Option to leave cargo on board ship when swapping ships

[Jenny Harper]

Hi. Something that's a nuisance is when you're trying to swap ships and the ship you're currently in has cargo, and the ship you want to swap to doesn't have enough cargo capacity for the cargo so you can't swap. Either you have to sell the cargo or jettison it. I was just wondering, would it be possible to have the option to keep the cargo you currently have on the ship you're currently which would allow you to swap into another ship which may not have the capacity without having to sell or jettison your cargo? Then when you returned to your first ship, the cargo you kept on there would still be present. Of course, the option to transfer your cargo to your new ship should still be an option, perhaps also giving you an option to transfer as much or as little as you like.

 

[Nitross]

I agree. Different ships are used for different purposes and you should not be limited when trying to pick the right one for the job.

However, simply leaving the cargo in the ship causes a problem in itself; you can transfer ships to another station if you get there with another. Something would need to be done so you can't just move to a station in a Diamondback Explorer and call your T9 full of cargo risk free.

A separate cargo storage option, like for the modules and ships, might be easier to manage than tracking the cargo per ship and preventing transfer of cargo laden ships. It would also be easier to prevent transfers on such an option rather than having to check for cargo on ships you want to transfer.

 

[Virandar]

That or commodities storage. Commodities storage has the advantage of being similar to systems in place (ship storage and modules storage). But I think leaving cargo in a ship actually seems more realistic than cargo storage.

 

[Captain Willard]

UMMMMMM No

 

[Jenny Harper]

I agree. Different ships are used for different purposes and you should not be limited when trying to pick the right one for the job.

However, simply leaving the cargo in the ship causes a problem in itself; you can transfer ships to another station if you get there with another. Something would need to be done so you can't just move to a station in a Diamondback Explorer and call your T9 full of cargo risk free.

A separate cargo storage option, like for the modules and ships, might be easier to manage than tracking the cargo per ship and preventing transfer of cargo laden ships. It would also be easier to prevent transfers on such an option rather than having to check for cargo on ships you want to transfer.

Just have it that you can't transfer any ships with cargo in, that would be a fair compromise I think.

 

[Greesb]

Yeah could be really usefull when swapping to different activities. +1
But we would need to see what's in the current cargo of the ship when in the Hangar.

 

[Lestat]

Well we also have cargo that spoils. Slave food stuff and such. We don't want someone to have a stripped down Anaconda filled with something that cheap one day and High cost the next day and they can sell it at a higher cost.

 

[AngrySky]

We need a home base, store commodities there, materials for synthesis made there, data storage overflow. special missions and bounties hub.

 

[Virandar]

We need a home base, store commodities there, materials for synthesis made there, data storage overflow. special missions and bounties hub.

I'd suggest hollowing out an asteroid for that. Or a mothership, huge enough to have large landing pads and in silent mode (all unnecessary systems switched off when not in use) when you're not home. Like one of the generation ships. Not that we're going to see something like that, but that would be awesome.

 

[Virandar]

Well we also have cargo that spoils. Slave food stuff and such. We don't want someone to have a stripped down Anaconda filled with something that cheap one day and High cost the next day and they can sell it at a higher cost.

Why not? That's also a way of doing business in real life. Not selling can also earn you money at some later date. You can hold on to stock of goods you have on purpose, so if economy in Elite is supposed to simulate economy in real life, that should also be an option.
It's not like there is anything you can spend credits on beyond some point anyway. If I could buy an Anaconda to use as warehouse and make 2000000cr out of it every month or even week, that's petty money, doesn't change anything for me. If I could buy 10 of them and make additional 20M a week, that would still be petty money at this scale. There's also the risk that you buy some goods that will get cheaper and you can loose money as well as earn them, so that sounds pretty fair to me.
As for perishable goods, like slaves or food, I believe slaves would be in cryo anyway and food would be frozen.

 

[Lestat]

See Elite is not about 15 stored Cutters with 700+ cargo capacity each stored with a large amount of cargo total of 10,500. Which would cause game lag which is not needed for us. It could also ruin it for other players game. When they find a exanomic boom for one item. It could be fun for 40 or so people in mid or large ships. Just to be ruin by one player that has 15 stored cutters with the same item. It would make it so unfair. It would make that Boom into a bust.

Elite is about ONE SHIP ONE PILOT and what you do with that ship is how you make your funds. Not a fleet of ship use for storage hold on stuff until you find the next economic boom.

