Between the Imp Hammer I unlocked today and the new AX Multicannons, I have no room whatsoever for module storage. Fdev.

[Gamatech]

I am extremely confused. Are you complaining that your ship can't carry everything you want? That's the whole point! They need limitations and specialties to give them character and differenciate them. If you want more module slots, get a different ship. I'm sure your current ship has perks and statistics to compensate for it's module limit.

Now if you're instead complaining about the number of modules you can store at stations when they're not in use, frankly I'm astounded that you've collected enough to reach that limit. Why do you have so many just sitting there gathering dust? Have a clear out! XD

 

[Marshall...]

I am extremely confused. Are you complaining that your ship can't carry everything you want? That's the whole point! They need limitations and specialties to give them character and differenciate them. If you want more module slots, get a different ship. I'm sure your current ship has perks and statistics to compensate for it's module limit.

Now if you're instead complaining about the number of modules you can store at stations when they're not in use, frankly I'm astounded that you've collected enough to reach that limit. Why do you have so many just sitting there gathering dust? Have a clear out! XD

No he is complaining that he has lots of modded components that he likes swapping about and the game will only allow you to store 60, which given some of us have loads of ships (i have about 6 i regularly use out of about 90 ships i own), is a pain in the bottom.... as the following highlights.....

Its reminds me of my Cobra fleet called "Packhounds 1, Packhounds 2 and Packhounds 3", my Vulture fleet called "APAs 1, APAs 2 and APAs 3" and last but not least my FdL fleet called "Huge PA 1, HUGE MC 1 and Huge PA 2".

 

[Kaocraft]

This is a design problem more than it is a storage problem.

Better sorting, viewing, and organizing tools would be better than increased storage. I need to be able to see at a glance which engineer mod at what level, and which special effect, is on every mod, *without* needing to drill down into deeper menus. I need to be able to see this in the following locations: outfitting, the stored modules list, the modules screen on my ship's right-hand panel, and in the stored ships/ship transfer screen under my ship stats. If you want to go one better, let me rename, or tag, or color-code the labels on all of my modules so I can easily identify them according to my own preference such as by loadout, purpose, "absolutely do not sell!," or whatever.

Do this, and suddenly it's a lot easier to pare down from the 60 module storage limit, and if I need to buy a ship for additional spillover storage on top of that, I'll gladly do so.

Something similar can be done with materials and data.

The fact is that all of our in-game storage is an impenetrable, contextless mess. It's a chore to browse and organize it, which means that it will always trend towards bloat.

Inventory management is a valid aspect of a game's challenge or play systems. It can be fun to creatively manage around constraints. Please DO make it fun, though! Setting a materials cap or module cap or data cap is valid. But you have to give us the tools.

The revamped message inbox from 2.4 was an encouraging step in the right direction. I'd like to see some similar thought given to refreshing the interfaces for *all* storable, cumulable elements in the game.

 

[Punished Mobius]

Better idea would to drastically reduce the RNG of RNGineers so you don't feel the need to save every half-decent module 'just in case'.

That would be nice.

 

[Mephane]

What, you don't enjoy having a bunch of ships just to store modules?

The hunt for a specific module is its own mini game of Wheres Waldo.

The funny thing is that FD once gave as the reason for the 60 item limit that it would be too complicated to manage such a long linear list. Well guess what, managing a 60 item list PLUS multiple ships used as storage extension is way more complicated to use.

And I say 100 is too conservative. Make that 1000.

 

[Terry Bruge-Hiplo]

Can we expect another thread when you reach 100 modules in storage?

Did Spinal Tap complain that their amps didn't go up to 12?

Actually, I was thinking being able to scavenge modules directly out of other ships in the same star port would be another way around the limitation...

 

[kofeyh]

Using excess ships as a storage repository, in a game with module storage, with limited storage and ship slots, as standard operating procedure.

For those who haven't figured this out yet, frontier can't possibly understand why you'd need more than 60 module slots. Or why anyone would fit more than one AX launcher on a ship, or why anyone would need more than 1000 materials slots, or 600 data slots, or the eleventy million things commanders do every single day that frontier would never consider, because they build a game seldom played, and don't seem to have a QC team sufficient to vet any of this.

They sort of presume a number, that should be enough, for anyone. Clearly. I'm not being mean, honestly, it's just the developer sort of doesn't realise these things are actually important to the quality of life, and general experience and seem to be a bit dim, even though they are all super smart people.

It's not whether something is/ isn't too much; it's "does it work in a consistent and meaningful way". Practicality seems to be low on the list.

 

[kofeyh]

Can we expect another thread when you reach 100 modules in storage?

Probably?

Frontier tie limited numbers to dynamic numbers in the most fascinating way. Fixed module storage, endless modules being added. Limited materials storage, periodic addition of new materials and blueprints. The list goes on. But it's silly, right, who even needs to store more than one MC, or have a use for more than 2 sulphur? Smart people, doing smart things, basically forgetting practicality, every time.

 

[MrFailfactory]

There is no reasonable amount of storage that Frontier could provide that would make up for lack of organization, planning, and purpose.

Also, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you don't have any (normal) Cargo Racks, Passenger Cabins, Limpet Controllers, Refineries, or Mining Lasers in storage.

Riôt

 

[Morbad]

I'm all for the ability to be able to rent more module storage.

The highest form of American currency still in print.

None of those are in print. They stopped printing the 1934 series in 1940 and no notes over $100 face value have been printed since December 1945.

 

[amysteriousstranger]

We have been saying this for quite some time. All you need to do is change that 60 to 100. It should not be hard to do. All you need to do is to decide to actually do it. It will take all of 10 minutes for someone to do. If it is anymore complicated than that than truly its your own fault for making storage needlessly complicated. If you cannot do it than that means you have painted yourself into a corner somehow with this system. And we should all throw eggs at you for trapping yourself in such a silly situation.

