Request: Add a way to store cargo

[LOSBOT]

I'd quote the threads where they said that, again, but I'm sure folk are able to use the search function, or google it...

Oh wait...

There was a quote but what was stated is that they didn't want to just give us a feature then possibly take it away but were still open to the possibility.

 

[LOSBOT]

Thing is it not a design flaw when players start using common sense when they play.

Ahhh....gotta love the old "You must be dumb or lack common sense if you don't play the same way I do" argument by the true "Elites" in Elite Dangerous.

(It's amazing how they can manage to get their massive egos through the airlocks)

 

[Friedenreich Xante]

Yep, same low-grade conveniences compared to the potential downsides.

The only exception I've ever heard is maybe, maybe storing a minimal amount of mission reward material needed for tech broker unlocks - which would only really need a storage capacity of about 24 to mitigate, but then having 24t of storage on a combat ship really isn't a deal breaker.

Well I must admit I don't play BGS, I don't understand it, heck I've never even tried to understand it, as I strictly don't care. But just because you put BGS over the rest this doesn't have to mean other playstyles have to cope with their shortcomings.

 

[Raino]

(It's amazing how they can manage to get their massive egos through the airlocks)

Just sit on a pad at jameson over the weekend, watch and You will stop wondering

 

[Ethaidan]

Well I must admit I don't play BGS, I don't understand it, heck I've never even tried to understand it, as I strictly don't care. But just because you put BGS over the rest this doesn't have to mean other playstyles have to cope with their shortcomings.

It's not a shortcoming, and thank you, you've summed up the selfishness perfectly. You want a minor convenience added for you and you couldn't give a toss if it undermines a much larger cooperative aspect of the game that you don't even care to understand.

Here's something to think about, maybe FDev care more about a complex key foundational aspect of the game than the imaginary shortcoming of not being able to store cargo for a bit of profit or convenience.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

See I paid for an Extra 2 account to support Frontier as well let me play however I want. I can be in Beatle Point and if someone asks for help I can switch to another account and be in the bubble. Either with a trade ship or combat ship.

Even if I had to discard a mission I am not going to whine about a little rep lost or a little credit lost which is part of gameplay.

Yeah, I get it, it's a design flaw, if they were to have introduced a bonus allowing you to purchase an extra save slot for a tenner you'd no doubt be outraged, I know I would, just think, I can see it now, Bethesda see this and say "hey this is a brilliant idea, in Elder Scrolls VI well have only Autosave and players can but another save slot for $10" hell yeah!

 

[Fenwe]

It's not a shortcoming, and thank you, you've summed up the selfishness perfectly. You want a minor convenience added for you and you couldn't give a toss if it undermines a much larger cooperative aspect of the game that you don't even care to understand.

Here's something to think about, maybe FDev care more about a complex key foundational aspect of the game than the imaginary shortcoming of not being able to store cargo for a bit of profit or convenience.

Boss, here is the logical problem you have with the potential BGS issue(s).

Multiple account usage would break down the entire system.

So if FDev hasn't fixed that, then it ain't broken and 200 tons of storage won't either.

Part of the issue that long time players of this game have is that player convenience is looked at as a dirty term.

Storage was first suggested in the original Beta. It is the most common request made by new players to the game.

The problem though is that anything that makes the game easier to play is degraded and those who make such suggestions are insulted and yet with each release FDev has gone against much of the vitriol of it's oldest players to do what makes the game a better player experience.

Storage is coming in one form or another. It has too, because it makes the most sense to keep new players.

 

[Atol]

Yeah, I get it, it's a design flaw, if they were to have introduced a bonus allowing you to purchase an extra save slot for a tenner you'd no doubt be outraged, I know I would, just think, I can see it now, Bethesda see this and say "hey this is a brilliant idea, in Elder Scrolls VI well have only Autosave and players can but another save slot for $10" hell yeah!

Are you always off topic? If you want to debate on buying save slots. It should not be on Storage topic.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

Are you always off topic? If you want to debate on buying save slots. It should not be on Storage topic.

You may want to blame Lestat for that... he suggested spending out on a second account for storage, you really must read back further!
Oh yeah, the topic link is Saving and Storing...

 

[Ethaidan]

Boss, here is the logical problem you have with the potential BGS issue(s).

Multiple account usage would break down the entire system.

So if FDev hasn't fixed that, then it ain't broken and 200 tons of storage won't either.

Part of the issue that long time players of this game have is that player convenience is looked at as a dirty term.

Storage was first suggested in the original Beta. It is the most common request made by new players to the game.

The problem though is that anything that makes the game easier to play is degraded and those who make such suggestions are insulted and yet with each release FDev has gone against much of the vitriol of it's oldest players to do what makes the game a better player experience.

