open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Make packaged containers smaller
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Owledge
Posted - 2010.12.19 23:18:00 - [1]
 

It is really funny: Containers that are bigger on the inside than on the outside are the same size packaged than they are assembled. Shocked ugh
OK, I tried to explain the first by saying that a container allows a very space-efficient storing of goods. Although one might wonder whether without containers cargo will just slide around on the floor of the ship's cargo hold, but alright, containers are more space-efficient than whatever is standard in a ship's cargo hold.
But why, although containers can be assembled/repackaged, do they take the same space after repackaging than they do when assembled? I mean, they're empty containers and thus predestined for massive size reduction through disassembling.

Mikkaras
Amarr
Wreckage Reclamation Enforcement Consortium
Gentlemen's Interstellar Nightclub
Posted - 2010.12.21 09:21:00 - [2]
 

100% agreement. Containers should have smaller packaged sizes than assembled sizes just like ships. What do you do with an empty box? You break it down so it takes up less space while being moved or stored. Currently the only benefit of repackaging is stacking, with no volume reduction.

The RP explanation of containers being bigger on the inside is actually that they ARE bigger on the inside - if you've ever tried to put one inside another, you get a message referring to them as "Planck containers", implying the use of some future tech that allows this to happen. But I see no reason for this to forbid a disassembled container from taking up a fraction of its current space. After all, it's currently impossible to acquire certain containers (station warehouses, etc) at certain stations which have no manufacturing lines to produce them on-site. Being able to disassemble and move them AT ALL would be very nice, in addition to the benefits for smaller containers.

Lorelei Lee
Posted - 2010.12.22 15:04:00 - [3]
 

Agreed. However, I think there's a problem where containers get automatically assembled if jettisoned or falling out of a blown up ship. If you put enough containers in your ship and get blown up, that'll lag the node significantly. So it makes sense that CCP would want to cut down on the number of containers you could carry at a time.

One way to solve this, and improve immersion at the same time, is to make the collapsing factor nonlinear. It takes as much time for a server to assemble a tiny container as a huge one, so huge containers can afford to be more compressible than tiny ones. This means you can carry much bigger containers than before, while the maximum *number* of containers you can carry does not go up by a lot.
Immersion-wise, just like boxes, containers' volume when packaged should be proportional to their surface area when assembled. That means for an 8x increase in assembled volume, you should get a 4x increase in packaged volume. For example (m3 assembled --> packaged):

100 --> 50 (2x) (Small Standard Container)
325 --> 109.70 (2.96x)
650 --> 174.15 (3.73x)
1,500 --> 304.11 (4.93x)
3,000 --> 482.74 (6.21x) (Giant Secure Container)
120,000 -> 5,642 (21.25x) (General Freight Container)
1,000,000 -> 23,208 (43.09x) (Station Container)

... and so on.

Gemberslaafje
Vivicide
Posted - 2010.12.22 15:55:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Lorelei Lee
Agreed. However, I think there's a problem where containers get automatically assembled if jettisoned or falling out of a blown up ship. If you put enough containers in your ship and get blown up, that'll lag the node significantly. So it makes sense that CCP would want to cut down on the number of containers you could carry at a time.

One way to solve this, and improve immersion at the same time, is to make the collapsing factor nonlinear. It takes as much time for a server to assemble a tiny container as a huge one, so huge containers can afford to be more compressible than tiny ones. This means you can carry much bigger containers than before, while the maximum *number* of containers you can carry does not go up by a lot.
Immersion-wise, just like boxes, containers' volume when packaged should be proportional to their surface area when assembled. That means for an 8x increase in assembled volume, you should get a 4x increase in packaged volume. For example (m3 assembled --> packaged):

100 --> 50 (2x) (Small Standard Container)
325 --> 109.70 (2.96x)
650 --> 174.15 (3.73x)
1,500 --> 304.11 (4.93x)
3,000 --> 482.74 (6.21x) (Giant Secure Container)
120,000 -> 5,642 (21.25x) (General Freight Container)
1,000,000 -> 23,208 (43.09x) (Station Container)

... and so on.


Careful with the Freight/Station containers, I'm not sure if they'd want you to actually move those without the proper kit (With this scheme, you can actually put a few packed Freight containers into Iterons, and Station Containers into a freighter)

Also, the Planck generator makes sure that there's more space inside the box then it's size - but maybe the Planck generator is as big as the containers themselves are.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.12.22 16:36:00 - [5]
 

the only things that shrink when packaged are ships. Maybe this is why it hasn't been implemented?

if containers shrink, then the code may do the same to modules.

Like many other good ideas here, a "nice to have", but not a priority IMO.

Owledge
Posted - 2010.12.22 20:55:00 - [6]
 

The thing is: It makes sense to make an exception for the containers just like for ships, because ships are huge, and containers are, too, because of their special purpose of carrying content.
And about the jettison/loot thing: Why not just treat them as a packaged item? When you carry disassembled containers and your ship is destroyed, the loot would contain disassembled containers. And if you jettison then, the same here. Disassembled containers inside a jetcan.

By the way, I commented somewhere else I think, about the fact that no modules shrink in size when repackaged. Is there a special reason why a module that was installed in a ship and removed again, maybe with only seconds in-between, without having been damaged, isn't automatically repackaged? The hangar is usually filled with so many items, so browsing through them while they're mixed with extra stacks and assembled modules makes it less ergonomic. And because of the interface delay, because every action has to be synchronized with the server, frequent select-all->repackage->yes->stack-all becomes a pain.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2010.12.22 21:16:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Glyken Touchon
the only things that shrink when packaged are ships. Maybe this is why it hasn't been implemented?

if containers shrink, then the code may do the same to modules.

Like many other good ideas here, a "nice to have", but not a priority IMO.

I sincerely doubt that they have split the database into "Ships" - "Everything else", but you never know Very Happy

A 5:1 ratio should be more than sufficient for supplying outlying areas with containers, which I presume is the primary reason for suggesting it.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only