2 Months in; "We don't know"

[Moonax IRL]

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.

This has worked so well for them so far, this lack of communication instead of preventing what you have described, has instead contributed to it to a large extent. So the absence of proper explanations cannot be explained away with such platitudes.

 

[Maruun]

Seeing how ED runs on love and good will so far.

No subscription
No pay-to-win shop

I can understand the concerns of storage for everything.
Traffic cost money, using more space on the server costs money. If i remember correctly they used the amazon cloud servers?

I would love storage for engineer materials at the engineer, and maybe a shipping system that allows me using stored materials from another base for a credit fee for "transporting" them over.

 

[Shanaeri]

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.

Hi, yup. That was me. The current thought was to restrict commodity storage to engineers only and only for engineering commodities.

 

[Maruun]

This has worked so well for them so far, this lack of communication instead of preventing what you have described, has instead contributed to it to a large extent. So the absence of proper explanations cannot be explained away with such platitudes.

To be honest i am glad they dont promise us heaven and hell as some other developing studio does, and then cant keep what they talked about. For the last years it wasnt any different.

Barren wasteland of informations for coming update where thirsty players tried to scratch for every information of water they could find.
Until they announced a update release, they will plant a hype oasis right in front of you with streams and information bombardment and the best thing is...you know its in there.
After that you return to wander the wasteland.

Better is a dev with a solid cube of matter as feature in his hand, then a dev that running his mouth and spilling the fluid content that isnt finished and may have to wipe it at the end.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Hi, yup. That was me. The current thought was to restrict commodity storage to engineers only and only for engineering commodities.

i would be completley fine with that, the only reason i ask for storage is because of engineer stuff nothing else.

 

[Ian Skippy]

This has worked so well for them so far, this lack of communication instead of preventing what you have described, has instead contributed to it to a large extent. So the absence of proper explanations cannot be explained away with such platitudes.

The difference being that people dont constantly get to see they've been lied to and all that weird stuff we've seen. They're working on the game, and tell very little. Its a balancing act, and if you would prefer it the other way around there is always CZ. Regardless of your opinion about the level of communication, its still a fact that any discussion about whether its correct or not to not have storage (yet) is pointless if we dont know why we dont have it.

Its a simple point, really.

 

[MarkAusten]

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.



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'.

You'e on a roll this evening. I think I'm going to keep that saying in my quotes file "As with everything: the less one knows, the more one is sure of their opinion". That's classic.

 

[Moonax IRL]

Hi, yup. That was me. The current thought was to restrict commodity storage to engineers only and only for engineering commodities.

I would have no problem with this type of limited setup. This is a QOL kind of change to help the player to utilise best his time and content in game.
If the BGS is their only concern then I can't see what the soul searching is all about on behalf of FD. Have a discussion with the community and get on with it.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The difference being that people dont constantly get to see they've been lied to and all that weird stuff we've seen. They're working on the game, and tell very little. Its a balancing act, and if you would prefer it the other way around there is always CZ. Regardless of your opinion about the level of communication, its still a fact that any discussion about whether its correct or not to not have storage (yet) is pointless if we dont know why we dont have it.

Its a simple point, really.

You just made my point- We don't know why we don't have it. Lack of communication.

 

[Pienias]

Agree 100%

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

yea a great idea having module storage...

lets just be real...
storage of modules or whatever it is you wish to store, should be based upon reputation basis of a particular Faction who owns the Controlling station (storage only at these stations)...

if you have a Allied Status of the controlling faction, you can store modules at a premium.. and be given favour.. ie cheaper storage..

If reputation is only cordial storage fee is on receipt of payment of lets say a particular commodity which needs to be delivered.. lets just assume its Yttrium or Polonium

also lets add the fact rental is a timely basis... ie weekly or paid in advance (months worth of storage paid up front)
this would make people think twice about utilising storage
especially if storage is locked(unlockable) if you have fallen behind in rental lol

NOW HERES A TWIST.. if the controlling faction changes then you will be forced to gain Reputation again with the New Controlling Faction and any Payment towards rental for lets say.. months has become NULL and VOID.. becos of the change over....

This i consider gives a real-world scenario... and so the defense of systems becomes important in order to maintain and access Storage facilities

Agree 100%

 

[Crimson Kaim]

The key part in that sentence was: "if you need one".

Seriously, with the engineer mechanics it's imperative that module storage is implemented. Commodity storage is less important and more prone to have unknown (to us) effects on BSG, so I don't have a solid opinion on that.

Well regarding storage for commodities: I have 50 engineer commodities in my hold (modular terminals in specific). If I would like to jump into any ship that hasn't got a cargo rack, even if I would be ready to add one to it, I would have to sell/dump all my stuff first and then jump into my other ship with the result of no engineer commodities left. It effectively locks players to cargo ships.