Storage is coming in one form or another. It has too, because it makes the most sense to keep new players.

Way to load up on logic fails.

The BGS isn't just a minor aspect of the game, and it has taken years to get and keep balanced. Additionally, they keep adding to the BGS - how many new states have been introduced this year? It's clearly a pretty important aspect of the game.

Multiple accounts can disrupt both PP & the BGS, but those are far better used with bots than idle storage - and FDev can't 'fix' multiple accounts. And what percentage of BGS groups are actually using multiple accounts? I'd wager a very small number of players bother with that.

On the other hand, giving every player and their extra accounts storage opens up the potential to store BGS influence, and used properly could easily have unbalancing influence. It's not about one Cmdr with 200 storage, it's about dozens working together. Especially given the nature of PP & BGS - everyone moves unseen, and every defense is reactive.

The fact that new players commonly suggest it only speaks to how little they know of the depth of other aspects of the game beyond simple profit and ship switching convenience. Other common new player requests include massively increased jump range, intra system jumping, removing interdictions, etc. all similarly minor convenience at the expense of more important aspects of the game universe.

As for yet another dig at long time players, wrong again. Actually most do embrace changes that add 'convenience' as long as it doesn't undermine far more important aspects of the game.

 

[SpatsirkSpart]

No point not to add it to the game, just another feature that can be a quality of life thing for people. Don't have any need for it? Don't use it then

 

[Misty_Dark]

Have it so you can store cargo in specific stations, just like ships or modules. But without the ability to just ship it to different stations just storing them.

For example if you want to store guardian or thargoid items. Or maybe for people who want to store their cargo from missions to maybe do some combat.

I can get the wish to store guardian stuff, perhaps an alternative where we convert these to data instead, and then you could have them all present in your ship, and then go back and forth to fetch two different data to your SRV todo the guardian puzzles etc. Just for selling what would be the point to store them?


Thargoid stuff for storing was a bad idea back when you could cripple stations by selling these to the black market... so you can imagine how bad storing these stuff would have been. So what would be reason to store them today?


Storing mission cargo... an alternate solution for this could be to expand on the mission system to actually allow us to return mission to the quest giver, so this would allow you unload whole or part of the cargo, back to the original station. It could also partially solve the issue of CMDRs that just load up a big ship with lots of mission cargo that is destined to outposts, where a large ships cannot land... it would not solve the issue of them having to fly back to their original station... but I do not see that as a huge issue, as the CMDR messed up in the first place... This would also help in the change to do some combat and and then back to mission cargo hauling, as you would be able to store the mission cargo in the mission. This sort of assumes you picked the mission from the same station where your combat ship is stored...


For switching ships, an option to change the loadout of a stored ship would come a long way to solve this issue, as long as you change to a ship that can be outfitted to store the cargo. so switching from a 750+T Type 9 to a smaller ships would not work,


I do not see any real use for be able to store cargo at a station, as in most cases there are options available, and a few tweaks to the mission system, would fix most of the arguments for storing mission cargo.

 

[SpatsirkSpart]

I can get the wish to store guardian stuff, perhaps an alternative where we convert these to data instead, and then you could have them all present in your ship, and then go back and forth to fetch two different data to your SRV todo the guardian puzzles etc. Just for selling what would be the point to store them?


Thargoid stuff for storing was a bad idea back when you could cripple stations by selling these to the black market... so you can imagine how bad storing these stuff would have been. So what would be reason to store them today?


Storing mission cargo... an alternate solution for this could be to expand on the mission system to actually allow us to return mission to the quest giver, so this would allow you unload whole or part of the cargo, back to the original station. It could also partially solve the issue of CMDRs that just load up a big ship with lots of mission cargo that is destined to outposts, where a large ships cannot land... it would not solve the issue of them having to fly back to their original station... but I do not see that as a huge issue, as the CMDR messed up in the first place... This would also help in the change to do some combat and and then back to mission cargo hauling, as you would be able to store the mission cargo in the mission. This sort of assumes you picked the mission from the same station where your combat ship is stored...


For switching ships, an option to change the loadout of a stored ship would come a long way to solve this issue, as long as you change to a ship that can be outfitted to store the cargo. so switching from a 750+T Type 9 to a smaller ships would not work,


I do not see any real use for be able to store cargo at a station, as in most cases there are options available, and a few tweaks to the mission system, would fix most of the arguments for storing mission cargo.

So you are suggesting 3 fixes that could be solved with one. If you turn guardian stuff into data you will have it already linked with the SRV without even needing to fetch it.

The Thargoid stuff doesn't even need to have an impact on the place you store it, this would just be a quality of life feature.

Sure having the ability to return cargo to mission givers would be a good solution, but why not have both.The game doesn't need to be punishing for people who mess up or want to do something else on the way. What if you don't have the system you are going to scanned? What then? Do you have to hope that the station you are going to has the landing pad you need or look it up on a third party platform?

 

[Fenwe]

I can get the wish to store guardian stuff, perhaps an alternative where we convert these to data instead, and then you could have them all present in your ship, and then go back and forth to fetch two different data to your SRV todo the guardian puzzles etc. Just for selling what would be the point to store them?


Thargoid stuff for storing was a bad idea back when you could cripple stations by selling these to the black market... so you can imagine how bad storing these stuff would have been. So what would be reason to store them today?


Storing mission cargo... an alternate solution for this could be to expand on the mission system to actually allow us to return mission to the quest giver, so this would allow you unload whole or part of the cargo, back to the original station. It could also partially solve the issue of CMDRs that just load up a big ship with lots of mission cargo that is destined to outposts, where a large ships cannot land... it would not solve the issue of them having to fly back to their original station... but I do not see that as a huge issue, as the CMDR messed up in the first place... This would also help in the change to do some combat and and then back to mission cargo hauling, as you would be able to store the mission cargo in the mission. This sort of assumes you picked the mission from the same station where your combat ship is stored...


For switching ships, an option to change the loadout of a stored ship would come a long way to solve this issue, as long as you change to a ship that can be outfitted to store the cargo. so switching from a 750+T Type 9 to a smaller ships would not work,


I do not see any real use for be able to store cargo at a station, as in most cases there are options available, and a few tweaks to the mission system, would fix most of the arguments for storing mission cargo.

I think the missions themselves shouldn't be messed with. We are commanders. Once we accept the responsibility of hauling X amount of Y, it's on us to do it within the time allotted by the mission giver. Most of that is 24 hours.

Being able to store the cargo or ship and not be able to move either or both except 'manually' seems to be a good compromise. Not playing with the missions them selves actually increases the scheduling decisions a commander has to make.

From my perspective I do not want to change the game in any significant way.

I just think that after hauling for a while, if I want to switch it up by heading to do some combat, the game should allow me to do that the exact same way it allows to store my ships and internals.

It's 2019. I have a house, a garage, and multiple other ways of storing 'goods'. It's odd to me that in the far future all of that was done away with.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

So, is that pathetically selfish 'I must save my precious load of cargo, so I can go shoot things' worth the potential mass weaponisation of storage?

Yes, I am both pro storage, and storage weaponization. As long as the only way to move the cargo is in a ship flown by a cmdr (no transfer) I see no down sides

 

[Fenwe]

Yes, I am both pro storage, and storage weaponization. As long as the only way to move the cargo is in a ship flown by a cmdr (no transfer) I see no down sides

and the weird part is that the whole 'storage weaponization' thing can all ready be done using multiple accounts, but people act as if that isn't a thing. It makes no sense to me.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

and the weird part is that the whole 'storage weaponization' thing can all ready be done using multiple accounts, but people act as if that isn't a thing. It makes no sense to me.

I really see it as a feature, not a flaw

 

[Misty_Dark]

I think the missions themselves shouldn't be messed with. We are commanders. Once we accept the responsibility of hauling X amount of Y, it's on us to do it within the time allotted by the mission giver. Most of that is 24 hours.

Being able to store the cargo or ship and not be able to move either or both except 'manually' seems to be a good compromise. Not playing with the missions them selves actually increases the scheduling decisions a commander has to make.

From my perspective I do not want to change the game in any significant way.

I just think that after hauling for a while, if I want to switch it up by heading to do some combat, the game should allow me to do that the exact same way it allows to store my ships and internals.

It's 2019. I have a house, a garage, and multiple other ways of storing 'goods'. It's odd to me that in the far future all of that was done away with.

So what is the difference if you can unload the cargo at the originating station as a temporary solution to switch ships etc? you still have the mission, and it is still running, regardless if you actually have the cargo in your hold or not... This would just be a small extension to how the wing version of cargo missions works, as opposed to how the old single style missions works where it refused to let you accept the mission if you could not load the mission directly onto your ship, wing missions, do not automatically load your ship, and that of course have had its fair share of CMDRs that accepted mission, flew away and forgot to load the cargo.. So having that same mechanics for solo missions would allow CMDRs to accept missions in ships that cannot hold the cargo, and also do part deliveries of a bigger haul, and with a small adjustment that you would also be able to unload the mission cargo you have already loaded back to the originating station would not make to much change.

