Yea, my sorting algorithm was never meant to go into production 6 years ago. All it cares about is object size. It then uses age as an incidental tiebreaker so it just knows that all those 1x1s are "sorted nicely".
Edit: someone just told me they are actually working on this already.
Can you change the tiebreaker to alphabetical so that unique items are at least sorted into groups with each other?
It's on the list to be updated properly. It doesn't know the name of the item and the tiebreaker is just incidental, it's not actually coded. So it's not just a matter of switching what it's looking at.
Ah I see. Great job on the way it currently works though, I love seeing that quick shift from an untidy mess of me picking things up into smooth layers.
On a side note both the sorting and the general use of stash boxes would improve if it didn’t have 17 rows. Nothing goes into 17 so things always end up wonky.
Lol I know, it bothers me so much. That and also how the sort doesn't put 1x1s side by side to make a pair so you don't get that awkward 1x17 section down the right side. We just hired a dedicated UI dev for the first time to redo all these janky old bits of my code floating around.
devtrackers.gg
