Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[landryraccoon]

I'm curious why cargo and fuel capacity is a soft cap and not a hard cap.

Is there any situation where you would go over cargo or fuel capacity in the game that isn't just a misclick? The supply cost for being over capacity is so punishing that it has to be a misclick or newbie mistake every single time.

The only situation I can think of where you should go over cap would be at a station where you for example take a trade mission you don't have cargo space for. For that case, I think the excess should go into storage at the station automatically (or you simply cannot accept a mission where you don't have the cargo capacity which is reasonable).

Can anyone give me an argument why cargo capacity is a soft cap and not a hard cap?

[Insolent Peon]

I'm of the opinion that cargo should be a hard cap, while fuel should be a soft cap that starts taking cargo space when you go over. Kinda like how you can carry a gas can in the trunk of a car.

[BigBrainEnergy]

The only situation I can think of is if you're looking at your cargo and decide it's best to dump all the extra supplies you have because everything else is more valuable. In that case the soft cap burning through supplies faster is still better than just dumping them into space.

[Grievous69]

Another example is immediately after a fight where you need to do a lot of repairs but also don't want to get rid of valuable items, it's better to take everything and let the supplies bleed out while fixing your ships, than to take just right but after 2 days you'll notice you could've taken so much more.

[Fotsvamp]

In the case of having too many supplies after a fight, I tend to jettison the overflow and then useing the option of putting them in stable orbit.

If they were just going to burn from going over the limit, I may as well just leave them in space, I can then either pick them up after repairs have eaten some, or have a stash of supplies which may come to use for pretty much no extra cost.

[Wyvern]

Personally, I'd say the primary use-case for these not being hard-caps is specifically the case of "when you're docked at a market". Instead of needing to add a bunch of special corner case code, the game just displays that you're over-cap on crew/cargo/fuel if you put a bunch of ships into storage, and you can resolve that by storing stuff or taking (presumably other) ships out of storage, or buying new ships, or selling things, or etc.

Or the case where there's a cargo mission for 800 units of whatever, and I currently have 780 space free; I can just take the mission, then maybe temporarily add expanded cargo hold to a combat ship, or sell off 20 units of something, or even just buy another ship.

[Princess of Evil]

If over-limit cargo supply consumption were scaled to actual cargo, i'd understand having it. As is, supply consumption per unit seems to be scaled towards a destroyer fleet.

[Goblin]

I'm of the opinion that cargo should be a hard cap, while fuel should be a soft cap that starts taking cargo space when you go over. Kinda like how you can carry a gas can in the trunk of a car.

This is an excellent idea! Personally, I rarely (if ever) exceed my fleet's cargo storage, but there are times when I would like to bring more fuel than allowed by my fuel cap. Being able to bring more fuel in return for cargo storage would be great, and it makes more sense than the current system.

[Grievous69]

Why even have fuel capacity stat at that point? You'd also never need a tanker since everything fits into cargo space. With the way the system works right now, that makes little sense to me.

Car analogy is also bad because usually all the fuel you have in a car is in the reservoire. It's not Mad Max where people bring gas tanks with them.

In Starsector that "space" for storing fuel is already accounted for in the fuel capacity stat. Surely it wouldn't be smart to store antimatter fuel in the same place where you store metals, supplies, etc.

[landryraccoon]

Going over cap when you're docked at a market is the only scenario that makes sense to me. After a fight you can simply jettison cargo and come back for it later if you really think it's that valuable.

At the market, you could either 1) not let you undock while you are over cap or 2) automatically place excess into storage.

[BigBrainEnergy]

After a fight you can simply jettison cargo and come back for it later if you really think it's that valuable.

Most of the time this is true, but not always. You could have a bunch of ordos actively chasing you, which would make it difficult to circle around and pick the supplies back up, as well as missions that are running out of time so you can't afford to loiter.

[Serenitis]

No thanks.
I like being able to pick up a pile of stuff, and then toss the bits I don't want overboard in a single action without being forced to play an inventory minigame.

[Nettle]

I'm of the opinion that cargo should be a hard cap, while fuel should be a soft cap that starts taking cargo space when you go over. Kinda like how you can carry a gas can in the trunk of a car.

Both the navy and air force usually have dedicated tankers for on-the-go refueling. Even if you transport fuel for commercial purposes, you will use a tanker truck. Just storing it in hundreds of separate cans isn't the most efficient way to go about it, no one moves large quantities of fuel like that.

[Insolent Peon]

Both the navy and air force usually have dedicated tankers for on-the-go refueling. Even if you transport fuel for commercial purposes, you will use a tanker truck. Just storing it in hundreds of separate cans isn't the most efficient way to go about it, no one moves large quantities of fuel like that.

I never said there couldn't be downsides to going over the fuel cap. Poor cargo space to fuel ratio is one possibility, given that antimatter would require special containment equipment. Another possibility is taking extra hull damage during battle, since it's not stored as safely. I envision tankers as still being the optimal route, otherwise there would be no point to their existence if you could get the same results from an Atlas as a Prometheus. But the nature of the Persean Sector is such that people don't always have access to the right tool for the job.

[Alex]

Personally, I'd say the primary use-case for these not being hard-caps is specifically the case of "when you're docked at a market". Instead of needing to add a bunch of special corner case code, the game just displays that you're over-cap on crew/cargo/fuel if you put a bunch of ships into storage, and you can resolve that by storing stuff or taking (presumably other) ships out of storage, or buying new ships, or selling things, or etc.

Or the case where there's a cargo mission for 800 units of whatever, and I currently have 780 space free; I can just take the mission, then maybe temporarily add expanded cargo hold to a combat ship, or sell off 20 units of something, or even just buy another ship.

No thanks.
I like being able to pick up a pile of stuff, and then toss the bits I don't want overboard in a single action without being forced to play an inventory minigame.

Right, yes - the whole point of this mechanic is just to make the UI actions you need to take nicer. And to remove a bunch of potential for bugs because, oh boy, are there *lots* of ways in which you can gain cargo/fuel in the game (or lose capacity), and if being overcap is an invalid state, that would be *such* a headache. Both to code and to use as a player, really.