2 Months in; "We don't know"

EValve

E
What's going on? What is this?

Brett C said:
More or less an unknown right at the moment. I've been sifting through the feedback and discussions that have been ongoing, there's quite a bit of discussion to both sides on the matter.
Click to expand...

I'll admit I haven't browsed through the forums much lately but where exactly can I find the arguments posed opposing storage?
No really, I'll happily join the debate if there even is one.

What seemed to be like a basic QoL pre-requisite to introducing the Engineers, has been awaited for quite some time, subject of discussion long before and the update is "We don't know"?

Did I miss April fools?

Balls of steel. No other words.
 

Sourdough Steve

Sourdough Steve
Pretty sure that quote was regarding debate amongst the devs, not the commmunity at large. Apparently, some of the devs don't like the idea of storage.
 

Drelthar

Drelthar
Sandro said in at least one live stream that they "wanted to do it" and I'm pretty sure somewhere else as well.

Though he was referring to module storage, I don't remember any "official" word on commodity storage, though it seems completely insane to not add it in for engineers commodities.
 

Riverside

Riverside
Crimson Kaim said:
Wait, there are people against engineers commodity and module storage?
Click to expand...

Personally I don't see the need, but I'm not against it if others want it. Struggling to think of a reason not to implement it other than dev time being diverted from something else. Even then it would just be a lower priority rather than 'don't know'.
 

PiLhEaD

PiLhEaD
Yup - I was also stunned to read those words from Brett.

Currently unless I void my hold I can't get into my DbS, as this has zero hold, to play a bit of pew-pew.

It's mind boggling FDev actually feels there is a decision to be made on this topic, indeed one of the biggest concerns I have abt ED for the longer term is FDev's decision making.

CQC and PP were both heralded as 'the next big thing', and I'm not sure either has fulfilled that promise. Engineers might be a nice idea, but has been very badly implemented. Planetary landings are blooming great, and flipping fabulous buggy-bouncing fun-fun-fun. So, a one-in-four 'success', from my point of view. Your experience may be very differerent.

Also, some of the ships and other 'balancings', are mindboggling - e.g. the Keelback, a slower and less manoeuvrable 'fighter/blockade runner' variant of the T6 trader it is based on - fighter-soontm or not, this is clearly silly. I could go on, but you get my point.

Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of ED and FDev - they do some great stuff - but I have long felt that the path they take from the design idea to instantiation often doesn't deliver, or translate into, exciting or compelling gameplay for the more casual player. My frustration is doubled when issues are flagged in beta by we who test, FDev drop into their 'it's okay if you don't like it' mode of denial, only to flip when there is a forum meltdown.

I completely get that PP is likely the technical basis for the impending arrival of 'those who shall not be named', but far too often for me FDev seem blind to their snatching of defeat from the jaws of victory, and FDev seem wilfully naive in how they listen to their customer. My trite little mantra is - 'you are never properly listening unless you are prepared to change your mind', whereas waiting until people are up in arms tends to lose customers and/or a lot of goodwill.

Bottom line, I used to be 80% confident about ED's future. It was down to 50%, but reading this...
 
Last edited:

[DOOK] Droogie

[DOOK] Droogie
Riverside said:
Personally I don't see the need, but I'm not against it if others want it. Struggling to think of a reason not to implement it other than dev time being diverted from something else. Even then it would just be a lower priority rather than 'don't know'.
Click to expand...

Don't see the need? What are we supposed to do with upgraded modules when we want to outfit our ship differently? I have upgraded core internals on my Cutter. I want to go Jacques with it, which means going down to 7d Thrusters to give me a good boost in jump range, as they're 128t lighter. I can't do that, because I'll lose the upgraded ones. My only option is to buy another Cutter to put them on, which is 200m credits. Module storage is common sense for this.

Commodity storage wouldn't be needed if commodities were commodities. We have commodities that aren't commodities, and that is the real issue. Make them all available for purchase in a market, and storage is no longer needed.
 

AnotherVoice

A
Droogie said:
Don't see the need? What are we supposed to do with upgraded modules when we want to outfit our ship differently? I have upgraded core internals on my Cutter. I want to go Jacques with it, which means going down to 7d Thrusters to give me a good boost in jump range, as they're 128t lighter. I can't do that, because I'll lose the upgraded ones. My only option is to buy another Cutter to put them on, which is 200m credits. Module storage is common sense for this.

Commodity storage wouldn't be needed if commodities were commodities. We have commodities that aren't commodities, and that is the real issue. Make them all available for purchase in a market, and storage is no longer needed.
Click to expand...

Wont happen, because they want you to do missions ☺
 

goemon

goemon
somewhere deep in this forums buried there was a player reporting a talk he had with one of the devs at lavecon on commodity storage - and the reason why it was missing and why they are not sure how to implement it (differently to modul storage), was, that they are looking for way to implement it withoout opening up to exploiting the BGS/manipulating the BGS. i can see, how you can exploit and manipulate the BGS with stored cargo, but not if you would limited it to 100-200 T of storage or less (besides i would i personally would actually like to tank or nuke influence with pre-stored commodities....)... but then, we also don't know everything about the BGS. that was the reason i read.
 

