It seems odd to me that designating a location as a destination seems to be no different than designating a way-point. Is there a reason why “set destination” does not behave the why I would expect?
The destination is also the last waypoint. I don’t see what’s confusing about that.
2 Likes
What are you expecting it to do?
‘Set destination’ gives you a new route with the selected system or structure as your destination.
Alternatively you could use ‘add waypoint’ to build a route by adding waypoints to your existing route. As this builds on the existing route, unlike ‘set destination’ which overrides the existing route, waypoints are useful if you want to visit multiple systems rather than one destination.
If you do not yet have a route and you select only one waypoint does indeed function the same as setting a destination.
2 Likes
Have you used the routing system?
Try setting the destination after waypoints have already been established then run the optimise route algorithm.
The established Destination does not remain the last point oin the route unless by happenstance.
That being the case; what is the point of designating a destination at all?
Setting a destination replaces your current one
Why is a destination required at all? What is its purpose? Currently everything can be accomplished with way-points.
Setting a way-point after a destination has been set supplants the destination, even if the way-point is actually en-route.
1 Like
I think ‘set destination’ is a good option to keep - it makes more sense because the name tells new players exactly what it does. In the beginning I would think most people only use a route with 1 destination, with no waypoints. Until they learn how useful waypoints are.
PS - I tried to optimize a route with just 1 destination. It stayed the destination! (giggles) Just joking.
I think the problem is the optimize route function itself.
It should really have 2 different selectable options:
-
Optimize WHOLE ROUTE for shortest overall distance, which might shuffle all waypoints and final destination around.
-
Optimize JUST THE WAYPOINTS for shortest inbetween distance, while keeping the final destination the same. Obviously in some cases the route will not be as short as the 1st option, but at least you end up in the intended final location.
3 Likes
Setting the destination overrides the current route. It is ‘delete route’ + ‘set waypoint’ in one click.
To be honest, I never use waypoints, as ‘set destination’ does everything I ever need. But for people who wish to have multiple waypoints on their route, ‘add waypoint’ is a good alternative.
If you don’t wish to use ‘set destination’ and only want to add new waypoints and manually remove the route every time you wish to go somewhere else, then you’re free to do so.
I’ll keep using ‘set destination’ when I want to set my destinations.
If you did not have set destination then it would be painful to have to remove each of maybe 30 waypoints manually, instead of just setting destination once to overide everything.
P.S. Is faction warfare ever getting an update?
1 Like
Maybe I am not doing something right, but I’m always annoyed by the fact that on undocking for some destination 20 systems away…every single destination along the way gets highlighted, except the first one. Now you might argue that done correctly the gate to go to is always at the top of the list, but I am not 100% certain of that and it being highlighted just like all the rest would be that 100% certainty.
The problem is that you can Set Desto and Set Waypoints, which implies different behaviors. It has been suggested in the past that Set Desto should actually be a desto, while Set Waypoint adds waypoints before that desto. That way, this differentiation would actually make sense.
When I go around to my locator agents, I use Set Desto first because it’s the first option in the menu. And then I have to make absolutely sure that I do not accidentally click Set Desto again to not delete very long routes. This is an ages old problem and CCP never fixed it despite it needing to be fixed.
That’s not what the destination is for the game. As described above it would be all fine if it was, but your desto can also be the first waypoint. Or if you set a long route and then accidentally used Set Desto, your entire route is gone and you messed up everything. That’s the problem with these options, and it’s something that should be fixed.
While I agree that that behaviour would be more intuitive when you see the descriptions ‘add waypoint’ and ‘set destination’, the behaviour would be less consistent, more complicated and prone to error.
The current system is very simple and clear. ‘Add waypoint’ adds a new shortest route on top of the existing route from the previous waypoint on to the waypoint.
If the destination would be static and waypoints would be thrown in between, there is no control over which waypoint first, which later, what route to take between waypoints. Would waypoints be added in between the route in the order the waypoints have been added? Or would they be placed in order to create the shortest route? What in the latter case if you wish to visit one waypoint before the other, can you manually adjust the order of the waypoints in the route?
