Should be able to move modules in cargo.

[Exeider]

I thought this was answered ages ago with the idea that a cargo RACK is a RACK designed to hold a standard cargo unit that we refer to as a single ton.


Meaning your cargo hold is full of shelves.

Yeah but a ton of feathers and a ton of say, plutonium take up dramatically different volumes, a ton of plutonium could fit on something the size of a cargo pallet (a real one i mean) while a ton of feathers would take up, i think 32 cubic meters.

So if my cargohold can hold say 4 tonnes, well 4 tons of what, if it's plutonium, my cargo hold is 0.2 cubic meters, 4 tonnes of feathers, 128 cubic meters. It just makes the cargohold seem to grow and shrink to hold exactly what the item in question is. so.... space magic.

 

[Ezren]

The concern is over some kind of Chinese style gold farming scheme and this irrational fear being used as the reason for not implementing it.

While not having it prevents legitimate players from collaborating in any meaningful way. Especially if Fdev wants Squads to be more then just persistent wings.

Squadrons are supposed to be, at least in how Fdev is wanting to take it, guilds in the traditional sense. To allow players to specialize, to coordinate, to contribute to one another, For Ex, every guild has a guild crafter, the guy or girl who goes all in to the crafting system the game has to offer, in this game's case, Engineering. The guild crafter would be the person to go to and they would engineer the modules, maintain the guild's feedstock materials for engineers well as it stands, this cannot happen, there is no meaningful interaction between squadrons and their won't be until Fdev let's go of that fear and allow the regular player base to start interacting with more then just pew pew.

I mean, at least that's how I understand it with Fdev wanting group play to be more of a thing.

And btw, I wouldn't be too confident of a defender of Fdev in the "foresight" department, because the lack of QA for their patches, the further power creep and imbalance issues, the sheer amount of bugs in this game, illustrates that their foresight, assuming they have it, is focused on the wrong things, clearly.

When they told us, they were taking the next two years off to develop the "next big thing", the community was perfectly accepting of this, with the caveat that they quote "Fix the game" the long standing bugs and issues.

What have they done for the last 2 patches. "Fixed" a new player experience that nobody asked for, and added cruise control.

So clearly, their focused that much is evident, just on the wrong things. And clearly they have the man power, because again, they told us they have 100 developers working on the game. But yet not any few of those 100 to do proper QA so patches don't come out abysmally broken? Hmmm, again probably focused on the wrong things.

No.

Your idea is a waste of time. Nobody else really wants it, or the problems it will invite. Just because you think it's not a problem and you humorously think that you are more clever than everyone else, doesn't make it so.

The let's generously call it misguided idea that module trading is the only meaningful interaction players can have is... I'm having a little trouble finding a polite way to phrase it. Let's just say that if a house plant and that idea had an argument, the house plant would be punching down intellectually.

This idea is bad. It's a bad idea. Your rationale for it is bad. It's bad rationale.

 

[Masta Squidge]

Yeah but a ton of feathers and a ton of say, plutonium take up dramatically different volumes, a ton of plutonium could fit on something the size of a cargo pallet (a real one i mean) while a ton of feathers would take up, i think 32 cubic meters.

So if my cargohold can hold say 4 tonnes, well 4 tons of what, if it's plutonium, my cargo hold is 0.2 cubic meters, 4 tonnes of feathers, 128 cubic meters. It just makes the cargohold seem to grow and shrink to hold exactly what the item in question is. so.... space magic.

Don't start this argument again.

It's a "standard cargo unit" that we call a "ton".

This was done to death too. And I stated this in my post that you quoted.

 

[Exeider]

No.

Your idea is a waste of time. Nobody else really wants it, or the problems it will invite. Just because you think it's not a problem and you humorously think that you are more clever than everyone else, doesn't make it so.

The let's generously call it misguided idea that module trading is the only meaningful interaction players can have is... I'm having a little trouble finding a polite way to phrase it. Let's just say that if a house plant and that idea had an argument, the house plant would be punching down intellectually.

This idea is bad. It's a bad idea. Your rationale for it is bad. It's bad rationale.

I never said it was the ONLY meaningful interaction, but Fdev likes to market this game as an MMO, and as an MMO it sorely lacking in very basic player interaction that is the hallmark of MMOs. And given that Fdev wants to continue that push toward deeper and developed group dynamics and group interaction, this is something they are going to have to do sooner or later, along with a number of other long held restrictions.

In short they are going to have to let go of the reins a bit if they want the game to develop the way THEY have previously stated they want it to be. Now if they subsequently don't want to do that, then they should drop the pretense of this game being an MMO and stick to it being a "Space Sim" game.

Oh and lastly, just because YOU don't personally like an idea doesn't make it a bad idea, nor a waste of time. And don't speak for the community friend because you don't know what you're talking about. Nor do I feel the need to prove my credentials when it comes to game design. People on these forums who I've decided to confide in already know who I am and whom I've worked for in the game industry.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

The OP suggestion does not make sense in either utility or in the game universe.

we can already swap mods on ships and do module transfer. Thus eliminating the need for this.

second, it doesn’t make sense. The module may fit mass wise, but that doesn’t mean you can jam it in the cargo bay. Example, your living room may be able to fit a small car in it, but your front door is only so big.

 

[Exeider]

Don't start this argument again.

It's a "standard cargo unit" that we call a "ton".

This was done to death too. And I stated this in my post that you quoted.

Except that's still just handwavium. "Standard Cargo Unit", again, what the heck is that supposed to be, a measurement of weight, mass or volume? The reason why it was done to death was because it was not resolved in a meaningful way.

Personally I don't care, at the end of the day it's their game, they can call them "Braben Units" for all I care, it's just that it's an interesting and glaring oversight that punctuates the point that many are trying to convey. Which is that Fdev tries to create this wonderful illusion like they have everything in hand, planned, and plotted, until you think about it for a second and the illusion completely falls apart under it's own "Standard Cargo Unit".

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

Except that's still just handwavium. "Standard Cargo Unit", again, what the heck is that supposed to be, a measurement of weight, mass or volume? The reason why it was done to death was because it was not resolved in a meaningful way.

Personally I don't care, at the end of the day it's their game, they can call them "Braben Units" for all I care, it's just that it's an interesting and glaring oversight that punctuates the point that many are trying to convey. Which is that Fdev tries to create this wonderful illusion like they have everything in hand, planned, and plotted, until you think about it for a second and the illusion completely falls apart under it's own "Standard Cargo Unit".

I assumed that the containers were uniform size, but they are varying amounts of “full” depending on what is in it.

for example, the canister may be completely full of water with 1 ton of mass, but the canister of gold has a block suspended in the middle by... bubble wrap?

standard containers for ease of shipping

 

[Exeider]

The OP suggestion does not make sense in either utility or in the game universe.

we can already swap mods on ships and do module transfer. Thus eliminating the need for this.

second, it doesn’t make sense. The module may fit mass wise, but that doesn’t mean you can jam it in the cargo bay. Example, your living room may be able to fit a small car in it, but your front door is only so big.

There are two mechanics that aren't covered by existing mechanics, that the OPs suggestion would cover and that is bulk buying and transporting of modules (thus saving on multiple shopping/engineering trips.) and the ability to at least carry your alternate loadouts with you when going somewhere. (which assuming there is a fitting location where you're going.)

I assumed that the containers were uniform size, but they are varying amounts of “full” depending on what is in it.

for example, the canister may be completely full of water with 1 ton of mass, but the canister of gold has a block suspended in the middle by... bubble wrap?

standard containers for ease of shipping

LOL, that's alot of bubble wrap.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

There are two mechanics that aren't covered by existing mechanics, that the OPs suggestion would cover and that is bulk buying and transporting of modules (thus saving on multiple shopping/engineering trips.) and the ability to at least carry your alternate loadouts with you when going somewhere. (which assuming there is a fitting location where you're going.)


LOL, that's alot of bubble wrap.

If there’s a fitting location then there is module transfer. If you go to shop, then you can store modules after buying them, and transfer once you arrive at a destination.

currently, there is not a single place that will you allow you to outfit, but not transfer modules. Op is a redundancy that makes no sense

 

[Masta Squidge]

Except that's still just handwavium. "Standard Cargo Unit", again, what the heck is that supposed to be, a measurement of weight, mass or volume? The reason why it was done to death was because it was not resolved in a meaningful way.

Personally I don't care, at the end of the day it's their game, they can call them "Braben Units" for all I care, it's just that it's an interesting and glaring oversight that punctuates the point that many are trying to convey. Which is that Fdev tries to create this wonderful illusion like they have everything in hand, planned, and plotted, until you think about it for a second and the illusion completely falls apart under it's own "Standard Cargo Unit".

No, it isn't.

Even today shipping is done in a similar matter using standardized cargo units rather than the actual container weight in a lot of situations.

This isn't seen by the typical consumer, but its a thing.


A container that's not filled all the way usually has some kind of shipping pallet or rack that fits into the container and prevents it from just flopping around.

The only part of this in-game that doesn't make sense is treating any commodity in one of these containers as an actual ton of mass. Not that any of the ship masses in game are REMOTELY close to accurate, so whatever.

I swear some people are so hard up to argue against this without any understanding of how we do things even in reality today.

 

[Masta Squidge]

TLDR:
The answer is you don't get an answer, and your cargo isn't just open, empty space.

You can literally see an example of a cargo unit container in-game. Use some intelligence and ponder how that can be automatically loaded into cargo. Hint: It doesn't just toss it into an empty hold.

 

[Exeider]

If there’s a fitting location then there is module transfer. If you go to shop, then you can store modules after buying them, and transfer once you arrive at a destination.

currently, there is not a single place that will you allow you to outfit, but not transfer modules. Op is a redundancy that makes no sense

We don't know if you'll be able to ship to/from carriers yet, I'm assuming that they will, more like hoping they will but again that's just an assumption.

 

[dm06]

I started to dream to use two class 4 cargo racks instead of large hardpoints on corvette. Also I would not mind two class 1 cargo racks instead of small hardpoints.

 

[Ezren]

I never said it was the ONLY meaningful interaction,

Let's stop you right at the gate, shall we?

Allow me to quote, since you apparently didn't read what you wrote.

While not having it prevents legitimate players from collaborating in any meaningful way.

Without it, there is no meaningful way to collaborate. Your words. Words mean things.

Now, I can understand why even you wouldn't believe your own argument but try to avoid contradicting yourself like that.

 

[Exeider]

No, it isn't.

Even today shipping is done in a similar matter using standardized cargo units rather than the actual container weight in a lot of situations.

This isn't seen by the typical consumer, but its a thing.


A container that's not filled all the way usually has some kind of shipping pallet or rack that fits into the container and prevents it from just flopping around.

The only part of this in-game that doesn't make sense is treating any commodity in one of these containers as an actual ton of mass. Not that any of the ship masses in game are REMOTELY close to accurate, so whatever.

I swear some people are so hard up to argue against this without any understanding of how we do things even in reality today.

Yes it is, you might want to check the previous post I was responding to. It’s handwavium because standardized shipping units are exactly that STANDARDIZED, they don’t magically grow or shrink to contain exactly one tonne of something which depending on what that something is can take up a different volume. Which is my entire point.

Shipping containers are standardized because they are based on VOLUME not weight. Shipping containers take up a standardized amount of VOLUME in which numerous objects are placed into it, but in the end, that container’s VOLUME will not change. One a container is full of it's volume, it's full, doesnt matter if it's weight capacity isn't exceeded it's full and thus another must be used to put the rest of the cargo in.

So I love how you try to insult me by essentially calling me ignorant by restating my exact point. VOLUME not weight. LOL.

The fact that this game treats cargo based solely on it's weight or mass but not it's volume is incomplete, cargo holds are only so big they have a max volume space and a max mass limit, if anything they should consider both.

