Mustn't be so simple for FDev to implement "simple" filters.
Well considering the complexity of the market filters they added in the last update (which are tied into the BGS), I find that hard to believe.
Module storage is too little to keep players long term
- Thread starter bardor1982
- Start date
-
- Tags
- fight me
Well considering the complexity of the market filters they added in the last update (which are tied into the BGS), I find that hard to believe.
Took only close to 5 years.
I mean if it's going to take years to implement the ability to filter modules by type/class, just do the simple thing and up the count of stored modules.
edit: I'd rather have the ability to store my modules in one big mess rather than spread across multiple ships.
Last edited:
Deleted member 182079
D
Just look at the webstore and you know the score.We STILL don't have a bookmark filter for the galmap. Well, dreams are vicious.
Mustn't be so simple for FDev to implement "simple" filters.
Another things you hoarders keep too many of, bookmarks. Do you really intended to revisit every one of the 100 ELWs you discovered long ago?
As for organizing the ones we have, you can do that now via the built-in alphabetical sorting. Mine look something like (though obviously more and different):
* Home System
INRA - base 1
INRA - base 2
GS - Galaconda
MATS - arsenic, tungsten
MATS - lots of iron and zinc
POI - planet with 4 hour day cycle
POI - really cool canyon
X - Most impressive ELW
X - My personal braintree farm
At least then I can quickly scroll through to find what I'm looking for.
Now to the topic of modules, I do wish they were at least sorted by distance from current system. Right now they are all a jumble following no rhyme or reason.
FDev proofed it takes years (for them).
"We" (my squadron) have lot's of bookmarks:
1. Our BGS-Systems under control
2. Our contested BGS-Systems
3. Mats-Hotspots
4. POIs
5. Mats-broker near engineers
6. PvP-training-sites
7. Mining-Hotspots
8. other (allied) PMF-Home-Systems
.
.
.
So put a number or category descriptor in front of them. They're ordered.
Basic data management.
But still you have to scroll and scroll and scroll down the list to get to the point you want to. it's almost annoying whilst you're using VR.
I see so many people saying things along the lines of "I have X number of ships that I store modules on. Module Storage Space doesn't affect me." and yet it does. Would you have all those ships if you had more Module Storage Space? The answer for most of you is, "no."
A lot of people seem to dislike the way the Module Storage System works currently. Due to this separate issue, there are posts requesting new features including, but not limited to, search functions, sort functions, item de-clutter/trash functions. This post is not meant for those suggestions and separate posts should be made for each specific request.
I have seen people argue about workload and a suggestion being of low importance. Importance is a subjective matter. Objectively speaking, workload for something as small as an increase in Module Storage Space can be quite small. Can be. This does not mean it is or is not. It is not assumptive of what can be done or how easily it can be done by FDev in this game. "Can be," in this instance means that in certain scenarios it is possible. Those scenarios don't always include this game specifically. As I am not a developer for this game I cannot speak to the ease of change; nor can you.
Outside of this forum I have heard that the reason why certain features/suggestions/requests do not get implemented in game is due to lack of support in forum threads. If that were true then we would have space legs by now. Oh, I know. That little sentence is going to aggravate people. It is not my intention to aggravate anyone. I bring this up because people will argue that the reason we don't have space legs isn't because of lack of support. People will argue that the reason we don't have space legs is due to the amount of work that has to go into it. A valid point. Now, by contrast we look at the amount of work it would take to implement a larger amount of Module Storage Space. Comparatively less work would be needed to develop and implement an increase of Module Storage Space than space legs. Now, some will argue that it is unnecessary work and time wasted that should be spent on a different project such as space legs. I counter that argument with the fact that this community has already waiting years and is content with waiting another few years to get space legs. The reason for this is simply due to faith in the developers.
Let's address some of the fallacies in this thread. There are some casual fallacies, red herring fallacies, informal fallacies, and now there are even ad hominem fallacies in this thread.
We will start with part of the title of this thread that has been a point of contention and fixation, "to keep players long term". The title is not accurate due to these five words. It's that simple. The suggestion and topic of debate is to add more Module Storage Space. Those fixated on a fallacy committed by the original poster are deluding the topic with red herring fallacies.
Ad hominems; do I need to speak on them? They are not a valid point of debate.
For those that are not affecting by a lack of Module Storage Space:
Please note that your game play and style of play may not reflect that of the original poster or those subsequently agreeing with the suggestion to increase Module Storage Space.
We do not know your play style. You do not know ours. Considering the amount of variables in this game, including play style, this thread would become cumbersome if we all listed our play styles.
I am happy that you are not affected by the issue. However, a non-issue for you does not negate, counter, mitigate, or change the fact that this is an ongoing issue for others.
If we were to take your statement of not being affected into a different scenario in the real world you may wind up choosing not to express your situation. I will attempt to give an example without crossing the line into subjects that may be harmful to this thread or the people that may view it. [Fictional Scenario]: There are too many cars on the road and I would like to suggest a new street be added here, which is city owned, unused property with legal zoning to allow the construction of a new street. This new street will reduce traffic to and from the downtown area and cut travel/commute times down for the area that I live in. (You are not affected by this change and state that you are not affected by this change. You do not say that you directly oppose the proposed change and offer no reason that it should be denied. Result: People see that as a counter point to the need/suggestion/request in this forum of debate and the suggestion/request is denied.) Granted there are other much worse scenarios that could have been picked for a fictional scenario, but those topics would do harm and do not belong here.
Point being, if you are not negatively impacted, why would you choose to have a negative impact on someone else?
As it stands, the only counter point to this suggestion is that not everyone stands to benefit from the change and that those negatively impacted by the issue should make a change.
In the fictional scenario listed above the counter point of people not affected and not wanting the change to occur is "if it takes you too long to get to work then move", without regard to the person affected. Maybe that person can't move. Maybe they like their custom built home. Maybe the water tastes better. You don't know. You don't care. You're not affected. So, it's clearly not an issue to you.
A lot of people seem to dislike the way the Module Storage System works currently. Due to this separate issue, there are posts requesting new features including, but not limited to, search functions, sort functions, item de-clutter/trash functions. This post is not meant for those suggestions and separate posts should be made for each specific request.
I have seen people argue about workload and a suggestion being of low importance. Importance is a subjective matter. Objectively speaking, workload for something as small as an increase in Module Storage Space can be quite small. Can be. This does not mean it is or is not. It is not assumptive of what can be done or how easily it can be done by FDev in this game. "Can be," in this instance means that in certain scenarios it is possible. Those scenarios don't always include this game specifically. As I am not a developer for this game I cannot speak to the ease of change; nor can you.
Outside of this forum I have heard that the reason why certain features/suggestions/requests do not get implemented in game is due to lack of support in forum threads. If that were true then we would have space legs by now. Oh, I know. That little sentence is going to aggravate people. It is not my intention to aggravate anyone. I bring this up because people will argue that the reason we don't have space legs isn't because of lack of support. People will argue that the reason we don't have space legs is due to the amount of work that has to go into it. A valid point. Now, by contrast we look at the amount of work it would take to implement a larger amount of Module Storage Space. Comparatively less work would be needed to develop and implement an increase of Module Storage Space than space legs. Now, some will argue that it is unnecessary work and time wasted that should be spent on a different project such as space legs. I counter that argument with the fact that this community has already waiting years and is content with waiting another few years to get space legs. The reason for this is simply due to faith in the developers.
Let's address some of the fallacies in this thread. There are some casual fallacies, red herring fallacies, informal fallacies, and now there are even ad hominem fallacies in this thread.
We will start with part of the title of this thread that has been a point of contention and fixation, "to keep players long term". The title is not accurate due to these five words. It's that simple. The suggestion and topic of debate is to add more Module Storage Space. Those fixated on a fallacy committed by the original poster are deluding the topic with red herring fallacies.
Ad hominems; do I need to speak on them? They are not a valid point of debate.
For those that are not affecting by a lack of Module Storage Space:
Please note that your game play and style of play may not reflect that of the original poster or those subsequently agreeing with the suggestion to increase Module Storage Space.
We do not know your play style. You do not know ours. Considering the amount of variables in this game, including play style, this thread would become cumbersome if we all listed our play styles.
I am happy that you are not affected by the issue. However, a non-issue for you does not negate, counter, mitigate, or change the fact that this is an ongoing issue for others.
If we were to take your statement of not being affected into a different scenario in the real world you may wind up choosing not to express your situation. I will attempt to give an example without crossing the line into subjects that may be harmful to this thread or the people that may view it. [Fictional Scenario]: There are too many cars on the road and I would like to suggest a new street be added here, which is city owned, unused property with legal zoning to allow the construction of a new street. This new street will reduce traffic to and from the downtown area and cut travel/commute times down for the area that I live in. (You are not affected by this change and state that you are not affected by this change. You do not say that you directly oppose the proposed change and offer no reason that it should be denied. Result: People see that as a counter point to the need/suggestion/request in this forum of debate and the suggestion/request is denied.) Granted there are other much worse scenarios that could have been picked for a fictional scenario, but those topics would do harm and do not belong here.
Point being, if you are not negatively impacted, why would you choose to have a negative impact on someone else?
As it stands, the only counter point to this suggestion is that not everyone stands to benefit from the change and that those negatively impacted by the issue should make a change.
In the fictional scenario listed above the counter point of people not affected and not wanting the change to occur is "if it takes you too long to get to work then move", without regard to the person affected. Maybe that person can't move. Maybe they like their custom built home. Maybe the water tastes better. You don't know. You don't care. You're not affected. So, it's clearly not an issue to you.
From overall 30 ships in my fleet the number of ships has grown to 50 where 20 ships are used solely for module storage (Vipers and Condas)! That time where instead of enjoying the game I'm doing this ANNOYING module juggling between ships Why that stupid limit even exist? Why? To annoy us, yes? Whose idea was to impose to such restriction on players? I could imagine having such limit in Elite without engineering, but the engineering is the real spice of ED, something that gives us choice and multiple ways for our ships. And there are Powerplay modules too!
Now the situation is like - you buy "storage ships" and lose time on module juggling or you build a carbon copy of your ship which means grinding a lot for engineering mats, flying to engineers, wasting time big time generally.
At least remove the module limit or raise the limit to reasonable amount of 500 or 1000 pieces. Fleet carriers coming next year, more ships coming in - which means more modules to store.
Why that stupid limit even exist? Why? To annoy us, yes? Whose idea was to impose to such restriction on players? I could imagine having such limit in Elite without engineering, but the engineering is the real spice of ED, something that gives us choice and multiple ways for our ships. And there are Powerplay modules too!Now the situation is like - you buy "storage ships" and lose time on module juggling or you build a carbon copy of your ship which means grinding a lot for engineering mats, flying to engineers, wasting time big time generally.
At least remove the module limit or raise the limit to reasonable amount of 500 or 1000 pieces. Fleet carriers coming next year, more ships coming in - which means more modules to store.
I have one ship.. It's currently setup for exploration and some mission running. I have no modules in storage - by the time I get around to wanting it again, I'm 1000ly+ away and transfer costs make buying locally cheaper and easier. When I want to change roles, I just refit my ship.
I did have a dedicated combat craft, but sold it when I realised hardcore combat wasn't for me. I really don't get having multiple ships and stored modules - I can only fly one at a time.
I did have a dedicated combat craft, but sold it when I realised hardcore combat wasn't for me. I really don't get having multiple ships and stored modules - I can only fly one at a time.
I do this already. I'd still like nameable folders. And the ability to display on the Galaxy Map only those bookmarks I'm currently interested in.
I've run out of bookmark space in the past. I've currently thinned out my collection considerably, but this has occasionally meant me having to re-research a location which I once had bookmarked. And, as you're no doubt discovering, Old Duck, you don't want to have to re-type anything if it can be avoided when you're playing in VR.
Deleted member 182079
D
Variety being the spice of life if I take an educated guess.
There's one more point of view you did not consider: that limited module storage is there for a gameplay reason - so you would be forced to think about what modules you need, plan and manage your inventory. Increasing it every time someone starts to complain that he lacks space would make the module storage practically unlimited. And I believe game should force all kinds of limitations on player. Obstacles make the game after all.
Seems to me there's either unlimited storage or there's a cap. If there's a cap then wherever they draw that line some people will bump into it and complain they want more.
I've hit the 120 limit and as a result I cleaned shop and now I have plenty of space. For me it's fine where it is.
YMMV
I've hit the 120 limit and as a result I cleaned shop and now I have plenty of space. For me it's fine where it is.
YMMV
Deleted member 182079
D
I actually wish the game would apply such an approach to other parts of the game. Take Fed/Imp rank as an example. I'm already Admiral with the Feds and soon to be crowned King (80% to go) by the Imperials. Understand the argument they're just honorable titles but it still makes little sense to me. Same goes for PP; there should be more serious limitations to switching powers other than getting chased around the block by a ship for a few days (without actually interdicting you thanks to a long standing bug).
I suppose due to the fact most players don't reset their saves (as you would in other games such as Skyrim/Fallout) due to the loss of sizeable progress that remains the same with each restart it's ultimately designed that way.
I am discovering the joys and limitations of VR. Yesterday I got distracted and crashed out of supercruise (planet exclusion zone) while running a mission with an enemy, who dropped right in after me during my long FSD reset, and like Khan looking for the override, I'm like "Where's the chaff button, the CHAFF BUTTON!?!?!" which is currently mapped to my keyboard rather than my controller. It was pretty intense...
Not that this has anything to do with module storage
I'd be more supportive of unlimited storage if we actually paid rent for that storage. You get your first 120 modules stored for free, and then after than you pay a fixed amount of credits per week for each additional 120 (why 120 and not 100?) lockers. Otherwise ED will devolve more and more into a simple arcade game rather than a game that has actual depth and realism. What's next, we insist on the ability to change our module loadout while in space?