 

[Quill]

How many devs are actually involved in ED game design at FD? because if its only Sandro then he is woefully overloaded and you can appreciate that something like the grind and lack of storage could be missed in the rush to get Engineers released. Clearly full play testing didn't happen as the grinding, RNG, no storage issues would emerge very quickly. Or maybe FD thought it was fine, it was released as they intended, if that is the case then they need to really look at the game design area again or many players will just drift away.

 

[Ian Skippy]

You'e on a roll this evening. I think I'm going to keep that saying in my quotes file "As with everything: the less one knows, the more one is sure of their opinion". That's classic.

Ha, true. Shame I cant take credit for it, its a bit of a mash-up:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. -Yeats

The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. -Russell

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Well regarding storage for commodities: I have 50 engineer commodities in my hold (modular terminals in specific). If I would like to jump into any ship that hasn't got a cargo rack, even if I would be ready to add one to it, I would have to sell/dump all my stuff first and then jump into my other ship with the result of no engineer commodities left. It effectively locks players to cargo ships.

How did you manage to get 50 of those when you're not planning to use them?

The most obvious solution of course is not to require 1 ton sized commodities for an engineer upgrade, since a ton of stuff is beyond fiddling with your modules I feel. Didn't they just drop that requirement by the way? I can't check engineers since you have to land at their base to check requirements (pet peeve interlude: which I feel is nuts. Just 1 pinned upgrade available to check is added more unneeded awkwardness. Once I established contact and the necessary rep, just let me see what I need for all upgrades.)

 

[Triple88a]

A very simple solution will be to alow people to dock and store ships with stuff in their cargo hold. That would solve plenty. It's stupid to have to dump all of my stuff just because i want to play my light fighter for a day.

No need to reinvent the wheel folks, just about all major games have a storage bank of some sort, it doesnt hurt the gameplay one bit.

 

[Mephane]

Wait, there are people against engineers commodity and module storage?

I am against commodity storage. I want commodities removed altogether from the blueprints.

 

[Triple88a]

I am against commodity storage. I want commodities removed altogether from the blueprints.

Soo completely against realism eh?

 

[Jex =TE=]

It's rather odd to read this thread and then think if FDEV had read this thread before making Engineers we wouldn't have had so many issues with it - I'm assuming the conversation here is nothing like the one they had discussing it - if they had one at all.

 

[Riverside]

It's rather odd to read this thread and then think if FDEV had read this thread before making Engineers we wouldn't have had so many issues with it - I'm assuming the conversation here is nothing like the one they had discussing it - if they had one at all.

Well yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing

The Dev Updates early in 2016 were a good source of inspiring info, and looking back 2.1 matched those descriptions well. The difference was in scale though. If a Dev update had said specifically "you will be interdicted by an Elite Anaconda every 3rd jump" I'd probably have given some 'feedback' on that.

When a Dev says 'we want to do that', or even 'it's on the list' it's just a way of quietening the crowd so the conversation can move on, as much as 'soon' is an answer to the question 'when?'.

If Cargo storage is implemented at a 100t cap for a one off 100kCr fee, some will want more storage, and more, and then it will be 1000t for 1MCr & people will complain that it's too expensive & will want it to be cheaper.

It might have been a less slippery path to simply say 'unlikely' or 'not anytime soon' then if they manage to find a way, give the playerbase a pleasant surprise

'We don't know' is honest, which is good, but doesn't manage expectations all that well is all.

 

[Sole Hunter]

2 months is way too short, give them at least 6 months.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Well yes, hindsight is a wonderful thing

The Dev Updates early in 2016 were a good source of inspiring info, and looking back 2.1 matched those descriptions well. The difference was in scale though. If a Dev update had said specifically "you will be interdicted by an Elite Anaconda every 3rd jump" I'd probably have given some 'feedback' on that.

When a Dev says 'we want to do that', or even 'it's on the list' it's just a way of quietening the crowd so the conversation can move on, as much as 'soon' is an answer to the question 'when?'.

If Cargo storage is implemented at a 100t cap for a one off 100kCr fee, some will want more storage, and more, and then it will be 1000t for 1MCr & people will complain that it's too expensive & will want it to be cheaper.

It might have been a less slippery path to simply say 'unlikely' or 'not anytime soon' then if they manage to find a way, give the playerbase a pleasant surprise

'We don't know' is honest, which is good, but doesn't manage expectations all that well is all.

Just make the stuff in storage unsellable and it's sorted. If that isn't realistic, moan about it AFTER they stop eagles managing to keep up with Asp's on jump range.

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

Soo completely against realism eh?

You're right. I need commodities when I upgrade my FSD in real life.