Module storage

[Schmack]

No, absolutely not.

Seems like the whole point is that you have to be selective about what you store.

This would still be the case whether the slots were at 10, 120 or 240.

 

[Autoculto]

Noooooo, Just the thought of trying to find modules with a bigger storage area would be a nightmare. It's bad enough finding stuff as it is. What we need is a decent module storage interface first.

 

[War Eagle]

The ultimate solution is to allow you to move modules between ships, even ships you perhaps aren't even using currently. This would include prices for shipping these modules and associated wait times for the final product. Needing to be in your ship before you can have it worked on makes no sense. I wouldn't go pick up a stored vehicle, sit in it and then ask the mechanics to update something. I would have them do it before I picked it up.

When this type of interface is created, it will revolutionize how we outfit and use ships and modules. You should still have to be in a ship to engineer the modules however.

I can imagine a screen similar to the shipyard only with two displays. You can select the modules in one and transfer them to the other, which would require either storing the 2nd ship's modules or swapping with the current ship. This would need to come with a performance meter and some stats that show your predicted gains or losses, and something that tells you "hey I notice you have limpets but you don't have a limpet controller" or something along those lines.

Don't even get me started on limpets! Why do limpet controllers not have storage for the limpets? You know that entire module is nothing but a little circuit board so why does it take up so much room without storing it's own limpets- This is the dumbest part of the game I have ever seen.

 

[Stealthie]

But with ships I can easily avoid that imposed limitation, making it pointless...

Don't be generous with my time and credits just because. Not you, the devs.

If we take that into account, surely the OP already has what they want?

Always makes me smile when people say (about anything) "I think I should be able to do X because I can already do Y".
If Y is a reasonable alternative to X then you don't actually need X whereas if it isn't then using Y to justify X is disingenuous.

 

[Stealthie]

This would still be the case whether the slots were at 10, 120 or 240.

Well, yes.

There were those who made that exact point before the number of storage slots was increased from 60 (or whatever it was) to 120.... and now here we are.

 

[Schmack]

I think most will agree that a big part of the fun in this game is the ability to swap modules between ships to experiment or change your role just a bit for either new missions or whatever you find available. The outfitting right now is a bit clunky. There are too many clicks required to do things. I want to replace a module. I have to go into outfitting, watch my ship drop below deck, then select the subgroup, then the module, then either the store or transfer or other, then decide what to do with my existing module (assuming there's storage space, otherwise no warning, it just goes away).

Well, yes.

There were those who made that exact point before the number of storage slots was increased from 60 (or whatever it was) to 120.... and now here we are.

Do you still feel that you have to make a choice?

Should we also be limited to how many ships we can own? How many transfers we can make a day? These placeholders for content aren't entertaining or challenging. They are just largely inconvenient. The fact that more and more people need more and more storage is a good thing, and providing a way to increase storage should in no way take away content, since choice limits aren't good content.

 

[Riverside]

Inventory management is a lost skill it seems.

 

[Stealthie]

I think most will agree that a big part of the fun in this game is the ability to swap modules between ships to experiment or change your role just a bit for either new missions or whatever you find available.

I'd agree with that but surely the whole point of experimentation is that sometimes it fails and you'll find you've wasted your time?

More broadly, I'd suggest that what you're talking about is part of the larger concept of "asset management" and part of that is making choices about which assets you keep and which you discard.

Do you still feel that you have to make a choice?

Should we also be limited to how many ships we can own? How many transfers we can make a day? These placeholders for content aren't entertaining or challenging. They are just largely inconvenient.

One person's "inconvenience" is another person's "gameplay".

There's no reason why we should be limited on the number of ships we own, or the number of transfers we enact, because those things already require various choices/decisions/compromises to be made.

I can buy, for example, one Python and swap different modules onto it or I can buy 3 Pythons and build one for combat, one for cargo-hauling and one for mining.
One of those options costs less and will require less effort to build the ship and modules but will be a bit of a faff.
The other option will cost significantly more in terms of credits and effort but the result will provide much more convenience.
That's the choice I'm forced to make.

With ship transfers, I can either build a bunch of ships and leave them in various places or I can transfer one ship to wherever I need it.
One choice is expensive but convenient, the other is less expensive but also less convenient.
Again, choices.