Thetele

T
Crimson Kaim said:
Wait, there are people against engineers commodity and module storage?
Click to expand...

Well there is some, but none of their reasons make any sense. Like players could try flood the market. I fail to see how that is negative. It would add a lot to trading and make that part of the game even better.
Other problems may come up with CGs but that would be avoided if frontier just spend some time to design CGs. And like every other CG already has some bug etc. or frontier change rules during cg that this wouldn't matter at all.

But, in this sums up pretty much the history of elite and how elite is in as bad state as it is. They seem to have decided what they will do with elite like 3 years ago and now they are still following that plan and can't realize when they needed to rethink their plans or that their plan isn't that good. Engineers without storage is like power play without any way to stop expansion if you are not part of power play, wings without wing missions or other wing activities.

They seems to have incomplete check list that they are going through.
Game check,
trading check,
combat check,
exploration check,
weekly missions/challenges check,
play with friend check,
in game factions to support (pp) check,
arena fights check,
landing on planets check,
driving check,
crafting check,
looting check,
passenger missions uncheck,
multi crew uncheck,
etc...

They are adding stuff that people mention about games without realizing that it isn't anywhere near everything they need for good game and that there needs to be more inside and behind these things than we currently have in elite.
 

vizvayu

vizvayu
AnotherVoice said:
Sounds and looks like an internal Frontier issue imo
Click to expand...

Unfortunately is not an internal FD issue. It never was, because WE are the ones needing storage to play decently, without having to do magic tricks to be able to keep our commodities and at the same time play the game.
I'm so tired of this lack of thought, focus and common sense. The foundation of the game is not strong enough to just keep adding unfinished and undertested stuff over and over. Fixes that should take hours like the infinite ammo bug, take weeks, or even months to get fixed. And I bet they'll add passenger missions before adding storage (if they ever do). I can't care less about a new mission type, I just want to store my stuff safely and get back into my beloved Viper MK4, and have a decent image quality, free of ultra-jagged-edges in my Vive. I think I don't ask for much... just the basics. The foundations of a good game. But instead I'll have to carry a couple of passengers together with 70 tons of rare commodities through a pixelated and jagged universe.
 

EValve

E
Darth Ender said:
Basically, it needs to be a strategic asset to the game and not a reduction in game strategy.

That means more than just implementing a place for you to put things you dont want to sell.
Click to expand...

The fact it could be used as a strategic asset is exactly one of the arguments that was posed against it in a live stream by Sandro.
A thing I disagree with to a certain extent as i firmly believe it could actually allow for a more dynamic environment.
This isn't much of a problem either way. The extent to which this strategic asset could be used and/or abused can easily be contained.
It has very little to do with strategy, it has much more to do with play-ability and Quality of Life.

I'd like to fly my Eagle after I've spent uncountable hours to obtain rare mission only rewards to soothe my nerves.

This alone exposes the most fundamental issue of its absence.
 

znôrt

znôrt
Darth Ender said:
Basically, it needs to be a strategic asset to the game and not a reduction in game strategy.

That means more than just implementing a place for you to put things you dont want to sell.
Click to expand...

so storing a ship is strategic, but a module or commodity is not. why?

i'm fine with or without, just trying to see the logic. by the way module/commodity storage would only add new strategic options (and new problems) if kept scarce enough.

there is no logical reason to avoid module storage once you accept ship storage. this is definitely an internal problem (i.e.: they just don't want to do it) and i have the feeling it's a matter of resources (as in server resources to store the stores). of course it could also be that it simply doesn't fit a schedule already booked for 'very important addon'. if the reason was code complexity then the codebase would be already far more figged up than i expected, so let's rule that out for the sake of hope.
 

Niamhy

Niamhy
either implement storage (and carriers to carry it from station to station for you), or remove the need for commodities from Engineer blueprints *completely*. They are the only two options that would make it playable.

Grinding for a week for commodities then getting interdicted by a pirate with thermal modded beams and missiles and losing all your stuff isn't FUN, Frontier. It isn't "challenging gameplay", it's ridiculous.
 

Mr T

Mr T
goemon said:
somewhere deep in this forums buried there was a player reporting a talk he had with one of the devs at lavecon on commodity storage - and the reason why it was missing and why they are not sure how to implement it (differently to modul storage), was, that they are looking for way to implement it withoout opening up to exploiting the BGS/manipulating the BGS. i can see, how you can exploit and manipulate the BGS with stored cargo, but not if you would limited it to 100-200 T of storage or less (besides i would i personally would actually like to tank or nuke influence with pre-stored commodities....)... but then, we also don't know everything about the BGS. that was the reason i read.
Click to expand...

That actually makes some sense when you think about the groups that play ED. There are groups who are only interested in manipulating the BGS to how they want to see it. Even if the storage was limited, if the groups have enough members they could have the power to change the galaxy. I guess the devs are worried about what affect this will have on the game. Personally though, I think it's a good thing. It gives those groups more of a purpose and something they can aim towards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom