be a smaller price increase (like 5%).

Is this really any different than commodities? It would make sense for Human space to fetch a higher price on higher tech, and vice-versa -- Human tech worth less in higher-tech space.

... to that end, wouldn't tech pricing be something that is more variable like commodities, as well? Rather than fixed/hard-coded pricing locked in?

Calculating depreciation will be fun. But then again, there's already a multiplier at work (100% down to 25%) that could be leveraged -- shops could sell at 125% or 90% (custom tech multipliers) to cost. Actually that multiplier would work the whole way down the chain.

System A = 125% for Tech X System A = 90% for Tech Y

System B = 105% for Tech X System B = 110% for Tech Y

Could also be somewhat dynamic -- fluctuating (like commodities do)

I've got a re-PR of an orphaned pull request to upstream: endless-sky#10676
I am having trouble resolving a comment there but that's not really related to this.

[TheGiraffe3]

Well, apparently ships don't work, even though they've got the exact same code as outfits.