You must empty your cargo hold first...
- Thread starter andy_3_913
- Start date
As ED don't want us to.
There's bugs with limpets if you steal some creating a mix of legal and illegal limpets it will let you attempt to sell them all on the legal market this causes a "transaction error" and disconnects you. biggest bug of course being limpets are slow and useless
Last edited:
This is not quite right.
Imagine if you stored a T9 full of narcotics in december. I believe the buying price was around 90 cr? Now their worth is much higher, around 10k cr, right?
Not saying can't hit 10k but I usually see narcotics at buy high 8k (8700-8900) and sell high 9k (9600-9800)
If I ever found a route that let me unload narcotics at 10k+, I would first do my happy dance, then load up and change out one of my current staples -Gold- to narcotics.
Not being able to store a ship with cargo aboard flies in the face of the 'blaze your own trail' / sandbox idea.
Why shouldn't I be able to swap my mining Python, still full of metals after a session of mining, to head out in my Vulture for some bounty hunting?
I don't agree it prevents stock-piling, it just prevents the player from playing how and where they want to. If I want to sit at a station for days waiting for mining missions to pop up, and use my osmium/platinum/painite stock to fulfil them, then sure I can do that. But it's not much fun is it? Why can't I park it up and fulfil a few each day, switch ships and head out and do something interesting in between? The restriction doesn't make any sense.
Edit:
Why shouldn't I be able to swap my mining Python, still full of metals after a session of mining, to head out in my Vulture for some bounty hunting?
I don't agree it prevents stock-piling, it just prevents the player from playing how and where they want to. If I want to sit at a station for days waiting for mining missions to pop up, and use my osmium/platinum/painite stock to fulfil them, then sure I can do that. But it's not much fun is it? Why can't I park it up and fulfil a few each day, switch ships and head out and do something interesting in between? The restriction doesn't make any sense.
Edit:
Who really cares? Say a player did fill a T9 and hadn't logged in since December? They'd have a ship full of narcotics and make a one off profit. Happy day for them, but doesn't really change anything for anyone else. Prices are so static these days, such an extreme example can't happen any more.
Last edited:
Yeah, you might be right. I barely traded narcs so far, I just know they're worth much more now.
Still, if you stored one or more ships full of them before they increased their price, that would be quite a profit.
Last edited:
And who would have done that? FD did not announce this change. Narcotics just jumped up.
besides, sale price 10k, 512 tons = 5 million credits.
Big whoop.
That is an interesting observation. Seeing how Narcotics has the identical galactic average as gold (9742?) yet Gold can frequently be sold for 10,300 per ton that's even more proof GA is just a plain text field.
Also proof that demand for illegal goods being way too low... the real killer of smuggling bulk.
Last edited:
Absolutely. This is why I find something like the Gold v Narcotics as good illustration of some of the oddity of commodity pricing and risk v reward
There's no reason for me to even move narcotics and risk rep and fines even if the prices were even for +CR/ton profit. If gold profit was roughly same as narcotics profit, I'd move gold just for the lower risk.
But with narcotics right now being lower spread on CR/ton profit, I find zero use to use up my tonnage moving capacity on something that earns me far less profit and incurs risk that gold doesn't. It would really be nice to find a Gal-Avg narcotic world that is right up there with gold but so far haven't found one.
So some illegal goods like Illegal imp slaves, the buy vs gal-avg spread can get so large it's worth the risk to move them (~2600-2800 CR/ton profit) - but others like narcotics is in weird spot where legal counterpart with same Gal-Avg is better.
I have this sense that Gold Gal-Avg is truly an average, of high and low, whereas the Narcotics Gal-Avg is basically a pretty flat, low spread.
Of course nobody would have done that intentionally, but I can see why FD wouldn't want anybody to profit from such a change.
And 5 million might not be that much for you or me but still it ain't bad a return for an investment of 45000 cr.
Last edited:
Plus the 73 million credit T-9 sitting unused for 6 months.
No one has been able to explain how transferring my cargo could be used as an exploit. Why did they say it could if they don't know how.
Bad game design, people trying to make up excuses for it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Frontier Devs commented on it in the ships & storage DDF dicsussions - it's in there somewhere.
This does kinda annoy me with my mining ship, especially as i can have a hold full of limpets and store that, but not anything else.
