Planned Stack Limits

[philthy mcnasty]

First, off, read the other thread about the cargo area idea. Gives that effect in a nice way.
Second a few other questions:
Should the mass of the cargo be added anyway?
Should it be a fraction of the added mass, or based off the percentage of the cargo space taken up?

there's another thread on cargo? I only saw this one.

The big issue with cargo in this game, is that its at a big scale. I often find myself strip mining planets, and mining tons of asteroids.

What this means for game balance, is that once stacks and cargo overhauls are implemented, big ships will become much harder to make.Though this would give a new reason to buy and salvage stations.

 

[ltmauve]

there's another thread on cargo? I only saw this one.

Mentioned here, among other places:

I hope it gets an complete overhaul and becomes this
http://starmadedock.net/threads/new-cargo-system.719/

TL;DR is that you'd define boxes (like the old docking system, if you know about that) and those would get filled with "crate" blocks as you put stuff in the storage.

 

[philthy mcnasty]

Mentioned here, among other places:

TL;DR is that you'd define boxes (like the old docking system, if you know about that) and those would get filled with "crate" blocks as you put stuff in the storage.

Now that is a neat idea! Combine that with a rail system, and you can have a "boxcar", that can be docked with the station, unloaded, and refined efficiently.

 

[PizzaPress]

and thus we get minecraft style trash on a game that shouldnt have inv stack limits....
like realy all of this just screws over the solo players

If you're talking of click-tedium(MC chests*cough*), then don't worry, the actual ease of cargo management will hopefully be improved.
As for limits of storage, your asteroid hauler should be somewhat heavier after stuffing its face full of something its size, possibly made of heavier material.
And a planet's crust(or that much in asteroids) should require a large cargo fleet to store and move.

 

[ltmauve]

Hey. knida a necro here but...
Bench posted this in a different thread and I wanted to respond to it but that thread was about something else... so:

As far as cargo goes, The best idea I've seen so far is reusing the old docking port blocks, and filling their boxes with "cargo" blocks.

For the cargo system we're also considering that suggestion as the best direction to go in terms of a concept to build upon.

Well, I can't say I think that the best solution right now. I don't remember who came up with it, but rather then defining a box, you'd put down invisible, intangible blocks (like the area triggers) and have them be slaved to the storage. Then the storage flips them over into cargo boxes when getting loaded, and then back once unloaded. Destroying a cargo box drops some of the objects.

Basically, the difference between the two is that this one is a lot more flexible. with what shape you want to put your cargo in. No other differences.

 

[Bench]

Hey. knida a necro here but...
Bench posted this in a different thread and I wanted to respond to it but that thread was about something else... so:


Well, I can't say I think that the best solution right now. I don't remember who came up with it, but rather then defining a box, you'd put down invisible, intangible blocks (like the area triggers) and have them be slaved to the storage. Then the storage flips them over into cargo boxes when getting loaded, and then back once unloaded. Destroying a cargo box drops some of the objects.

Basically, the difference between the two is that this one is a lot more flexible. with what shape you want to put your cargo in. No other differences.

Ok I can see how it might be a bit vague what I meant. Basically the old docking port idea got us thinking, and the suggestion you've just re-emphasized is actually what we arrived at. So yeah it's actually already all planned but just to make it a bit clearer between the two is that yes we're planning the flexible one, not the one that brings back old docking modules.

 

[Dire Venom]

Heres my problem with this proposal:
Theres only 1 way to transfer cargo between structures.....
thats via your inventory... nothing else can move it between structures...

HOW on earth are we ment to move all our ores from our mining ship to our refinery if our inventory is given a low cap........ I can end end with many, many million blocks in my mining ship after a bit of mining.
If stacks are limited................. then itll take a few hours to manulay move all the ore into the refinery......

While in its current system a big no from me to limiting astronaut inventory until other changes are made.
It would add an annoyance factor of over 9000 and wouldn't bring much benifit.
I do like the idea of cargo requiring lots of space though, like using the old docking modals. Thatd be epic!

 

[Aynslei]

Just make sure we can slave the cargo system (and storage blocks) to rail dockers and rails via master/slave for input and output across entities and the rest we can control with logic already.

Like what was discussed here.
http://starmadedock.net/threads/storage-contents-transfer.8596/
I think this would be a fantastic way to implement cargo transfer in a way that fits nicely with pre-existing systems.

 

[Bench]

Don't worry we've taken all that into consideration.

 

[ltmauve]

So... poking this thread with a few maybe new ideas (they might be somewhere else though)
First, having different types of cargo controllers, with different numbers of slots and capacity per crate block.
So our regular storage has our "average" capacity and 35 slots.
Then we have a bulk storage with, say 5x capacity but only 1 slot.
And "ore storage" with 3x capacity and 8 slots.
And I was thinking a "station storage" which has an unlimited number of slots, but had way more mass. (Or rather, it also adds mass for the volume in the storage, so all the storages can use the same two crate IDs.)

 

[Bogdan]

So... poking this thread with a few maybe new ideas (they might be somewhere else though)
First, having different types of cargo controllers, with different numbers of slots and capacity per crate block.
So our regular storage has our "average" capacity and 35 slots.
Then we have a bulk storage with, say 5x capacity but only 1 slot.
And "ore storage" with 3x capacity and 8 slots.
And I was thinking a "station storage" which has an unlimited number of slots, but had way more mass. (Or rather, it also adds mass for the volume in the storage, so all the storages can use the same two crate IDs.)

That would be very cool, however, wouldn't it be a bit hard to implement?

 

[Valiant70]

That would be very cool, however, wouldn't it be a bit hard to implement?

Nope. That's pretty simple. Well, except for the blocks increasing in mass. That might require some engine edits as there are no blocks that do that currently.

