2 Months in; "We don't know"

[bladebss]

Dont loose your hats but, i dont realy mind if we dont get module storage now.
(Puts on face mask and riot gear)..
It just so easy to get re rolls i have been just over writhing my mods for diferent ones i wana try its not hard to get a decent roll and its not much effort to find MOSTE materials so if it doesnt use some thing that hard to come buy i just see it as a way to get some space in my inventory and try out a new setup.

Comodities storage on the other hand i would like in some form but i do get the risk of exploitation.
A 4 per comodity limmit would be fine as i rarly have or need more than that in one go. And it will alow me to fly a ship with no cargo with out having to ditch some hard to get comodities

I think it will be a waste of dev time to do storage now. That waiting for a storage moon base would be a much better implementation.

 

[Niamhy]

I'd go further than simply implementing storage though. I'd build in a whole economy of NPCs or Player Couriers carrying it from place to place for you.

And if people "exploit" it by storing 1000 tonnes of ultra-rare commodity, then good for them. As long FD build in a mechanism whereby they can sell some to me (at profit). No problem with that at all

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Module storage we need. Commodity storage would be nice, but if FDEV are worried about the effects it has on the BGS, then limit it to say 20-30 units/tons and and have it at only one station.

 

[Lann]

Wont happen, because they want you to grind most of your time play ☺

Fixed

 

[EValve]

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.

I appreciate you're trying to represent the cons. What I'm highly criticizing is it takes a dev team 2 MONTHS to not even have a single CLUE of how to treat these issues?
It takes me less than 2 minutes to completely nullify your worries.

Simply by asking you where storage is currently necessary with the Engineers. Where does it currently hinder game-play? What is currently with-holding players from switching to their smaller ships after a day/week's work of doing missions.

None of the arguments hold any ground.

This is beyond ridiculous for a dev team. They've been "Looking into it" for far over 2 MONTHS. How would that work out in your or any of our line of work?

 

[Darth Ender]

I appreciate you're trying to represent the cons. What I'm highly criticizing is it takes a dev team 2 MONTHS to not even have a single CLUE of how to treat these issues?
It takes me less than 2 minutes to completely nullify your worries.

Simply by asking you where storage is currently necessary with the Engineers. Where does it currently hinder game-play? What is currently with-holding players from switching to their smaller ships after a day/week's work of doing missions.

None of the arguments hold any ground.

This is beyond ridiculous for a dev team. They've been "Looking into it" for far over 2 MONTHS. How would that work out in your or any of our line of work?

Why would any of this be ridiculous. It took them more than a month to fix an infinite ammo bug. By that measure, what would new content be to you? I think you need to re-address your expectations.

 

[Falcon_D]

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.

Hello,
Ok. That might help to explain FDs reluctance to add commodity storage if that storage could hold more tons of goods than a trade Cutter can carry.
But that still does not seem to explain module storage though. It was fine when we didn't have "engineer" modified modules. We could repurchase off the shelf stuff from multiple places. But the amount of effort/time needed to get a component modified and then run the risk of using an unsupported work around to storing it is just unthought out, bad game design to me.

Personally, every game I've played that required crafting had some form of storage. My personal favourite was Skyrim where I could just drop stuff in my "house" and it would always be there. I understand that ED is more MMO based and therefore cannot afford to implement this kind of persistence. But other MMOs I've played had a "bank" like feature where you could deposit your stuff.

Have fun, fly safe. o7

 

[Darth Ender]

Hello,
Ok. That might help to explain FDs reluctance to add commodity storage if that storage could hold more tons of goods than a trade Cutter can carry.
But that still does not seem to explain module storage though. It was fine when we didn't have "engineer" modified modules. We could repurchase off the shelf stuff from multiple places. But the amount of effort/time needed to get a component modified and then run the risk of using an unsupported work around to storing it is just unthought out, bad game design to me.

Personally, every game I've played that required crafting had some form of storage. My personal favourite was Skyrim where I could just drop stuff in my "house" and it would always be there. I understand that ED is more MMO based and therefore cannot afford to implement this kind of persistence. But other MMOs I've played had a "bank" like feature where you could deposit your stuff.

Have fun, fly safe. o7

The amount of effort needed for modules has been mitigated to almost none. You get 3x all collected materials and commodities are hardly rare.

It seems unlikely that this feature wont come eventually to store modules. But it requires more than just storage to be implemented to be balanced. Module selling has to then have changes made to make the decision matter. Module storing has to have aspects that make you have to choose if you want to store or sell. Both aspects have to have serious consideration and planning to implement correctly.

Not saying that's why they're not already done. Just that it needs to be done before it can be put in the game. I believe the 'why' it hasn't been done is because it's not really needed, especially not now. It's a want. Not a need. In the scheme of things, this puts its firmly behind a number of things that are broken, features related to upcoming dlc's that are sold, missing features in current dlc's, and vanity items that can make them money. So that would be the most likely reason why you dont see module storage right now.