When it comes to module storage, there is no drawback to offset the benefit it provides.
Originally I could store 60 modules that I've put effort into buying/modding.
Now I can store 120 modules with no additional drawaback.
Increase it to 240 or 480 and players will gain increased benefits with no drawbacks.

To me, "gameplay" is all about providing a player with choices and forcing them to make decisions.
Just giving players more and more stuff is the opposite of gameplay.
It's just (to use a cliche) giving players a biger and bigger "I Win" button.

 

[Schmack]

I'd agree with that but surely the whole point of experimentation is that sometimes it fails and you'll find you've wasted your time?

No.

The point of experimentation isn't pass/fail. It's like trying on clothes. It's about preference and also about getting experience with the new weps or modules and how the ship reacts to them, now NPCs react as well. Failing is avoidable with research. I play to succeed, not to fail. So how is failing the point?

More broadly, I'd suggest that what you're talking about is part of the larger concept of "asset management" and part of that is making choices about which assets you keep and which you discard.

Because the actual thing you're going to do with assets isn't as entertaining as managing assets? I don't want an asset management game. I want a spaceship flying and killing of other spaceships game, discovering things and doing cool stuff. Managing assets happens enough on the ship. I shouldn't need to be a warehouse manager just to fly a spaceship in a game.

One person's "inconvenience" is another person's "gameplay".

Then lack of content can be dismissed if you're imaginative enough to pretend having poor content is challenging, and challenging is good game content. I've even read posts here where someone said being bored is part of the challenge. Huh?

There's no reason why we should be limited on the number of ships we own, or the number of transfers we enact, because those things already requires various choices/decisions/compromises to be made.

Then it's no different for storage slots. Really, you're splitting hairs here.

I can buy, for example, one Python and swap different modules onto it or I can buy 3 Pythons and build one for combat, one for cargo-hauling and one for mining.
One of those options costs less and will require less effort to build the ship and modules but will be a bit of a faff.
The other option will cost significantly more in terms of credits and effort but the result will provide much more convenience.
That's the choice I'm forced to make.

If every different option in the game forces a choice, then more storage slots means more modules to store, meaning more choices when you go to use one. Limiting storage slots is limiting choices, not creating choices. You're never forced to use any of it.

With ship transfers, I can either build a bunch of ships and leave them in various places or I can transfer one ship to wherever I need it.
One choice is expensive but convenient, the other is less expensive but also less convenient.
Again, choices.

Are you conflating choices/options with forcing you to decide?

More options = more choices. More options does not equate to not being forced to choose. You still have to choose, you just have more things to choose from. That's when we are pulling from storage. You're only considering one side of the equation (adding to storage). If you limit storage, you now have fewer things to chose from ergo you are not really as forced to choose, since you have no other options. Take that to absurdity, one slot. No choice. Now 1 million slots, many many choices. However for storing, 1 slot = what is my most valued module I cannot sell? 1 million slots = I will store even lowest level modules that I replace and never use again without thought to storage space.

I think you are focused on the second and ignoring the first.

When it comes to module storage, there is no drawback to offset the benefit it provides.
Originally I could store 60 modules that I've put effort into buying/modding.
Now I can store 120 modules with no additional drawaback.
Increase it to 240 or 480 and players will gain increased benefits with no drawbacks.

I'm all for a fee for storage.. for ships, for modules... everything. There should be a cost associated with operating from a station. If you're going to use their facilities, you should have to pay. If you're going to store ships, you need to have an income to afford it. That's the drawback. I agree providing more for no cost isn't good gameplay, and I never understood the free usage of stations and how they can remain viable.

To me, "gameplay" is all about providing a player with choices and forcing them to make decisions.
Just giving players more and more stuff is the opposite of gameplay.
It's just (to use a cliche) giving players a biger and bigger "I Win" button.

I play because I enjoy flying the ships and interacting with the environment. Passive things like storage slots aren't good levers for game play in a space ship sim. The ship is limited already in cargo slots and other areas. I'd be ok with no storage at all, but people would use ships because they want storage. Since they want storage and there's no real gain from having it other than entertainment, I see no reason to not provide it since you can self-impose any restrictions you feel makes your game play better, unless you think the game needs to force that on you.