- Joined
- Dec 2, 2015
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 2
I have been, off and on for the last several hours been attempting to put my thoughts in order to go more in-depth as to why I consider the new inventory system to be inferior to the old one. Alas, I keep rewriting it and it's getting late for me and I'm no longer sure it's understandable so I'm going to condense it(Yes, this is condensed):
New system flaws:
- Zero scaling means that bases are going to utilize a considerably larger block count for no other purpose than to handle inventory. Between server limits and personal computer specs, this may become an issue in either reducing the amount of blocks available in a given area for aesthetic construction. The flat amount per cargo makes inventory management considerably harsher on new players or anyone starting fresh while turns into little more than a minor inconvenience for established players/factions. Increasing base capacity isn't a great solution due to...
-Less inventory management than before. While minor, on a base you may have had to locate a specific storage and perhaps set up feeder systems. Now? One storage can act as the input AND output for an entire supply chain. Slave enough cargo spaces to a single storage, slave it to your manufacturing blocks which you then slave(in addition to any docks) to the storage and you're done.
-What little management that does exist now focuses on a item stat you have to look at an item tooltip for.
A set of changes that would have achieved the stated goals of increasing inventory management a bit more:
-Reduce/implement a maximum stack size. Have it be drastically lower for player inventory.
-Reduce player slot amounts. 10-20 is enough. 30 or so would be fine for storage modules.
-Have cargo spaces add a fixed stack size increase to the storage they are slaved to.
-Augment the fixed stack boost with a scaling boost with diminishing returns. Smaller setups may only need enough storage modules(with a few cargo blocks) to have enough slots for every item while larger setups would need to run a supply chain if they want maximum block/storage.
-Require cargo spaces to have physical contact with the storage the group is linked to.
-Cargo spaces "fill up" first when determining mass on a ship.
-Remove multi-slot blocks from general use and allow them only in creative mode/shipyard designing.
This would remove early-game tedium that now exists while maintaining some relevance for those with larger amounts of resources while reducing the overall block usage devoted to mere storage. The physical connection requirement for the cargo space/storage link will cause players to make some design choices that are a bit more realistic compared to the, "weapon modules link upon contact," mechanic(I have an idea on that too but will wait till I wake up to mutter about). It also maintains the distributed mass on ships change that I do agree with.
And I'm about done. Off to bed after going against what I said earlier(I think) and comment on the power change:
Ok, now I'm done and off to bed. And yes, this was STILL shorter than my original post.
New system flaws:
- Zero scaling means that bases are going to utilize a considerably larger block count for no other purpose than to handle inventory. Between server limits and personal computer specs, this may become an issue in either reducing the amount of blocks available in a given area for aesthetic construction. The flat amount per cargo makes inventory management considerably harsher on new players or anyone starting fresh while turns into little more than a minor inconvenience for established players/factions. Increasing base capacity isn't a great solution due to...
-Less inventory management than before. While minor, on a base you may have had to locate a specific storage and perhaps set up feeder systems. Now? One storage can act as the input AND output for an entire supply chain. Slave enough cargo spaces to a single storage, slave it to your manufacturing blocks which you then slave(in addition to any docks) to the storage and you're done.
-What little management that does exist now focuses on a item stat you have to look at an item tooltip for.
A set of changes that would have achieved the stated goals of increasing inventory management a bit more:
-Reduce/implement a maximum stack size. Have it be drastically lower for player inventory.
-Reduce player slot amounts. 10-20 is enough. 30 or so would be fine for storage modules.
-Have cargo spaces add a fixed stack size increase to the storage they are slaved to.
-Augment the fixed stack boost with a scaling boost with diminishing returns. Smaller setups may only need enough storage modules(with a few cargo blocks) to have enough slots for every item while larger setups would need to run a supply chain if they want maximum block/storage.
-Require cargo spaces to have physical contact with the storage the group is linked to.
-Cargo spaces "fill up" first when determining mass on a ship.
-Remove multi-slot blocks from general use and allow them only in creative mode/shipyard designing.
This would remove early-game tedium that now exists while maintaining some relevance for those with larger amounts of resources while reducing the overall block usage devoted to mere storage. The physical connection requirement for the cargo space/storage link will cause players to make some design choices that are a bit more realistic compared to the, "weapon modules link upon contact," mechanic(I have an idea on that too but will wait till I wake up to mutter about). It also maintains the distributed mass on ships change that I do agree with.
And I'm about done. Off to bed after going against what I said earlier(I think) and comment on the power change:
While I'm new and all, I'm kinda surprised the reactor/power supply block combo is being advocated by a red name. I may have misunderstood the setup but from how it sounds it's essentially a ship entity that generates max energy and just shoots it back at the "mother" ship it's docked to. That honestly sounds more like an exploit than anything that should be considered a legit design strategy. Perhaps some looking into increasing capacitor usefulness is in order as was suggested above. I'd figure that power-wise the balance would be that small ships have more of their power recharge freed due to having less drain while larger ships have less "usable" recharge but have larger pool to work with. Part of that whole balance thing. Small fighters get consistent fire at the cost of limited amount while a larger ship with higher capacity may not regen as much(due to systems using up a portion of the regen rate) but have a larger pool with which they can work with to either deliver powerful shots, or a barrage of weaker ones.
Ok, now I'm done and off to bed. And yes, this was STILL shorter than my original post.
