So I was thinking about it as I was reading (didn't get online all weekend this weekend) this morning and here is a description of what occurred to me as a possible solution:Simple, implicit valuation functions. Mostly simple constraints (mathematically, single pulses). "Property X must be between Y and Z."
Valuation on relative properties, not absolute. Just like research, valuation operates on 'modifiers,' not absolute numbers. I want to spend 20K on a new transfer unit. Implicit in the 20K is the approximate magnitude of the attributes, I don't need to say that. What I do need to say is that I care more about range than rate, so I am only interested in transfer units that have 1.5x to 2x relative range. Again, this goes hand-in-hand with how research operates.
Slider bars with a range adjustable slider. List out the components of the item desired (I seem to recall the system works on a nodal component base data set anyway) and a numeric value as to how much it impacts your purchasing desire (how much you will pay) in a 1 through how ever many components there are, with 0 being you don't care, such as (for ships):
Hull Class |-----------------------<<<<<<<>>>>>>>------------------------| 5
Engine Rating |----------------------------------<<<>>>------------------------| 2
Hard Points |-------------------------------------------------------------------| 0
Cargo Cap |----------------------------------------------<<<<<<<>>>>>>>-| 8
data point |-------------------------------------------------------------------| 0
data point |-------------------------------------------------------------------| 0
data point |-------------------------------------------------------------------| 0
etc etc etc
being that it's likely there will only be a few critical components people will be concerned with making sure are present 1-20 as a standard valuation number (far right) may be fine. and of course default shoudl be 0 so you only have to value the parts you care about.
This seems like an intuitive way to make orders quick and detailed to me, I am sure there are ways to make this more uniform and applicable to all tangible variable purchases but this is my thought and figured I would run it by the crowd, and Josh if he sees it, to see what everyone thought.