This would not change the game in a significant way, it would instead make things behave the same regardless if it is solo cargo mission or a wing cargo mission, and the only difference here would be how many players can participate in completing the mission. And the only change would be the option to actually return cargo, and that is probably just a minor change to the current behaviour we have in Wing cargo mission. And like I have already posted, if a CMDR wants to utilize this option, it has to be at the originating station... so it still requires some commitment from the player, and they still have to remember to complete the mission later.

This would also allow you to lucrative accept cargo mission in any ship, and then return with a suitable ship to comple the mission, and if you forget about it, the mission will fail with the normal result of failing to deliver the cargo on time.


As for your "garage" example, we know the cargo is tagged, if you loose some cargo to piracy, you cannot simply go to the market and buy some replacement cargo of the same sort, so you can think of this as the cargo is tagged and sealed in place, now you cannot access the cargo without breaking the seal. which they will know, so you cannot simply unload the cargo into your garage... This is how we have arranged transportation of gods that is not allowed to be tampered with during transport, we seal every door to the cargo hold of a truck, and we verify the seals upon arrival... so that is how I like to think how the mission cargo works in Elite... you are not allowed to remove cargo that have been loaded onto your ship, only the mission giver or recipient is allowed to do that.




[OT]
I have a different opinion on the the time limits. I do not think it is prudent to have time limits on mission to be real time calculations, I would prefer to have it count the mission using in game time instead, ie, it would could down the mission timer when you play, that way, it opens up for FDev to give out lucrative missions that have a very narrow time limit, so you have to commit to do these. And if a mission requires a specific state, for example massacre mission during war, if the war is over, you can obviously not complete the mission, and I do think all those mission that requires a specific state should auto fail with no penalty if the state has changed... Compare this to how you today can pick up massacre missions just before the tick and then after the tick, the war is over and you can no longer complete the mission, so you will fail the mission, despite that you did not even get a chance to actually complete it...

 

[Lestat]

So what is the difference if you can unload the cargo at the originating station as a temporary solution to switch ships etc? you still have the mission, and it is still running, regardless if you actually have the cargo in your hold or not... This would just be a small extension to how the wing version of cargo missions works, as opposed to how the old single style missions works where it refused to let you accept the mission if you could not load the mission directly onto your ship, wing missions, do not automatically load your ship, and that of course have had its fair share of CMDRs that accepted mission, flew away and forgot to load the cargo.. So having that same mechanics for solo missions would allow CMDRs to accept missions in ships that cannot hold the cargo, and also do part deliveries of a bigger haul, and with a small adjustment that you would also be able to unload the mission cargo you have already loaded back to the originating station would not make to much change.

This would not change the game in a significant way, it would instead make things behave the same regardless if it is solo cargo mission or a wing cargo mission, and the only difference here would be how many players can participate in completing the mission. And the only change would be the option to actually return cargo, and that is probably just a minor change to the current behaviour we have in Wing cargo mission. And like I have already posted, if a CMDR wants to utilize this option, it has to be at the originating station... so it still requires some commitment from the player, and they still have to remember to complete the mission later.

This would also allow you to lucrative accept cargo mission in any ship, and then return with a suitable ship to comple the mission, and if you forget about it, the mission will fail with the normal result of failing to deliver the cargo on time.


As for your "garage" example, we know the cargo is tagged, if you loose some cargo to piracy, you cannot simply go to the market and buy some replacement cargo of the same sort, so you can think of this as the cargo is tagged and sealed in place, now you cannot access the cargo without breaking the seal. which they will know, so you cannot simply unload the cargo into your garage... This is how we have arranged transportation of gods that is not allowed to be tampered with during transport, we seal every door to the cargo hold of a truck, and we verify the seals upon arrival... so that is how I like to think how the mission cargo works in Elite... you are not allowed to remove cargo that have been loaded onto your ship, only the mission giver or recipient is allowed to do that.




[OT]
I have a different opinion on the the time limits. I do not think it is prudent to have time limits on mission to be real time calculations, I would prefer to have it count the mission using in game time instead, ie, it would could down the mission timer when you play, that way, it opens up for FDev to give out lucrative missions that have a very narrow time limit, so you have to commit to do these. And if a mission requires a specific state, for example massacre mission during war, if the war is over, you can obviously not complete the mission, and I do think all those mission that requires a specific state should auto fail with no penalty if the state has changed... Compare this to how you today can pick up massacre missions just before the tick and then after the tick, the war is over and you can no longer complete the mission, so you will fail the mission, despite that you did not even get a chance to actually complete it...

Here what I going to do. I going to post this idea as well as your on the first page so people can see it. Good ideas should be views on the main page instead of having some smuck saying read the whole thread.

 

[Raino]

BTW. shouldn't it be better called Shipgo? we aren't using cars in space ...