 

[sutex]

Frontier PAY TO GRIND is why nothing done about storage

full thread Off Ship Storage 2.4 ? if not when ?


..................... IN GAME STORAGE ..............

Taking cargo OFF a ship and storing that's ships cargo in the hanger bay of the station you're docked in, so the ship you want to fly is free of Cargo.

BUT if you're dock in a station and have ships in storage at that station , you can swap to another ship in that station, and leave your cargo behind on the ship you just docked, the choice is yours.

If I take cargo Off a Ship, store that cargo in a Hanger bay, and re-fill my ship, I can't then store / swap that 'new' cargo out again.

You only get to Store / Swap once 'any' cargo , until that 'old' cargo is either destroyed, used or sold

 

[Lestat]

I read your thread sutex it not worth bumping. I will point out on your topic people who have two accounts don't use the other ship as storage. I have one Anaconda in the bubble. Which I doing missions or trading. Right now this account is 14,000 Light years from sol system.

 

[Teh Smoo]

See Elite is not about 15 stored Cutters with 700+ cargo capacity each stored with a large amount of cargo total of 10,500. Which would cause game lag which is not needed for us. It could also ruin it for other players game. When they find a exanomic boom for one item. It could be fun for 40 or so people in mid or large ships. Just to be ruin by one player that has 15 stored cutters with the same item. It would make it so unfair. It would make that Boom into a bust.

Elite is about ONE SHIP ONE PILOT and what you do with that ship is how you make your funds. Not a fleet of ship use for storage hold on stuff until you find the next economic boom.

How in blazes do you think cargo entries in a database could cause lag? It would be extra entries in player file in each of their ships, with a commodity ID number and quantity number. That's it. It's a bit more data, just have a loaded ship count as 2 ships towards the player limit.

Also, the word you searched for was "economic."

And as a last couple points: you're doing that thing where people assume something won't be balanced. SO WHAT if people have cutters full of cargo? If they correctly predict which of the couple dozen cargo items is needed, they STILL need to buy it, and they STILL need to ship the cutters wherever they need to go.

And shipping a bunch of cutters would not be cheap, and there could be a surcharge (and/or remote sell) for shipping loaded ships. Enough to make it not profitable.

 

[Lestat]

Let see let take a look at your idea. Ship with cargo counts as 2 ships. That still give us still 125 Cutters. That to much space. And one player could change economic of a system. (TY for spell check correction) Well, Frontier doesn't want that.

Not everyone buys stuff. I am miner at heart also a Bitcoin miner. I could have 125 cutters with 600 plus the cargo hold of ore each. That 75,000 storage space each player. That a lot of cargo. Yes, people would work at that goal but It would still cause Frontier a lot of issues.

A full cutter with cargo jump range is 16ly? Or you can drop or sell 100 to 200 cargo to gain a better jump range. You don't have to ship them if you have a secondary ship that has a good jump range. So even if took you time in a fleet of Type 9 or Anacondas. You can still change system economic boom to a bust. That unfair for other players that only have 1 or 2 ships.

 

[Magic Man]

No. The current 'issue' is such a non-issue in reality that it's not worth the extra hassle needed to make sure it's not exploited in some way. Sell your cargo, dump it or stay in that ship.

 

[Miklos Atreides]

Let see let take a look at your idea. Ship with cargo counts as 2 ships. That still give us still 125 Cutters. That to much space. And one player could change economic of a system. (TY for spell check correction) Well, Frontier doesn't want that.

Not everyone buys stuff. I am miner at heart also a Bitcoin miner. I could have 125 cutters with 600 plus the cargo hold of ore each. That 75,000 storage space each player. That a lot of cargo. Yes, people would work at that goal but It would still cause Frontier a lot of issues.

A full cutter with cargo jump range is 16ly? Or you can drop or sell 100 to 200 cargo to gain a better jump range. You don't have to ship them if you have a secondary ship that has a good jump range. So even if took you time in a fleet of Type 9 or Anacondas. You can still change system economic boom to a bust. That unfair for other players that only have 1 or 2 ships.

