I couldn’t find a site that would let me easily compare all the asteroids in one place so I decided to make my own: https://ratemy.rocks
You can currently filter by security status and see results for asteroid belts, moons or anomalies. Values are based on top 5% (by volume) of The Forge market orders. Refine values are calculated with max yield per security status.
Would love to hear if others find this usefull or if you have ideas for how this could be improved. I was thinking of adding the option to drop the improved variants from the results, perhaps with a different option for the jackpot moongoo.
The thing is that price for ore/minerals dont change that much (exept market speculations) so when remember the value list it is not needed to check it anymore.
On topic you could make top 5 or smth that are value/m3
I don’t know how you get the BO/SO/5% value from the market. The ESI gives a cached version of the BO/SO in a region, you may get the first page and cache it locally .
I was thinking of doing this since it could be useful when evaluating price difference of moon ore and ore, since you can’t compress the former.
My plan was to combine data from all the market hubs instead of making it a choice. The idea is to keep this as a simple reference. Maybe adding a collapsable settings menu for thing like this would be best of both worlds.
Originally I had it like this, but I didn’t find it that useful. This could be an advanced option once again. Currently the prices are based on the average of buy and sell orders with a lower bound at the buy order average.
I’m fetching all market orders from ESI, since that seems to be the best way to get data for more than a couple of items without hitting rate limits (they are based on requests, not bits).
The calculation (per item) is roughly:
Sort orders by price (ascending for sell and descending for buy)
Select orders until 5% of total order volume is selected (taking the remaining of 5% from the last order, usually not all of it)
Calculate weighted average of price with the volume as weight
I think the orders are already sorted when returned. thus you can take the first one.
You can specify buy, sell, or all as order_type to only retrieve given orders.
concerning hub choice, you could use default “The Forge” and allow people to chose a region for market. Don’t use all, it’s more compute time to fetch the data from all regions.
Another thing is, you should add a separator between nullsec and asteroids, because this is two separate option.
And change the UI to show that moon/asteroid/anomalies are TOGGLED while security is a multi-checkbox :
I propose a vertical flip below moon/asteroid/anomalies that is switched upward when the option is activated ;
and a slider below security which slided below the security that is selected (in images of course ; instead of having blue to selected , have it blue and image of slider)
also a bit more space between options and table, maybe 30 px ? And the same value above options.
They are not in any order on either API endpoint. (See for example this search for veldspar). I’m not sure what you mean by taking the first one. Also like I said, you hit the rate limits by querying for specific items multiple times. I tested it and found it faster to just fetch it all and filter it on my end. It all happens on the back end and is cached so it does not really matter anyway.
Yeah I realise this. I couldn’t get it to look right so I dropped that for now. Going to play around the layout a bit to see what works.
can I propose you to still show slider bar when not selected (eg dark blue color and thinner - or like theone used for the toogles) as well as keep the color change when toggled on for moon/asteroid/anoms (to visually match the “toogled”) ?
The goal is to show visually when client can perform an action, and what type of action he can perform .
Had time to make some updated on the site. Raw ore now shows adjusted price of the compressed variant, if it’s higher than the raw ore price.
I also added a page for analyzing survey scan results. You can copy the results from the survey window by clicking one of the results, pressing CTRL + A and CTRL + C.
There is no visual difference between the headers of the table, which are sortable, and the columns of the table. eg between the “volume” and the first cell of volume.
This is an issue because visually the user needs has no feeling of what can he interact with.
I suggest (but maybe bad idea) that all interactable data have a specific font, eg monospace, that makes them easily noticed.
Also the sortable column have the white sign to say when it sorted increasing/decreasin on the top/foot of the header cell. I suggest instead have an arrow downward around the text (something like ↓volume↓ or ↑volume↑ ) because if you change context (eg go back to eve) and come back afterward to your page, the semantic of the sign is not clear( while arrows is)
BTW didn’t tell you but I like the high/low/null indicator.
I’m figuring out how to make the style more obvious. Dark designs, especially with transparency, are quite hard to get right. I’m too used to creating light pages, so this is a nice challenge.
I think using monospace font would help, because it is more of the imperative language than the descriptive language : monospace fonts are traditionally associated with computer science and robots.
Of course having a border that represents a button would also help, eg by making perspective of 3D-possible interaction.
I just looked at the first image and this seems correct