You mean 80 million and 45000 cr, right? Because we're storing a Type 9 for a long time here.
Let's not forget that 5 million for someone with a Type 9 in general isn't that much money, this has nothing to do with "you or me"
and I'd still like to know how the hypothetical example here knew in December that FD would adjust the Narcoticsprice.
Last edited:
Are there people that can afford 20 t9's? What is that, about 2 billion credits? If there are, and they want to spend that many credits to do this, then let them. I wouldn't call that an exploit because of the time and credits it would take.
Last edited:
Because Slaves tend to stink up the docking port after a few months, and the station wouldn't want anything to go boom in storage...
It should be apparent by now that the vision is for players to be worthless nobodies who putter around in their cobras and rely on a random assortment of odd jobs to make a living.
Very little concern is given to players with type 9s and anacondas. I don't recall ever seeing a bulletin board mission that required a vessel larger than a cobra to complete, much less a type 9 or even a type 6. Even if a player manages to acquire enough credits to make long term investments attractive, the mechanics don't allow that sort of play because it is against the vision and we should probably just go back to eve for having the audacity to think on a larger timescale.
Very little concern is given to players with type 9s and anacondas. I don't recall ever seeing a bulletin board mission that required a vessel larger than a cobra to complete, much less a type 9 or even a type 6. Even if a player manages to acquire enough credits to make long term investments attractive, the mechanics don't allow that sort of play because it is against the vision and we should probably just go back to eve for having the audacity to think on a larger timescale.
i actually do see missions with 48-55 T cargo, if you are allied and have the rank. you will have problems to fit this in a cobra ;-) (but you can perfectly ply all missions with an asp),
because potential exploits are asked, and rare goods have been namend. rare good max is dependend on ship. swapping cargo would allow you to collect a t9 of are goods collecting them with smaller ships. withoutswapping cargo: you could store some adders/cobras with rare goods ... and push a faction for flipping. (same goes for blackboxes, military plans etc. concerning missions.)
edit/ps: i don#t think those "rare" exploits are a reason that swapping cargo or storing your ship with cargo shouldn't be implemented.
Last edited:
![[HJ]-RedRaven](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/67/67389.jpg?1553527112){kind=avatar}
Rares aren't going to contribute to any exploit - they have a max allocated amount that could be easily checked across multiple ship holds if cargo was being stored. If the max_allocated is 11tons, then you're only ever going to see 11t. If a player goes around every rares port and picks up 500t of rares, good on them, well done. There's a significant investment in getting from station to station.
Honestly this is a short-sighted design decision that impacts common-sense gameplay. Virtually none of the real-world trade strategies are possible in ED because the system is intentionally gimped and because storage of goods isn't allowed. The background economic sim is so simplistic as to make a mockery of the word 'trading'.
I have a combat/RES Vulture (~3mil/hr in a RES)
I have a trading Anaconda (easy money, even if only 5.5mil/hr on a basic route)
I have a mining python (which I'm getting better in)
Yet I cannot switch between them because FD doesn't want to store, what, 10-20kb of additional data per CMDR?
Elite: Dangerously Illogical
Nothing to blaze, you're only meant to waste as much time as possible *points at SC acceleration/deceleration*.
So forcing you to get rid of all the metals first, then find your Vulture, then go bounty hunting (if you're still in the mood for that now) etc is the logical choice for that ^^
Better annoy players by blocking a potential feature than allowing it to be used for exploiting, even if no one knows how the hell that would need to be done in the first place to be worth it.
Rares, the bane of the cargo storing issue.
Oh if only there'd be a way to prevent it, like making the totally weird supply block take into account not only your cargo bay but your stored amounts too.
Too bad that this isn't an MMO using a database which knows EVERYTHING that could be just used to look if a player has rares of a kind stored somewhere and then simply deny supply based on that.
Such a pity.
Ha, at the rate rares spawn, you would have to hang around for days to fill a Type-9. You'd be quicker just normal trading. Sorry but lots of people seem to think this would be exploitable but no one seems to be able to come up with a viable way of doing so.
Buy 2 billion credits worth of T-9's and store them for 6 months with a random commodity, hoping that something in the Elite universe does the equivalent of a Greek Euro exit. ‘Market speculation’
If somebody makes money doing that then fair play to them. In the meantime we’re stuck with another arbitrary rule.
Last edited: