2 Months in; "We don't know"

I really want to take my Vulture out for a spin but no chance because I have had to lug around engineer crap.
Storage should have been released with 2.1, what on earth were they thinking of.
 
Why do you have to lug around engineer crap? the commodity portion of a recipe doesn't require that many items ...you get the couple you need to do a mod and then you go on about your business. nothing in the game forces you to hoard for more than what you immediately plan to do.

the commodity argument for storage is weak. The module argument is a bit stronger. Stick with that.
 
nothing in the game forces you to hoard for more than what you immediately plan to do

Question for you as admittedly I haven't played ED since the most recent patch.

Do they still have rare, hard to find commodities that are required for L5 mods ? If so, there's your reason ...
 
The scale of that would have to be phenomenal to be doable. Thousands and thousands of tons. I've traded so much and not seen influence tick in way out in the woods stations with very low traffic reports, or if it did change it was so mild, missions can do so much more so much faster. Or murder, or bounty hunting, or piracy...trading really doesn't do so little to influence (that I've been able to see or effect) that I can't imagine this is really a valid concern except in very rare edge cases (large player group coordinating in a small pop system). Aside from that, isn't there a daily influence change cap?
-
I can only hope that Brett is referring to commodity storage (which isn't all that important to me, convenient, but whatever) on the undecided portion. Module storage is rather important...finding modules can be a real pain, engineering them even more so. My multicannons represent a huge amount of play time and effort, and now I'm kind of stuck with them unless I want to buy a couple of FdLs to store them on(and risk a server tick erasing them)...I essentially throw away 20+ hrs of invested gameplay in order to try out other huge weapons...not a good situation.

This /\ and this again ... (anvil slams..case closed)
 
Sounds and looks like an internal Frontier issue imo
Brett: Hey game design guys, so i looked at the forum extensively, prepared these summarized arguments and players would like to sugg....
Senior game designer: !@#$@#$!!! We never do, what player want. What part of that did you fail to understand last time?
Brett: But we promised player stora
SGD: I lied. We never given in to any player demands to change the game design, that would kill HIS holy vision. Now leave the room and never try this again!
 
Last edited:
I suspect this is harder to implement than we realize. Having been involved in game design in the past I have learned that it can be a challenge to implement what seems to be the most basic changes BECAUSE it always has side effects in other parts of the programming. There can be hours and hours of code cleanup/debug/testing, rinse and repeat.... that goes with it.

Methinks this is the reason we don't have storage.
 
Why do you have to lug around engineer crap? the commodity portion of a recipe doesn't require that many items ...you get the couple you need to do a mod and then you go on about your business. nothing in the game forces you to hoard for more than what you immediately plan to do.

the commodity argument for storage is weak. The module argument is a bit stronger. Stick with that.

What logic, so do your missions and jettison the rewards out the ass end of your ship when you get them, what fun.
Pure genius I tell ya.
 
Last edited:
I suspect this is harder to implement than we realize. Having been involved in game design in the past I have learned that it can be a challenge to implement what seems to be the most basic changes BECAUSE it always has side effects in other parts of the programming. There can be hours and hours of code cleanup/debug/testing, rinse and repeat.... that goes with it.

Methinks this is the reason we don't have storage.

I suspect you are right and it's technically challenging for FD to implement. I would appreciate some honesty on this front to the player base instead of trying to make moronic excuses as reasons for not implementing same.
 
Being able to store commodities and stockpile them to influence should DEFINITELY be part of the BGS simulation as it adds to emergent gameplay. This sounds like a perfect new way to enable players to influence the game more. [up]

FWIW, It seems to me that FDEV isn't too hot on the idea of emergent gameplay
 
This is puzzling indeed. How come one group of people, who develop the plans for the future, know the code and have far more insight into the project have a more nuanced and ambiguous view on storage? I have an idea: maybe its because they are the ones who develop the plans for the future, know the code and have far more insight into the project. As with everything: the less one knows, the more one is sure of their opinion.

FWIW, It seems to me that FDEV isn't too hot on the idea of emergent gameplay

Not when 'emergent gameplay' devolves into 'two dudes living in their moms basement ruining the galaxy for the rest'. There needs to be a balance, and the premise of ED is that you are NOT 'the Chosen One'.
 

Jex =TE=

Banned
Because what happens to a commodity when you buy a lot of it (like multiple conda loads) if that commodity was priced low. it increases in price. Now what If instead of transporting it I was just buying it and storing it. Now I can sell it back to the station at the higher price and profit without ever leaving.

It's things like this (and not just this) that need to be considered, it's a completely different beast than storing ships.

But you can do that now - you fill ur ship's hold with stuff and just sit in it for days...
 
Wait, there are people against engineers commodity and module storage?

Notice he didnt say the arguments against are NOT from players........... I bet the only ones who dont want it to be a QoL improvement and I would have thought prerequisite for crafting are the bean counters and are thinking of ways to monetize it, there is no other argument against it as far as I can see.
 
Last edited:

Jex =TE=

Banned
Those devs need to get into their DeLoreans and travel from 1984 back to the present. Personal storage ("bank" in some games) is a basic feature present in every online game I can think of. Imagine WoW or GW2 without that. Also imagine you can't name your characters but can only instead name your account and all your characters are named "Warrior" or "Mage". That's what Elite is analogous to in some ways. I can't even imagine what the counter arguments to personal storage are, especially given the engineer commodity mechanics.

I have seen situations where people are unable to participate in a certain activity because they have a bunch of commodities they'll need later on board, and are unable to switch ships. That is just a failure in game design right there.

Shockingly so in fact - how is it this wasn't forseen as an issue at the design stage is embarrassing. I don't know how you can miss something like this - did they not think it through even a little?
 
Theres another way they could allow (engineer) commodities to be stored without affecting market prices - Each engineer base could itself be where things get stored to be used for modifications. Each other station having a "ship to <engineer name>" option where the prices for doing so are determined by distance. Voila - engineer commodities dont have to be carried around like a giant NPC magnet anymore and theres no risk of affecting the BGS.

this is a cool idea but it ties storage to engineers. and while engineers makes the need even more visible i thinks storage could be useful in general.

Frankly it sounds like the BGS is more than a little fragile though if it could be affected so much, so easily.

i honestly don't think so, unless storage capacity was way over the top (and even then transport is limited to cargo space). thats why ...

Dunno, any more passive aggressive posts?

... i think it *is* a lame excuse. no aggression intended whatsoever, it's just lame and i would be happy to be proven wrong!
 
This is puzzling indeed. How come one group of people, who develop the plans for the future, know the code and have far more insight into the project have a more nuanced and ambiguous view on storage? I have an idea: maybe its because they are the ones who develop the plans for the future, know the code and have far more insight into the project. As with everything: the less one knows, the more one is sure of their opinion.

We can only work with the information that has been given to us and our personal and/or professional expertise in the area.
So far none of the published comments have been suggesting difficulty or problematic implementation. ( I understand a lot depends on the tools at hand, especially in this case since they've opted not to create their own Engine.) ( there are undoubtedly difficulties to overcome ).
The question about storage has been raised long before the Engineers were announced. Evaluating the circumstances, necessity and possibilities are the first steps when considering a suggestion.
2 Months in the Engineers patch with non-stop feedback about the sheer necessity to maintain play-ability has given even more incentive to analyze the possibilities and especially whether or not there is a real necessity.
After 2 months, coming up with an answer that basically says "we don't know" is outrageous. Cut the rope, make a decision. Don't stare at your paper only to come up with "I don't know yet"..
The very least is to communicate.

As I said I'm open to be informed about any kind of reasoning that could hinder its development. I'll express an opinion accordingly.
Until then, I'm raising the flag to ask "what the F are you doing?"
The information we have so far is of extremely poor quality and outdated. ( Referring to the live-stream BGS-Abuse reasoning )
 
We can only work with the information that has been given to us and our personal and/or professional expertise in the area.
So far none of the published comments have been suggesting difficulty or problematic implementation. ( I understand a lot depends on the tools at hand, especially in this case since they've opted not to create their own Engine.) ( there are undoubtedly difficulties to overcome ).
The question about storage has been raised long before the Engineers were announced. Evaluating the circumstances, necessity and possibilities are the first steps when considering a suggestion.
2 Months in the Engineers patch with non-stop feedback about the sheer necessity to maintain play-ability has given even more incentive to analyze the possibilities and especially whether or not there is a real necessity.
After 2 months, coming up with an answer that basically says "we don't know" is outrageous. Cut the rope, make a decision. Don't stare at your paper only to come up with "I don't know yet"..
The very least is to communicate.

As I said I'm open to be informed about any kind of reasoning that could hinder its development. I'll express an opinion accordingly.
Until then, I'm raising the flag to ask "what the F are you doing?"
The information we have so far is of extremely poor quality and outdated. ( Referring to the live-stream BGS-Abuse reasoning )

1) They did create their own engine, called Cobra.
2) The "I dont know" answer isnt from a dev.
3) They dont have to constantly communicate everything with us, because in the past it clearly showed people here go ape when they misunderstand something or when plans change.
 
Back
Top Bottom