The real problem is to be solved on a deeper level in the BGS Structure.
In a 1 billion inhabitants system 75000 units of storage is almost nothing. But because BGS is far away from AI behavior Frontier needs restrictions to keep out the goldsellers.
Anyway. I believe a controlled station storage you can order for a limited amount of cargo / materials would be very nice leaving a lot of organisationla problems behind.
Frontier also fears that because of possible market price manipulation.
I don't believe that will have a huge impact. e.g: I sold masses of Imperial Slaves to stations where their demand was 0 to absolutely profitable pricepoints.
Markets should be aware of where demand is low or 0 and decreasing offers will follow by oversaturation of that specific commodity in the system.

Regards,
Miklos

 

[Virandar]

See Elite is not about 15 stored Cutters with 700+ cargo capacity each stored with a large amount of cargo total of 10,500. Which would cause game lag which is not needed for us. It could also ruin it for other players game. When they find a exanomic boom for one item. It could be fun for 40 or so people in mid or large ships. Just to be ruin by one player that has 15 stored cutters with the same item. It would make it so unfair. It would make that Boom into a bust.

Elite is about ONE SHIP ONE PILOT and what you do with that ship is how you make your funds. Not a fleet of ship use for storage hold on stuff until you find the next economic boom.

First thing, it's not one ship one pilot game. Most of us have several ships, each of them used for specific purposes. Which means that having cargo, whatever type of it, locks you in a ship and activity. Frankly, it's not a huge problem, because in most cases you can just sell your commodities from your trading vessel, jump to your combat vessel and off you go. So in this case, storage would be "just" a quality of life issue, where you can quickly switch between the ships and perhaps thanks to that enjoy more dynamic gameplay. It would simply be nice not to be locked in a ship. OP rightly mentioned that there is a workaround players use. So your fears of somebody being able to affect the ingame economy can already be true, to an extent.

The simplest solution of this issue and answer to this suggestion would be having 1000T of storage galaxy-wide, in a way similar to modules storage. Although I would not allow for transferring it between the stations. Such a solution not only allows you to quickly switch between the activities and ships, but also prevent carrying around 16T of modular terminals and such, attracting unwanted attention, not being able to do much else until you get 25 and get your invitation to Qwent (which is buggy, by the way, so you might end up waiting for it ad mortem defecatam). I'm sorry, but I fail to see how implementing something like this would have any detrimental effect on the game universe. For sure it's a logical solution to have in a game where players can buy and sell goods and also change means of transportation of these goods. It would open some additional possibilities, such as hauling large quantities of goods to a big station and then ferrying it of in a smaller, combat capable ship to an outpost in a dangerous neighbouring system. This solution doesn't harm the players, doesn't harm Frontier and doesn't harm the BGS in any way, but it sends one important message from Frontier: "hey guys, we like players to have options and be able to decide what they do ingame and when".

I don't believe we are going to see something like this implemented, but I would very much like to be proven wrong and see Frontier issuing such a message.

 

[Teh Smoo]

Let see let take a look at your idea. Ship with cargo counts as 2 ships. That still give us still 125 Cutters. That to much space. And one player could change economic of a system. (TY for spell check correction) Well, Frontier doesn't want that.

Not everyone buys stuff. I am miner at heart also a Bitcoin miner. I could have 125 cutters with 600 plus the cargo hold of ore each. That 75,000 storage space each player. That a lot of cargo. Yes, people would work at that goal but It would still cause Frontier a lot of issues.

A full cutter with cargo jump range is 16ly? Or you can drop or sell 100 to 200 cargo to gain a better jump range. You don't have to ship them if you have a secondary ship that has a good jump range. So even if took you time in a fleet of Type 9 or Anacondas. You can still change system economic boom to a bust. That unfair for other players that only have 1 or 2 ships.

Shortsighted. Even assuming that a player fills their account with ONLY cutters, and ONLY fill them with cargo.

Worse, you're apparently assuming that moving all of those will be instant and free. Why would that be the case? Almost ANYTHING taken to the extreme can mess the game up. And it's LIMITED.

• First off, a player can move them manually. If a player is willing to fly back and forth and move 124 or 259 cutters, buying shuttles to go back, they have already put the time in, and deserve to be able to change the economy.
• Or they would ship them. That's ALSO easy to make unprofitable- have shipping multiple cargo ships start to take more money, and besides that, shipping cutters is kind of expensive. Or put in a charge that's equal to any profit the pilot would make from selling cargo, so people can move cargo, but not make any money doing it.

Haulage should try to transfer between active ships, though, and complain loudly when it cannot.

 

[Velixar]

Looking at this idea. Make me think a gold seller suggested it.

We don't need this idea. It promotes gold sellers.