Storage Space for Modules

[M00ka]

I have a whole fleet of ships not just 1.

And I have massive storage problems.

I think having a large fleet amplifies the problem. As one ship can/does have multiple configurations.

It all depends on your play style and how much engineering you have done.

I just dont get how some people cant accept that this is a genuine problem for others'. There is no downside for anyone to increase module storage space.

Gavin786

Congratulation Gavin786, yes you Gavin786, yep I am now addressing Gavin786 - I was actually responding to another Commander who wanted special compensation because THEY decided to only use one ship in the game. Should we demand FD cater for those who only fly Sidewinders? Should we demand FD cater for those who only fly Saud Kruger ships? How about those that only fly Imperial ships, should FD change the game so they are looked after to the detriment of everyone else?

Gavin786 I will reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, I don't care about module storage. What I do care about is this continuous cycle of players wanting FD to redesign the game especially for them and them alone. Whatever FD set as the upper limit someone will reach it and then the entire demand cycle will start again. The only solution is to put no limits (although I am convinced someone will try to exceed that as well, or at least complain they can't and it is therefore unfair ).

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Congratulation Gavin786, yes you Gavin786, yep I am now addressing Gavin786 - I was actually responding to another Commander who wanted special compensation because THEY decided to only use one ship in the game. Should we demand FD cater for those who only fly Sidewinders? Should we demand FD cater for those who only fly Saud Kruger ships? How about those that only fly Imperial ships, should FD change the game so they are looked after to the detriment of everyone else?

Gavin786 I will reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, I don't care about module storage. What I do care about is this continuous cycle of players wanting FD to redesign the game especially for them and them alone. Whatever FD set as the upper limit someone will reach it and then the entire demand cycle will start again. The only solution is to put no limits (although I am convinced someone will try to exceed that as well, or at least complain they can't and it is therefore unfair ).

Bruh I fly a Cobra and I've never made demands that it be able to carry as much as a Cutter.

And seriously dude. Calling an increase in storage a redesign?

Kek that doesn't even make sense! Only redesign with module storage was adding it in the first place.

No. I do honestly think you just want to force people to play exactly how you choose to play.

You still haven't answered my question. In fact you haven't even replied to me and frankly I think that's because you know I'm right when I say increasing module storage hurts nobody and certainly won't damage the game or be "detrimental to others".

As for saying Frontier shouldn't be catering to select groups? Two words: Triple Elite

 

[Gavin786]

Congratulation Gavin786, yes you Gavin786, yep I am now addressing Gavin786 -

Ok you are baiting me, I understand that. I will not, however, rise to the bait. Please see my post : https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/we-need-to-be-better-as-a-community.530875/

I was actually responding to another Commander who wanted special compensation because THEY decided to only use one ship in the game.

I read what this commander said and saw nothing about compensation at all. Compensation implies someone was wronged somehow and requires recompense of some sort to right the scales of justice. CMDR in question never claimed he was wronged or required compensation in exchange.

Should we demand FD cater for those who only fly Sidewinders? Should we demand FD cater for those who only fly Saud Kruger ships? How about those that only fly Imperial ships, should FD change the game so they are looked after to the detriment of everyone else?

IF it makes people happy and does not subtract from others' game I have absolutely no problem with FDev implementing a feature that makes Sidewinder pilots' life easier or adds a few new things to make Saud Kruger/passenger ferrying guys happier. I dont know why you (or anyone else) would object to that, even though this thread is full of this, and very nasty personal and toxic, too. Still a mystery to me.

Gavin786 I will reiterate what I said earlier in this thread, I don't care about module storage. What I do care about is this continuous cycle of players wanting FD to redesign the game especially for them and them alone.

And like any good business, FDev want to make their customers/users happy. Which mean they DO listen to the requests and do act upon them. Like it or not. And there is absolutely no problem with people suggesting things to FDev or asking for features. The more the better in my opinion.

So I am delighted that people are asking FDev to redesign aspects of the game to make things better for them. Because often times those things they ask for will make my life better too. And many times players can see issues/problems/imbalances that the Devs' are unable to see. Not only is it useful but a borderline necessary for players to ask for new features/inform Devs of problems.

It happens in nature, too. Its called evolution. Things continually get better and improve. Same with software programs, of which Elite is one.

Whatever FD set as the upper limit someone will reach it and then the entire demand cycle will start again. The only solution is to put no limits (although I am convinced someone will try to exceed that as well, or at least complain they can't and it is therefore unfair ).