 

[Legacy_LuckyLuke]

You make the 'fetching' sound so easy

Isn't it? Maybe I've been lucky so far, but getting any commodity seems to simply involve looking it up online, flying to point A to pick it up, then point B to deliver to the engineer. Either that or getting lucky with missions.

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

The amount of effort needed for modules has been mitigated to almost none. You get 3x all collected materials and commodities are hardly rare.

It seems unlikely that this feature wont come eventually to store modules. But it requires more than just storage to be implemented to be balanced. Module selling has to then have changes made to make the decision matter. Module storing has to have aspects that make you have to choose if you want to store or sell. Both aspects have to have serious consideration and planning to implement correctly.

Not saying that's why they're not already done. Just that it needs to be done before it can be put in the game. I believe the 'why' it hasn't been done is because it's not really needed, especially not now. It's a want. Not a need. In the scheme of things, this puts its firmly behind a number of things that are broken, features related to upcoming dlc's that are sold, missing features in current dlc's, and vanity items that can make them money. So that would be the most likely reason why you dont see module storage right now.

Why should it be so complicated? It's simple. Store modules we aren't using at the moment so we can come back and grab them when we need them. That's it. It doesn't have to go beyond that. It doesn't have to be a mini game in itself, it doesn't have to involve any real thought.

 

[Legacy_LuckyLuke]

Why should it be so complicated? It's simple. Store modules we aren't using at the moment so we can come back and grab them when we need them. That's it. It doesn't have to go beyond that. It doesn't have to be a mini game in itself, it doesn't have to involve any real thought.

Agreed. My first reaction in beta was "where is the storage for these modded modules?" ... It's severely impacting my gameplay if I have to sell my modded modules and then remod the new ones each time I want to outfit my ship differently.

FD are now forcing us to have a different ship for each role/purpose we require a ship for, rather than being able to simply drop into outfitting and swap the class and size of our modules around before heading out again.

It seems a common concept in other online games to keep a store of equipment one can use for different scenarios.

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

I have a bunch of stuff in storage down the street. When I want something, I drive down there and get it. That's it.

I'm not using my pressure washer right now. It is out in my shed. I keep it there for when I need it.

This is the end of how storage should work. I don't need this right now, as I'm using the ship for something else. I'll come back and get it when I need it again.

Not everything has to have drawbacks. Having a fee is as far as I would accept any.

 

[Barking_Mad]

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.

This.

 

[znôrt]

resources hoarding affecting market prices and ua bombing are the two arguments given for 'storage complexity', and both are easily solvable imo: don't accept ua, and limit storage capacity to about that of one cutter's cargo. tadaaa!

we have already module storage which are ships, in a very awkward way that involves selling and rebuying, so having proper (and reasonably limited) storage would have no effect on balance.

any other lame excuse?

 

[Phil^]

resources hoarding affecting market prices and ua bombing are the two arguments given for 'storage complexity', and both are easily solvable imo: don't accept ua, and limit storage capacity to about that of one cutter's cargo. tadaaa!

we have already module storage which are ships, in a very awkward way that involves selling and rebuying, so having proper (and reasonably limited) storage would have no effect on balance.

any other lame excuse?

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.

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

 

[Barking_Mad]

resources hoarding affecting market prices and ua bombing are the two arguments given for 'storage complexity', and both are easily solvable imo: don't accept ua, and limit storage capacity to about that of one cutter's cargo. tadaaa!

we have already module storage which are ships, in a very awkward way that involves selling and rebuying, so having proper (and reasonably limited) storage would have no effect on balance.

any other lame excuse?

Dunno, any more passive aggressive posts?

 

[goemon]

The scale of that would have to be phenomenal to be doable. Thousands and thousands of tons.

this highly depends on population size. when i was running BGS tests in small population systems at the outskirts, i could push a minor faction into bust with 300 tons, or get 4% influence up with 200 tons. anyway, i personally would like that kind of gameplay, but i can see, why storing 200 tons of painite to "tank" 8% of influence can be seen as problematic.

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.

as far as i understood, it is about commodity storage only.

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.

uh, yes - i even did not think about a group of players/accounts storing cargo. this will multiply any effect.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Module/commodity storage can be combined if you can store filled cargo racks. Which would mean the same mechanic to both kinds.

 

[vizvayu]

Module/commodity storage can be combined if you can store filled cargo racks. Which would mean the same mechanic to both kinds.

It should be exactly the opposite. Packaging modules into cargo containers so they can also be transferred in a ship's cargo rack between stations.

 

[Jools]

the only counterargument is probably the major increase in server costs

most of the design decisions in this game seem to be affected by this philosophy and the whole game seems build around the limitations coming from this problem