Or.

If you simply won't. Than that means you are sitting there listening (presumably listening) to all these people asking for this for so long and shrugging your shoulders.

Hopefully you realize this soon. But for now I have to decide which of my highly engineered modules I need to throw away. For now I just got rid of some turreted AX weapons since they are so useless. But I am still going to be sitting at 60 modules and would rather not be forced to go through this shuffle game of modules if you can simply add more slots soon.

Lol you literally know nothing about game development, it’s never as easy as a “10 min” change and if they can’t do it In those 10mins it does t make it their fault
Doing things like that without testing is what causes a lot of bugs we hear about, and will only cause more issues with connection problems, lost items in storage (which I’ve had)
Almost doubling the amount of memory required for storage will double the strain on the servers
You don’t just flick a switch and create content, doing so would be a bad move without testing
And instead of insulting them by telling them it’s their fault, you could think maybe they did try and have more storage and 60 was a reasonable number without putting too much strain on the memory since hundreds of thousands of cmdrs use the storage


I would like more storage too but I can’t believe anyone could be so blind

 

[MrReynolds]

Funny how they can change things quickly when they think they need to.....

 

[Moriendor]

+1 to OP

- Increase module storage to at least 100 with the additional option to rent more space (can be costly, that's fine, go ahead and make it a credit sink)
- Increase data storage to at least 1,000 (or just get rid of the limit... it's 3303 so we should have billions of petabytes of storage capacity)
- Increase material storage to 3,000

Easy fixes. Happy players. Thank you very much .

 

[Punished Mobius]

Lol you literally know nothing about game development, it’s never as easy as a “10 min” change and if they can’t do it In those 10mins it does t make it their fault
Doing things like that without testing is what causes a lot of bugs we hear about, and will only cause more issues with connection problems, lost items in storage (which I’ve had)
Almost doubling the amount of memory required for storage will double the strain on the servers
You don’t just flick a switch and create content, doing so would be a bad move without testing
And instead of insulting them by telling them it’s their fault, you could think maybe they did try and have more storage and 60 was a reasonable number without putting too much strain on the memory since hundreds of thousands of cmdrs use the storage


I would like more storage too but I can’t believe anyone could be so blind

Of course 10 minutes is exaggeration. Obviously there is a bit more to this system. But I really believe they can crank it out in a short period of time if they simply set their minds to it. And if they set their minds to it and still can't do it than that means they have painted themselves into a corner so to speak. Which is not a good thing.

I understand memory concerns but we are in the year 2000 something I think. A professional game company ought to be able to handle it.

 

[Valethar]

Can we expect another thread when you reach 100 modules in storage?

Probably start at 61, just to save time.

 

[zarking]

I'll guess, bandwidth.
And yeah, you're setup might be able to handle it just fine, but little Johnny down the road has a rubbish setup and you have to optimise for little Johnny as much as everyone else.
It's all data, and trying to find the balance that keeps everything running "mostly smooth" for everyone isn't that easy.

Don't forget, elite is a massive, massive game. We've got commander stats, ships and weapon stats, material, data, ship and module storage, positional and system stats, I guess a lot is stored locally but it still has to sync with the servers every single time a request is made. Hopefully as things progress they'll be able to optimise better and these things can be continually improved. I'm pretty sure they're not stupid or incompetent.

The mission boards are probably a good example, they want to display loads of missions, but to keep things stable for everyone they cut them down. In the last beta they increased it dramatically.
However once it went live and the number of people making board refresh requests (probably all in rhea) caused a huge slow down, then they had to scale it back again.
They can't do that with module storage, they can't say "here's 200. Oh wait, that causes the menu ui to take 10 minutes to load, ok we're taking 140 of those back off you again, and tough, you'll just have to lose those, sorry".

I imagine that once they figure out a way to do it safely, they'll add it to the game and we'll all be happy.

 

[racer1]

+1 for more module storage, please.

Mats/data I can live with.

 

[BigBANGtheory [VR]]

If those core modules are so excellent, then why aren't they installed on a ship?

I had a few core modules stashed away last time I cleaned my storage too - a couple excellent 6D and 8D power plants, a few various-sized FSD's and a couple Distributors.. then I realized, if these were actually any good, I'd be using them, not stashing them. Sold.

Power Play modules I *kind* of get - I did have a stockpile of Packhounds for a while, then I found homes for them. And then I stopped Power Playing.
One of these days I might do it again for some mining lances, which have homes standing by. Might go after some AP's as well, and I know where they'll wind up too, which will leave me with a few homeless PA's with some wild mods that will sit around for a while until I sell them.

Its because you lose access to the Power Play modules, if it were more like engineers where the unlocked abilities remain open I think that would help solve a lot of storage issue because then you'd just be saving engineered modules for the most part.

I have 3 of each Prismatic Shield stored (about 1B cr worth) simply because I do not want to have to unlock Duval again, shields/weapons are being rebalanced all the time and I simply don't know if when I'll need one, two or three.

 

[VR Skinnerer]

I've always been curious, why 60?

60 is 64 rounded down to a nice number. 64 is a binary number, so probably a database table size or similar.
Technically, it'd be increased to 120/128, but 100 would most likely be the number they tell us it can go to.
So yeah, the OP asking for 100 is probably the next step they agree to.

 

[CMDR CPT. Boris]

Well..

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/US-$1000-GC-1934-Fr-2409.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...20g.jpg/1280px-US-$5000-FRN-1928-Fr-2220g.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...2412.jpg/1280px-US-$10000-GC-1934-Fr.2412.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/US-$100000-GC-1934-Fr-2413.jpg

The highest form of American currency still in print.

[money]