 

[GRHayes]

Now i saw this was planned on the map update thing, but i recently checked and it was removed. I would like to remind you guys why this would be useful for the game and incorperative gameplay.
One example would be for a large factions mining purposes.
You can always stick a bunch of containers on any ship, and yes, i relise that, but what happens when you have a large dedicated ship, with room to fit multiple of medium sized miners, comes in, with hundreds of containers? What happens if you can only carry 10000 blocks of a stack at once (IMO, each block is 1 cubic meter, each stack is 10 000 cubic meters, theres something like 35 inventory/hotbar slots, thats over 300 000 cubic meters that you carry on your back. Bit unrealistic, is it not?) So, 1000 containers, 10 000 items per stack, 30 stacks per container, That 1000 containers there will hold 3 billion resources.

Now imagine if there was a limit to those incredibly unrealistic containers too. And say, a new system came up where a new block (cargo container) holds 48 blocks of storage per container block. That certainly would be incentive to have dedicated cargo carriers, which also involves more teamwork.

Heres the fleet idea with this suggestion:
Flagship/Capital Ship
A few larger ships like battleships
An escort army of frigates/corvettes
A drone army of fighters (Improved ai for this)
Support ship (Shields and Power)
Cargo Carrier to hold all the loot and quickly bring it back safely to homebase after the fight
A mining ship to gather the loot (unless your going to toat half broken ships to keep XD)

This allows the gameplay to be more than just your offensive and the cleanup crew, but you need a carry crew as well.

I know many players dont like this idea, but if it was perhaps config options on the limits, it might reduce server lag from large stacks of items, and also allow combat servers to invoke more teamwork among members.

Oh, and you know how people kinda frown about eating planets 24/7? This will solve it unless you just stick a few thousand cargo containers on the back of the miner. But then, the miner still has a large limit, and if they want to keep on adding containers, they have to keep on adding thrusters and power to maintain a speed. If they have 2 players, 1 doing cargo runs and 1 doing the mining, you can have more efficient mining as well as teamwork between players.

It is only unrealistic if you go by our current technology level. Have you ever heard of time-space compression. NASA is currently working on a model for a warp drive system that uses time-space field manipulation.
In short if the container uses space manipulation the only limit to what can be stored in the container would be the power required to maintain the fields to create the spacial pocket.

 

[TomW1605]

the only limit to what can be stored in the container would be the power required to maintain the fields to create the spacial pocket.

are you saying that storages should use power depending on the amount of stuff in them?

 

[max stripe]

are you saying that storages should use power depending on the amount of stuff in them?

o hell no

 

[TomW1605]

o hell no

i agree i just was asking for clarification of what he was saying

 

[GRHayes]

are you saying that storages should use power depending on the amount of stuff in them?

It wouldn't be an issue if so many things weren't nerfed to death. If you could get the full amount even just full 80% out of power modules and shield rather than 40% and less. Considering spacial compression coils would be using basically a super conductor to create a strong EMF field power consumption can be quite low especially for what we are talking about in comparison to warp drives. If you had to spend 1e/sec to get a full stack out of a box vs having to put in however many boxes.

As far as the original OPs post going complaining about it being unrealistic no matter what you put in the box is going to be unrealistic considering the box is 1 square meter if we were going by that standard only 1 thing would fit in it meaning boxes would be useless if we looked at realistic storage values.

If they implement a wait system then ships will need to have adequate power to compensate for that.

I'm not saying something doesn't need to be done but they need to look at the complete picture before doing it and causing side issues from it.

 

[Bench]

Our plan is pretty simple for cargo, don't see the point of over-complicating things.

 

[Valiant70]

considering the game has no teleportation

Well, we actually have a *LOT* of teleportation if you think about it. You can put cargo boxes kilometers apart on a large station and teleport items between them freely. For some reason almost no one can stand the idea of physical pipes.
[DOUBLEPOST=1445181721,1445181183][/DOUBLEPOST]I have two suggestions on the matter of cargo:

1. Don't use stack limits in bulk cargo systems. Instead, limit the total number of items and maybe the number of different item types. This is an electronic system, not a Minecraft chest, so there's no reason to list a single item type many times. Stack limits might be appropriate for small, personal-scale containers, but not for large cargo systems.
2. Use a physical connection to transfer items within structures as well as between multiple structures. We need to break the trend of ugly, magic-pipe-ribbon thingamajigs in this game. Lack of a proper pipe/conduit system for moving stuff around leaves a blemish on a very building-oriented game. Those pipes are fun to work with unless they're just designed badly.

 

[lilheartless]

Well, we actually have a *LOT* of teleportation if you think about it. You can put cargo boxes kilometers apart on a large station and teleport items between them freely. For some reason almost no one can stand the idea of physical pipes.
[DOUBLEPOST=1445181721,1445181183][/DOUBLEPOST]I have two suggestions on the matter of cargo:

1. Don't use stack limits in bulk cargo systems. Instead, limit the total number of items and maybe the number of different item types. This is an electronic system, not a Minecraft chest, so there's no reason to list a single item type many times. Stack limits might be appropriate for small, personal-scale containers, but not for large cargo systems.
2. Use a physical connection to transfer items within structures as well as between multiple structures. We need to break the trend of ugly, magic-pipe-ribbon thingamajigs in this game. Lack of a proper pipe/conduit system for moving stuff around leaves a blemish on a very building-oriented game. Those pipes are fun to work with unless they're just designed badly.

I agree with this tons having a basic storage system like the applied energistics mod for minecraft makes way more sense too be honest "stack limits" have never actually made sense in any game i mean really why can i carry 2000 1x1x1 blocks of pure stone in my inventory but only 40 swords i mean really.....