I disagree. Ship limit of 40 per station is fine, no complaints/arguments about it.

Module storage is too low and there are many complaints about it. And there are levels it could be set at where people asking for it to be increased will be minimized. Right now there are a lot of CMDRs asking for this and for a long time too. I think I would be happy with 1000 even though I have a massive fleet.

CMDR Gavin786

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

You know, I understand buying more than you think you’ll need. I did that at first, and thinned out the collection once I figured out what I was actually going to use.

Buying way more than you’ll ever need, then hoarding it as if there’s an imminent power play apocalypse might be a bit much.

30 days to buy more modules if you need them is nothing compared to the time many have invested in game. Hell, you only have to do 20 minutes of work in that whole 4 weeks lol.

 

[Morbad]

I have no particular problem with module storage limits being raised, but I also think not charging something for it or not having it be a perk one could earn in-game would be a wasted opportunity.

Once they have what they want it becomes time to try and stop other people getting the same.

Tell me what other reason people are so opposed to such a harmless update?

Regardless of one's position on increased module storage, everyone has the same amount of module storage, so the idea that anyone is trying to stop anyone else from getting what they have by limiting module storage to what everyone has now makes no sense what so ever.

As for why someone would be opposed to more module storage, well that's the same reason they'd be for any other limit: Constraints force compromises and trade-offs.

And yes, the same basic limitations have to apply to everyone, because we're all playing in and contributing to the same game world. If one person has the opportunity to increase their CMDR's flexibility, reduce turnaround times, stockpile more legacy or PP modules, and whatever else module storage could possibly influence, everyone has to have similar opportunity.

I disagree. Ship limit of 40 per station is fine, no complaints/arguments about it.

Someone out there certainly has a desire for more than 40 ships per station.

Personally, I think the ship storage limit of 40 is too high and much more of an issue than almost any number of stored modules, at least from a plausibility perspective.

Where are these ships stored? I know they are kept on site and not just drifting behind the station, because they are near instantly available. There isn't any room for these vessels. Of course, there isn't room for all the vessels in the shop either, so at least it's not inconsistent.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

I have no particular problem with module storage limits being raised, but I also think not charging something for it or not having it be a perk one could earn in-game would be a wasted opportunity.



Regardless of one's position on increased module storage, everyone has the same amount of module storage, so the idea that anyone is trying to stop anyone else from getting what they have by limiting module storage to what everyone has now makes no sense what so ever.

As for why someone would be opposed to more module storage, well that's the same reason they'd be for any other limit: Constraints force compromises and trade-offs.

And yes, the same basic limitations have to apply to everyone, because we're all playing in and contributing to the same game world. If one person has the opportunity to increase their CMDR's flexibility, reduce turnaround times, stockpile more legacy or PP modules, and whatever else module storage could possibly influence, everyone has to have similar opportunity.



Someone out there certainly has a desire for more than 40 ships per station.

Personally, I think the ship storage limit of 40 is too high and much more of an issue than almost any number of stored modules, at least from a plausibility perspective.

Where are these ships stored? I know they are kept on site and not just drifting behind the station, because they are near instantly available. There isn't any room for these vessels. Of course, there isn't room for all the vessels in the shop either, so at least it's not inconsistent.

Erm dude... You just proved my point.

I'm not asking for increased module storage "for some people only."

I, and everyone else asking for storage increase, wants it for everyone.

"Everyone has to have similar opportunity."

That's... Exactly what we're campaigning for.

I think you need to stop being so damn formal all the time and loosen up. Relax. Not everything in life has to be serious.

 

[BL1P]

I have no particular problem with module storage limits being raised, but I also think not charging something for it or not having it be a perk one could earn in-game would be a wasted opportunity.

It would be quite interesting to see what would happen if they introduced a Ship and Module Storage fee.
I have One of each ship and around 10 storage ships I think (40ish ships I think) and My modules is always at around 100 items.

Would I still keep all those ships and modules if I had to pay to have them docked and stored per day ? probably not I would reduce costs I guess.
Would I get a discount if I use Stations owned by the Player Faction my Squadron supports or if Im Admiral or King and the station is Fed or Imp.
Would Docking fed ships cost more in Imperial stations and visa versa ?
Can I choose to pay annually - monthly - weekly - daily.

I like the idea

 

[B.Roberts]

Didn't new we have 120 storage slots for modules. When I got my pilot's license there was no such thing at all, and no ships transfer either (I just felt myself very old. LOL). Usually I don't like to waste much time on engineering and quite often using one module for several ships, if it fits I just take it from ship "A" and put it into the ship "B" and I only have maybe a dozen modules in storage for the fleet of 15 ships or so. As for the 120 slots in storage, well, I can only play one or two days a week and even if I buy new module, engineer it and store it every time I play I should be ok for the next 2 years or so.

 

[Ezren]

Its not a difficult set of changes. As a pro programmer, its really not. Just increasing number is an afternoons work at most(unless the code is hilarously bad), it should be the case of changing a variable somewhere as that number changed from 60 before and should be easy to change again.

Sorting takes a little bit more effort but lets truth be honest its not a big job.

Its will that is the only thing stopping increasing module storage, not programming concerns.

I dont know why people are so resistant to this change, something that benefits everyone. People are actively fighting against increasing module storage. I just dont get this at all. Even if you dont use the full storage, you must realise a number of CMDRs do and for good reason? And it is a big problem that is taking a lot from the gameplay of people.

People fight against this with a passion, whenever I mention it, seems to be real opposition, I am glad a lot of others want it, and thanks to the OP for bringing this back to consciousness of the forum. Something I need to learn about human nature, I try and see what people get out of standing in the way of this, but just cant get into that pair of shoes and see why.

CMDR Gavin786

Many, many times I have said the same thing. It is important that we get more than those 120 + some sensible management system. Current system is just a massive(and purely artificial) restriction for any players who have a variety of builds.

I have posted threads about it, spoke about it many times.

Problem is the ppl from a "certain part of the community" usually post something like, and I got LOADS of this :
"How can anyone possibly need more than 120 modules? Get rid of all that junk(Junk=G5 Engineered combat-oriented modules). Just not needed. My 10000MJ shield cutter with all turreted weapons can survive against anything in a solo cg so what do you need all that for? Just get rid of it and keep the 120. You just dont need it.".

So Devs read that and think its not really a problem so lets not bother.

Really just a case of a "certain part of the community" wanting revenge through the forums for what they cannot perform in the game. Deliberate throw some salt into PvP/open players game/experience yet again for no good reason by encouraging Devs to ignore features we need. It is something that would benefit them also but that does not matter. Seen a lot of this kind of schadenfreude in the recent premium ammo thread also.

I must have close on 100 storage ships now, just to store PP modules, have Condas just for storage, and I STILL have massive trouble with just the 120. It is a logistical nightmare.

Some CMDRs field multiple builds/like to experiment/have tried builds that did not work for them but still want to hold onto all those G5 modules incase they can be made to work in future. There are legacy modules that have some interesting quirk or other that is just not available anymore, so nice to keep those(even tho I dont agree with fielding legacy modules; conversation for another time). There are modules I tried and could not get a decent build with yet dont want to part. There are multiple power plants with different levels of Overcharge as its best to have the coolest plant for given loadout;small differences can matter. Things that are just useful to have around and put onto multiple ships when needed. Different shield boosters so I can change resistances/loadout/experiment. There are different experimental effects applied to the same weapon, different variations for different builds. All of that together 120 is not even close to enough.

And EVEN WITH multiple storage ships to keep things I dont use, I still have the 120 completely full and have real trouble, its just not enough for some players.

Increasing it to 500 is a big step in the right direction. No problems for the devs to do, either. A management system that allows the modules to be sorted would be great also. Ships should be able to be marked as "storage" ships and not appear in ship transfer list unless an option is checked. Before bookmarks were a thing people used to have sidewinders all over the place to act as that, its a feature that could have been useful in various ways since day 1.

So this is definitely an area that needs improved, can easily be improved, and dissenting voices aside, can be massively useful for a lot of players.

CMDR Gavin786

So I think I need to reply to this, but will tame my tongue in line with my recent push to clean these forums. As such I have refrained from counter-attacking against Ezren or attempting to make him look foolish, and have restricted my response to defending myself solely. Let us look forward to a day when mutual respect rules these forums and this kind of back-and-forth fighting does not happen :


1. Ezren attributed to me these words : "They disagree because they cannot perform in the game". In quotation marks to imply they are the exact words I used no less. I have never made a statement like this. I think it is very disingenuous of Ezren to misrepresent me in this way. And I need not say how clearly ludicrous those words are, either.

My ACTUAL POSITION : "Some people who speak up against certain features that would be useful to the open/pvp community do so because they are frustrated with their open play experience".
NOT : "Everyone who disagrees with me does it because they are a lousy player".

Really very nasty attempt to put words in my mouth that turn a specific position into a general one that is clearly not correct.