Either players would then have to drag all the waypoints to the right order and set up their entire route by hand, or they would let the game fix it all for them which can result in different routes through unwanted systems in orders that they’re not looking for.
The current system is clear and predictable. What you put in is what you get out. It’s fine.
1 Like
I don’t think it should be fixed, there’s nothing to fix, just don’t use Set Destination after you’ve just used Set Waypoint which the last waypoint would be the destination.
I use waypoints when I’ve set route restrictions to where if I want a shortcut in a route that only goes through hisec then I’d set waypoints from the spot I deviate from the Safe Route, that’s the only instance I remember using waypoints.
Of course there is a way. It already sorts the way points in order they are being set. Nothing would change in that regard. You can and could still optimize the route with the respective setting as well.
See above, they would be set the same way as they are being set now. In order they are being set. Any optimization happens afterwards, just like now. There is no point in automatically optimizing routes under the new system.
They already have to do that if they set them without knowing the shortest route from experience anyway. Nothing would change.
The new system would be exactly the same. Exactly but for one change: Set Destination does not delete your route anymore just because you misclicked. In contrast, the current system is absolutely not clear and not predictable. If I did not know that Set Desto deletes my route, I would indeed use Set Waypoint to plot my route and then use Set Destination at the end to plot my final destination point. If you do that, you delete your carefully setup route, though. That is not clear, intuitive or predictable. It’s the exact opposite.
If you don’t want to change the current system, you should at least rename the Set Desto to something else that is reflective of what this option actually does: Set a single waypoint that overwrites/deletes any other waypoints. That would be clear and predictable.
It happens more often than not that you just misclick because the two options are right next to each other.
That is funny. This example is the best reason for changing the system to what I suggested. 
If you set your destination, you can then set way points for these special cases and they would automatically appear before the desto in the order you set them up. Thank you for that example. 
1 Like
Yes you can in the Route Manager (the bottommost item). Can auto optimize there, too.
Drops down by click on the “A”
That optimization is another interesting point, by the way. Right now, if you plot your route and put your desired Destination at the end and then want to optimize the route, the game doesn’t care about that your last waypoint is your desired destination. It optimized the route in a way to have the lowest number of total jumps and that will put your desired Desto in a random spot of your route. That is also not clear or predictable.
Plot a route with the following Systems in this order: Maila, Aurcel, Jita, Aurohunen, Tsuguwa (which is your desto). From my current location in null sec, this would be 62 jumps. Optimizing the route cuts it down to 49 jumps but puts Aurcel as last way point.
That means, you mess up your entire route. And if you don’t set your actual desired desto to prevent that, the game doesn’t know about it and if you set it after the manual optimization, your route will likely become much longer than it should be. Even if you just move your desired desto back to the end, the route is not optimized anymore.Setting an actual destination would solve this issue as well.
It could potentially also allow for a higher number of way points to be optimized because the game does not have to check for the shortest route to all the destinations (because all waypoints are destinations for the game). The above route would not have 5 destinations anymore for which the game needs to find the shortest route but 1 and the game knows the in-between stops for which it should in theory be much easier to find the shortest path as the number of possible connections is smaller. I imagine that eliminating all other 4 destinations from the search would help in reducing the number of necessary searches for the shortest route as it would have to look up only those routes that have Tsuguwa as endpoint. Someone with more knowledge in that field might disagree, though.
2 Likes
This is exactly how route planners for drivers used to work on Terra some 20000+ years ago. User-friendly, flexible, predictable. To the point.
Set origin, set destination. Then add and manage waypoints you wish to visit en-route (if any)
I agree, the system you describe is they way I repeatedly expect it to work after years of plying trade routes and running research rounds.
But the system does not work this way. I want to understand why. Is there a development issue I am unaware of?
Like you said surely defining start and endpoints limits the exponential number of way-point calculations the system currently runs. How can that be a bad thing?
1 Like
This was the advice I was going to give.
That said, when it says don’t use auto-optimize with more than 13 waypoints. They ain’t kidding. Travelling salesman problem
1 Like
Is it 13 these days? I remember it being 10. If it’s really 13 that would already be a small improvement. 
1 Like