Now, Im gonna take a moment to be honest and try to look at this from the other side, as to why it's mass and not volume, trying to be fair here. Fdev might be assuming that the cargoholds are just that HUGE, that max volume just isn’t a factor and that cargo just goes into a big internal space and the racks are just a method of tying down said cargo. The argument could be made that the reason why it's mass based and not volume based has less to do with the cargo holds and more to do with the frame shift drive and thrusters. Those engines can only move X amount of mass, it even says so on their stats. Because the FSD doesn’t care whether it's a 100 tons of feathers or 100 tonnes of dense ore.

But the problem with that argument is that, then why have cargo racks in the first place and just have a cargohold and you can keep adding mass/cargo units until the ship cries "TOO MUCH".

Furthermore it makes me ask, what are cargoracks in the first place, if they're actual racks, why don't they have mass? How can a rack have a standard volume? Furthermore, why don't cargo containers have mass either? and how can they have a standard volume? To make the mass standard, then the cargo containers cannot have a standard volume, they must be different sizes for different things and thus NOT standardized at all.

The fact is, these are mutually exclusive points, if one is constant the other MUST be variable. You either have a standard mass and variable volume or a constant volume and variable mass, you cannot have both, that is ontologically impossible

 

[Exeider]

Let's stop you right at the gate, shall we?

Allow me to quote, since you apparently didn't read what you wrote.

Without it, there is no meaningful way to collaborate. Your words. Words mean things.

Now, I can understand why even you wouldn't believe your own argument but try to avoid contradicting yourself like that.

What a way to side step the entire point. It is not a contradiction at all. I stated plainly and simply what Fdev has wanted to do with the game, they want more robust group interaction and collaboration, even going so far as to refer to their game as an MMO. This is where they want the game to go. Which means they are going to have to allow players to share resources to be able to work toward group goals. That means guild and player trading, some kind of group resource management, etc. If you have an issue with this, take it up with Fdev.

I'm simply pointing out you cannot have it both ways, you can not claim the game is an MMO (not saying you did, but Fdev has) then not develop it like one, restricting the inclusion of features that are standard features in MMOs because of some perceived negative issues and disregarding the positive or to put it better, not be willing to take the negative WITH the positive, especially if it's the direction that the you want to go in.

So either have the game be an MMO in which case develop it like one or drop the pretense and develop it as a 'Space Sim' and leave it at that.

 

[Ezren]

What a way to side step the entire point. It is not a contradiction at all.

Wrong, it is.

I'm not wasting much time here. You continue to pretend you know what the game "should be" and what the developer "actually wants", which just so happens to coincide with what you wanted, how convenient.

You don't have a good argument except "it should be".

 

[VR Jay Le Chardon]

Title say all I guess. Seems if say a module is 32 tons and I have 32 tons of cargo space I should be able to move it myself.

While it makes no sense for a 32 unit module to be split up into smaller components to be packed away within the storage slots within a 32 unit cargo rack, I see no reason why a 32 unit module, like say a class 5 FSD, could not be carried in a class 5 or larger empty module bay. I always envisage the module bays as having power and fuel connections contained within them, in standardised locations, to which the equipment is connected. A module carried as cargo, like the FSD example above, would simply occupy space in that bay but not necessarily have the "services" (power/fuel) connected.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Something, something C&P

 

[Exeider]

Wrong, it is.

I'm not wasting much time here. You continue to pretend you know what the game "should be" and what the developer "actually wants", which just so happens to coincide with what you wanted, how convenient.

You don't have a good argument except "it should be".

Because I actually read the news letters and watch the podcasts, and read/watch the interviews, you're damn right I know what the developer is wanting to do. Do I agree with all of it, no, not all of it, some of it, yes but not all of it. And more over there are certain methods of execution of the good ideas I wouldn't do. I also actually read what's on these forums, chat with players and PGs in game, of which I'm member of several of them, to find out and know what THEY want out of the game.

So I don't need to pretend to know anything, I know these things because I actually took the time to talk to people and listen, and ask them what they want and collate that information, and then design ideas around those desires. Which of course, that's what a good developer does.

but please feel free to continue embarrassing yourself.