There are 570 blocks in the game at the moment(at least visible via the creative inventory). 310 if you count multi-blocks as a single block.
For a specific run-down(this is assuming I didn't miss any multi-blocks that have an invisible block with them like the trigger multi-block does):
204 single blocks
54 two-block multis
2 four-block multis
50 five-block multis
Storage units previously had 35 slots per unit which means it'd take a minimum of 17 units to hold one stack of each type if the multi-blocks were no longer usable in normal gameplay. Again though, that's to have one stack of every item in the game and the average player isn't going to bother with having one of everything so we can cut the functional amount down by about half. Even if we were needing to use the 17 storage units, if the idea of dealing with that many is too daunting, perhaps you should play in creative mode(for clarification this a generic, "you," and not meaning you specifically Chriss).
Now, to pre-empt the, "But the numbers will grow as we add new colors!" argument:
With the current setup, adding a new color will add no more than 5 blocks per color maximum. Big whoop.
I may install a previous build to see if I can verify that since I find it hard to fathom having 310 blocks fit into 35 slots. Now if you're talking about having one storage that could pull the block you want via logic, that's something completely different than what I showed. You flat out complained about not wanting to have to scroll through a massive inventory when the new system made that possible.
Reread the suggestions I made. I accounted for that.
Replaced by a considerably larger amount of blocks that serve no purpose than to take up additional space and block count which, I'll admit, is my main gripe about the change. Honestly, the only reason I came up with a use of the cargo boxes was to not invalidate the time spent making them. I'd be perfectly fine with cargo spaces disappearing and storage units going back to 35 or so slots with a cap of say 50k per slot.
First, there was nothing forcing you to do that prior. If you wanted to, sure. Now? We are forced to make hundreds, if not thousands, of cargo spaces though. That reminds me of something I thought of when I went to bed yesterday: adding requirements for manufacturing items to need cargo spaces was kinda a jerk move. Efficiency modules should have covered that purpose.
Unfriendly how exactly? If you're meaning that my suggestion would be more resource intensive, you're woefully wrong. A storage unit costs 20 alloy and crystal, cargo spaces cost 2 each. To have comparable inventory space to even the low end of my suggestion(which would have been 30 slots per storage with max base stack-size of 1,000), you'd need one storage unit and anywhere between 14 and 74 cargo spaces give or take a few. I'm not pulling these numbers out of thin air either. Basic hulls have 50 volume, advanced hulls have 250. Multiply each of those numbers by 30,000 and you get 1,500 and 7,500 respectively. Thus we're talking about a player saving either 6 crystal and alloy or spending 148 more.
If you're talking about automation being more difficult to start up, it would be marginally more difficult but full-on automation should be something you work for and not just have handed to you.
As for it being more difficult and not fun end game? What on the earth is remotely intriguing about building thousands of cargo spaces? My suggestion rewards planning and designing supply chains, the new system rewards finding out of the way places to place cargo spaces.
Game design 101: Basic things should get easier with progression. Ease of access should be something a player needs to work for and not have handed to them. This is a part of your argument I don't understand in the slightest. You talk about wanting things to be simple when other systems(power and weapon linking) utilize are needlessly convoluted. A 4x4x4 cube of power reactors create less power than a line of 70 of them. Weapon barrels automatically link requiring players to design around that in order to have side-by-side beams.
Side tangent: Weapon linking could be handled in one of two ways:
1. Have orientation matter: If the, "open end," of a weapon module faces another module of the same type, it links. If it doesn't, it fires.
2. Add a new block, "Targeting Controller/Computer/Whatever. You then use the salvaging/cannon/etc computers to link a single "barrel"(in other words a single grouping of weapon modules) and slave a computer for each barrel to the TC which would be used in the hotbar to fire all slaved "barrels." Secondary/tertiary slaving would work the same with the exception of being needed for each barrel.
Riddle me this then: How do I, as a player holding 2,000 volume fit into a single cube that has more power capacity than 41 capacitor blocks(this number assumes the formula on the wiki is correct) and and has a volume of one tenth of a unit?
No no, don't bother answering because I'll do it for you. This is handwaved to facilitate gameplay.
I'm this close to writing up a lengthy bit about inventory abstraction, what it is, and why games use it. Instead, I shall list a few things that I've learned in Starmade that currently make little or no sense.
Things about Starmade that don't make "sense" that I've learned in three days:
1. The previously mentioned difference in output in power reactor arrangements.
2. The previously mentioned weapon linking. A 10x10 wall of cannons that each have their barrel pointing outwards fires.......one shot.
3. A ship can vastly increase its power regen by docking a ship core, adding a line of power reactors, a power supply computer and the associated modules to it and pointing the beam at the main ship.
4. I can take any block, place it on something and put a factory on top of it...unless said block is attached to a ship.
This is beside the fact that, again, my suggestion considered this, to an extent, and made it so that cargo spaces would be used to increase the capacity of a storage unit.
From my first post in this thread:
Probably a mix of that and it wasn't worth the time to be able to see what's in a box with such a small capacity for storage.
Yes, you do have that capacity. I'm not suggesting that you spend hours upon hours personally testing each and every thing you do but you guys do need to get some time clocked in regularly. I don't know how exactly your workflow is but it really needs to be done. What you're describing is akin to a manager telling employees how to do their job when the manager has little to no idea how the job is performed(which sadly drastically more than it should) or a chef who never tastes what they make. As developers, you have a unique insight in how the game works and leveraging that can mean the difference between a medicore or good game and a great game.