2. Ezren said : Take a minute, look up "ad hominem", compare that with what you said.

I am not using the statement you referenced as the premise in any argument nor is it an argument in itself.

I am pretty well trained in formal logic. I doubt this is an avenue you want to go down with me.

For an argument to suffer the ad-hominem fallacy, a quality of the speaker is used to appeal to the validity of a given argument rather than the premise or logic of the argument itself. Example : The Devil says : "Ezren is right about everything they say". Aha, you cannot trust the Devil's words hence he must be wrong! A classic ad-hominem argument.

And I didnt need to look that up.

And as I said before, and I will say again, I am trying to make things better. I have a good intention. I dont always succeed. But to put in that 1% is better than 0%. And if I have offended by my wording it was not my intention.



3. All this stuff about Jealousy. Mentioned again and again. I never made mention, used this word(except in reference/quotation to Ezren), or implied it is a factor here at all. Yet another case of Ezren falsely putting words in my mouth. I cant even conceive of how jealousy would even fit into this, whose love (am I, or you?) supposed to covet? I dont get this at all?

To clarify my position finally : Jealousy has nothing to do with this argument, I do not expect anyone to swoon in love with me or anyone else. Ludicrous.

Only one who has brought "Jealousy" into this discussion is Ezren, he is yet again attributing it to me, however. To the astute observer, a pattern may be emerging here.


4. Let me stop you right there, Ezren. I didnt say those words or imply them. They are words you invented then attributed to me. A pattern is clearly emerging here.

And to be perfectly clear I dont think that everyone who disagrees with a position I hold has "bad feelings". Most people who disagree with something I said are coming from a genuine place and I try my best to hold them in high regard and treat them with(what I hope) is mutual respect. And just because I disagree with a person on a particular point does not mean we will not agree later on something else or have not agreed in the past.

And you are making a complex equivalence between opinion and identity here. They are not alike. A position a person holds is not "that person". Just because you dont agree with a position a person has on an issue does not mean you disagree with THAT PERSON as an individual.


5. I think it should be pretty clear from anyone who has ever read my words or tone that it is something I just would not say. Ezren's words put into my mouth yet again.

To clarify my position : "I generally assume that those who disagree with my point of view have a good intention. I never close my mind to the fact I could be wrong also. And If I am then I will own it.".

This includes you, Ezren.


6. Omitted as I am trying to be nice


7. Not just this thread but many threads. Many people are calling out for module storage to be increased, they are having real problems. These problems have been explained many times. Valid reasons have been given. Many times. You may choose not to see them or to denigrate the people who make them; that is your choice.

SO I AM NOW DRAWING A LINE UNDER THIS. PLEASE DO NOT PUT ANY MORE WORDS INTO MY MOUTH, EZREN.

CMDR Gavin786

You're embarrassed by your own words, that's your own issue. I could point out more hypocrisy in this post but honestly nothing gets through to you. You're too busy patting yourself on the back for "doing your best".

 

[Ezren]

People keep asking why do you need so much space.

Same reason as why they want to have a hundred ships in a video game: Because I want to.

I love how far humanity has fallen that when one person gets what he wants, he does everything he can to try and stop anyone else getting what they want, as if it is going to kill him if they do.

People wonder why my faith in this species has plummeted. I find video games to be an interesting place to find countless examples of this type of behaviour.

Need and want aren't the same thing.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Need and want aren't the same thing.

Indeed.

But this is a video game. There's no such thing as need here. It's all want.

 

[Ezren]

Indeed.

But this is a video game. There's no such thing as need here. It's all want.

In the context of the game, that's not exactly true. Some things are necessary for the game. We need fuel scoops to work, we need limpets to work how they're supposed to, we need ships to be balanced. We need big fixes and performance stability.

We don't need fuel scoops to work on gas giants, we don't need a universal limpet controller, we don't need to gently fly every Beluga into a star.

And again, I don't really care about storage. It doesn't affect me either way, but the arguments for it basically sound like people choosing to play in a way that creates the problem in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

In the context of the game, that's not exactly true. Some things are necessary for the game. We need fuel scoops to work, we need limpets to work how they're supposed to, we need ships to be balanced. We need big fixes and performance stability.

We don't need fuel scoops to work on gas giants, we don't need a universal limpet controller, we don't need to gently fly every Beluga into a star.

And again, I don't really care about storage. It doesn't affect me either way, but the arguments for it basically sound like people choosing to play in a way that creates the problem in the first place.

You must care something seeing as you're arguing against this so much.

Someone who doesn't care would just ignore it.