Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 134

Thread: FDEV PLEASE more STORAGE !!

  1. #61
    I agree with Andrak. We absolutely need a limit per Mat/Data to end that annoying discard game.
    While ED give us no tools to track which stuff is important and which not, they can't let it be like this any longer.
    It's one of the most annoying parts of the game. Without tools like EDEngineer that part of the game would be a game breaker for me.

    The only reason they did nothing for such a long time could be, that they working on something more fancy like editable limits or such and they don't want to change that part multiple times.

  2. #62
    Originally Posted by andrak View Post (Source)
    More storage would be much better but it only solves the main problem temporarily.

    No matter what limit is set we will always hit it and we will always then be playing "Elite: Throw Away Mats & Data"

    If a generous limit was set per material, say 100, we could collect away happily knowing that the mats we have 100 of will not increase and when we do find the mats we are looking for they will increase. Removing the constant throwing away of mats.
    A Materials Broker seems a popular solution and has even been mentioned - as a possiblity - by the Great Space Loach himself:

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...be-implemented

  3. #63
    I've invested a lot of time into engineers and finished all of my ships (to a good-enough standard, they're not god rolls or anything like it) but I would still vote to scrap the mechanic and start again. I would prefer to just go to the engineer and pick components to customise and pay money for them, the components will have pluses and minuses but we'll all pay our money and chose what we want buffed and what problems we'll live with and everyone will know where they stand. The amount of time I've spent on engineers over the last year dwarfs anything else I've done in-game this year including touring the four galactic cardinals.

  4. #64
    How about a larger "ship based" storage. Keep the limits we have now for being in person, and have a secondary, larger, storage within the ship that is lost on destruction. You can stockpile, but only if you survive.

  5. #65
    Originally Posted by Alpha November View Post (Source)
    I've invested a lot of time into engineers and finished all of my ships (to a good-enough standard, they're not god rolls or anything like it) but I would still vote to scrap the mechanic and start again. I would prefer to just go to the engineer and pick components to customise and pay money for them, the components will have pluses and minuses but we'll all pay our money and chose what we want buffed and what problems we'll live with and everyone will know where they stand. The amount of time I've spent on engineers over the last year dwarfs anything else I've done in-game this year including touring the four galactic cardinals.
    It's not likely FD will ever allow us to pay money for engineers. Mats and data are the new currency. They needed it to be that way since they allowed credit exploits or bad balancing decisions run for so long, making many players multi billionaires, myself included.

  6. #66
    Originally Posted by andrak View Post (Source)
    It's not likely FD will ever allow us to pay money for engineers. Mats and data are the new currency. They needed it to be that way since they allowed credit exploits or bad balancing decisions run for so long, making many players multi billionaires, myself included.
    I'm not short of a bob or two myself but any sort of game currency type will eventually be accumulated to the point where it has little in-game meaning. Collecting mats is a pain but is not hard, it just takes time - the difficulty of the mechanic is not the collection but the uncertainty of getting a reasonable outcome for the boring but necessary time you've invested in collecting whatever is required. Mats are now just as debased as cash - what I'm saying is that whatever collection task is required (cash or mats) then when it is done you should be able to use it to get a defined result from an engineer. Just my penny's worth.

  7. #67
    Perhaps Mat/Data storage should increase on rank. Make it scale-able. Max being 50% more data and 50% more mats than we have now.

  8. #68
    Originally Posted by Alpha November View Post (Source)
    I'm not short of a bob or two myself but any sort of game currency type will eventually be accumulated to the point where it has little in-game meaning. Collecting mats is a pain but is not hard, it just takes time - the difficulty of the mechanic is not the collection but the uncertainty of getting a reasonable outcome for the boring but necessary time you've invested in collecting whatever is required. Mats are now just as debased as cash - what I'm saying is that whatever collection task is required (cash or mats) then when it is done you should be able to use it to get a defined result from an engineer. Just my penny's worth.
    Definitely agree there. "Engineering" is not how I would describe what the "engineers" appear to be doing. The RNGineers casino wheel of fortune and the slot machine implementation of engineers has to be the single worst thing added to the game. Not only is it random but it's not even as if the game only allows you to apply better rolls than you have. It's a mess.

  9. #69
    This limited storage for data/mats makes me compare the game to No Man's Sky. Don't make me compare Elite to No Man's Sky, I'm begging you.

  10. #70
    Originally Posted by dragoniv View Post (Source)
    This limited storage for data/mats makes me compare the game to No Man's Sky. Don't make me compare Elite to No Man's Sky, I'm begging you.
    lemme do it: nms did better in this case

  11. #71
    Personally, I wouldn't mind a little bit of more storage. Currently, I limit myself to max. 15 of each (needed) kind. 25 of each would be enough for my taste. Because, yes, I actually like some limitations in games! (But I am a bit weird, I know!)

    But whatever would be the final amount of the total storage limit - we definitely need a fixed per material limit!
    No matter how high an increased limit would be, it would still be cluttered by low grade materials, leaving no space for rarer finds, when they finally happen. (And this is obviously worse in respect to data, as they are simply "lost", if the storage is full. But even "hard" materials are annoying enough with their constant need of housekeeping (shipkeeping?) chores.)

    Regarding those who don't want per material limits due to their desire to have more for synthesis or are hunting god rols:
    I am not sure, if such per material limits wouldn't be a good balance mechanic exactly to counter such "abuse".
    But if you "insist" in doing so and FDev agrees that no balance is needed here, a simple player-set limit for each material would solve both needs. Everybody who wants to gather 250 units of iron could happily do so, while others could limit themselves to more reasonable 25.

  12. #72
    I'd like to see increased storage also. It's frustrating to have to discard materials, which later turn out to be critical to achieve a later goal.

  13. #73
    all those who are suggesting a per item limit - have you thought about it? it maybe alright while your actively engineering and want to keep a few of each item because you dont know what your gonna need them for but what about when youve finished engineering? Most of the storage would be useless as synthesis uses very few types but often x2 of each. My cutter has 7x multi cannons and to reload with premium shells takes 11mats for each gun, thats 77mats for just ONE reload!! Take a limit of 30 per item, requires 2x of each mat but ive 7 guns - for a full reload that means 14 of each mat! Giving me a total max reloads of 2 What your suggesting is the worst idea since they took half the lifeboats off the titanic. whats the point in traveling 500 lyrs ( some mats are that for out ) for 2 reloads? Be faster just go drop in the nearest station for normal ammo. Stupid idea. The storage needs to be doubled at least, but let us choose what to carry.

  14. #74
    Originally Posted by StiTch View Post (Source)
    FD regularly refer to the reasoning behind the name having nothing to do with danger, and I've never seen it used to excuse unreasonable risk or balance passes.

    Nice try, but demands for more storage have been a staple forum post ever since...the last storage increase. Unless you can construct a cohesive case you'd better get used to feeling salty when a game doesn't bow to your demands.
    It'd take someone who is salty themselves to not realize that everything I said was a joke, or at the very least not a rant. My 3,000+ hours in game are pretty convincing of the fact that I'm used to the grind and because of this (plus how upset I am that I spent all that time trying to bend it to my will for nothing) I make a light joke here or there (sometimes everywhere) about if FD is adding/removing something in game it must meet one requirement- it has to take the players longer to do something.

    As for the 'dangerous' thing, I guess it's not easy to tell that it didn't even make sense? What I said? Think about how little sense it makes and then apply your tough and overwhelming use of vocabulary words to scold me for something you're also unhappy with...

    My comment simply said "yeah material storage sucks, here's a joke about white-knights that say grinding=difficulty=dangerous and dangerous is in the name so yeah, and stuff"... Sorry if it offended you? Really don't know what else to say to all that.

  15. #75
    @ Y2K: First of all, I believe that limiting reloads is actually a good idea rather than a bad one. Ammunition capacity was a balancing factor once, which was mostly binned with the introduction of synthesis. Your 7 MC Cutter shreds opponents in seconds - do you really believe, that counterbalancing this destructiveness at least a little bit would be such a terrible idea?

    Anyway, as I described in the post above, your freedom wouldn't be limited by the introduction of such a useful feature as an material limit at all - provided that the desired limit would be set by the player. The only hard limit set by FDev would be the total ammount of storage space.

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast