2 Months in; "We don't know"

[Bacalao]

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.

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.

 

[Darth Ender]

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.

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.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

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.

If storage gets added, then of course we will leverage it for BGS manipulation, like we do with every other game aspect, but I struggle to see how this could be used and be more effective than loads of other tools we already have available to us.

Instead, engineers without storage is actively invading my BGS manipulation gameplay, by filling up my mats unnecessarily when mining, or getting attacked because I failed to sell the commodities I got as mission reward that my completed mission screen didn't even tell me I got, or making me sell more random mission commodities, because I want to get into my combat ship, etc. etc.

If I could really ignore it like PP, that would be excellent, but unfortunately, engineers things bleed into my gameplay at least hourly, more often more frequently than that.

**

I've attempted 3 closing paragraphs, but deleted them each time to avoid saying unfriendly things about design choices, and the differences between core design problems and symptom fixes, so I'll leave it at this.

 

[newman1702]

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.

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.

 

[Legacy_LuckyLuke]

To be honest I couldn't give a rats about commodity storage. When I'm ready to do an upgrade, I'll go and fetch the commodities I need at that point. But module storage? Now that is vital ...

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I kinda assume the issue with commodity storage may be server related. Just a hunch.

If FD are worried about hoarding of goods, I had this idea a few days ago.
Link

 

[Mangal Oemie]

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.

So, the choice to add in commodities for engineers and add them as mission rewards added a problem that arguably is game breaking. Perhaps the root problem is commodities for engineers and as mission rewards...

Short of that, storage is the only option to get me to consider any engineer mods.

I do my own mods; yesterday I replaced a class 4 HRP on my FdL with an extra 8t fuel tank, which makes travel a little quicker, and I'll burn off the fuel before getting to the res, so still fly with lower weight. Was much easier to do than a class 3 FSD upgrade or clean drive...

 

[Demascus]

To be honest I couldn't give a rats about commodity storage. When I'm ready to do an upgrade, I'll go and fetch the commodities I need at that point. But module storage? Now that is vital ...

You make the 'fetching' sound so easy

 

[vrseven]

I hate to say it but, I am against module or commodity storage. I never posted it but I am sure FD read my mind. Right now you can swap modules between ships and with the recent changes to RNGineers there is no need to have 50+ tons of commodities in a ships hold. Right now FD has fixed 90% of what made RNGineers unplayable, now they need to work on how to stop the game from disconnecting when info needs to be pulled from the server and 2.2 beta. Priorities, storage is not one of them.

 

[Maxmilian Czhilli]

So how would commodity storage work?

Is it magic box like we have for materials and data? Well that would break trading. You could fill the storage in one station. Fly in your fastest stripped down ship to where you want to sell it then grab the goods from storage and sell it with zero risk of loosing your cargo. Even if you still require a ship to buy and sell, you only need to temporarily buy a big enough ship stripped fitted with cargo holds only in order to do the transfer.

So lets say storage is tied to a location. What happens when I decide to fill it with Unknown Artefacts? It ought to affect the station right? But now I have a reusable UA bomb I can move from station to station at will. With enough like minded friends I can shutdown any space station at will in matter of hours. Even if the storage uses secret Palin technology to isolate the UAs we can still stockpile the only weapons in the game that can affect space stations.

Juts a couple of problems off the top of my head.

Storage is not a no brainer. Players will find ways to exploit it if they are able to. If it is taking a while to implement it is because FD are being careful not to introduce a quality of life improvement that causes problems in other parts of the game.

 

[6xes]

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

 

[Darth Ender]

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 station...

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..
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

That sounds like i'm gonna have to think about something before i do it. Can we nerf it so there are no consequences, change it to be infinite storage, make the contents available everywhere, and have the game multiply the item that i'm placing in storage so each one is worth 3?

 

[Demascus]

Remove commodity requirements for engineering,
or
remove UA ability to shutdown stations (also eliminates station trolling soo two birds with one stone)
Or
Limit the cargo storage to say 50-100 tons depending on the size of the station and a filter to what a station will or will not allow you to store, i.e. Unknown Artifacts

 

[6xes]

removal of anything ingame especially choices.... to protect ones self interest takes depth away from the game... and the Forging your destiny.. becomes less and less..

i give the example of mobius private mode...
they have taken a choice out of the game... and made a sanctuary

the point is this....
you begin to take the choices and decisions out of a game..
then what we perceive as freedom... becomes a directed narrative of forced decisions
thereby limiting the very scope and human interaction

increasing choices and making every decision affect multiple things... makes for a more vibrant ever changing Galaxy!!

 

[Demascus]

I can't say I have every felt the galaxy be 'alive' at any point in the past two years. Visually stunning, yes... Amazing sound design, yes never 'alive' though.... the cost of RNG i suppose.

 

[Cmdr Esteban]

I'm available if you need one. Have a very flexible opinion.

Rep for you Ziggy!

I think we could do away with the whole separate commodity storage idea altogether if cargo transfer between ships was optional rather than automatic and mandatory. But maybe that's just my quirky thinking.

 

[Infidel Deity]

Sounds and looks like an internal Frontier issue imo

This is, of course, assuming A LOT, and it's not what I believe it is:
But it can seem like it is some sort of rivalry at the top, which results in a middle ground that doesn't really favour the game.

I'm pretty sure the overwhelming grinding aspect has been disputed heavily within Frontier.

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

I hate to say it but, I am against module or commodity storage. I never posted it but I am sure FD read my mind. Right now you can swap modules between ships and with the recent changes to RNGineers there is no need to have 50+ tons of commodities in a ships hold. Right now FD has fixed 90% of what made RNGineers unplayable, now they need to work on how to stop the game from disconnecting when info needs to be pulled from the server and 2.2 beta. Priorities, storage is not one of them.

Switching between ships is extremely clunky and unintuitive. Also, very, very expensive. It means managing more ships. Now you have to keep track of what has what.

Also if you get disconnected during the process, there's a good chance you just lost your upgrade.

200 million credits for module storage on my Cutter is not a reasonable solution.

 

[6xes]

Switching between ships is extremely clunky and unintuitive. Also, very, very expensive. It means managing more ships. Now you have to keep track of what has what.

Also if you get disconnected during the process, there's a good chance you just lost your upgrade.

that is a good point.. and a valid one.
this is one good reason to have storage..
i always dread the game disconnecting as i am swapping Powerplay modules

loss of a particular MODULE becomes only apparent if you sell the module.. and then immediately become disconnected
this is the moment the loss can occur

imagine having brought a class 7A prismatic shield generator, and having already modded it with engineer upgrades
the loss of such a module after selling ... and not completing the buybacksold item becos of a disconnect would be very frustrating and costly

 

[vrseven]

Switching between ships is extremely clunky and unintuitive. Also, very, very expensive. It means managing more ships. Now you have to keep track of what has what.

Also if you get disconnected during the process, there's a good chance you just lost your upgrade.

200 million credits for module storage on my Cutter is not a reasonable solution.

Ok so theres a minor flaw to my argument.