Is Station container is "Planck" container?

Hmm… Never tried ) Cute. ) But case is it’s break the rule because double-wrapped courier package is already a double-nested object.

‘Why’ is because that’s how CCP coded the game - they elected to not have nested containers. That’s the reality we have to live with.

If you are trying to craft a suggestion to change this, I recommend cleaning up your first post to outline the issues itself, without all the circumstantial stuff about ‘here is how I discovered this behavior’, and provide a use case for the change. Declare the problem/impediment to play you want this change to address, what change you want to see, and how that change will address the problem/impediment.

1 Like

on contrary - it enforces the rule of no allowing multi-nested containers beyond 1 + a wrap. Afaik it is done that way so players cant avoid cargo scanners and for (evil) players to not break kill mails with infinitely nested stuff. To prevent further abuse - each container has a limit of 600 items with unique IDs (600 “slots”)…

Good idea.
And post where?

You are in the right place, just not really structured as a feature/change request at present. Your original post currently reads like a request for information, not a request for a change in game mechanics.

Woow!
You’r storehouse of knowledge ) DId you check it yourself (600 slots)?
I still don’t see any problem in nested containers (if that’s not planck - with “squeezed space” inside) because there’s no any possibility to set (take 2 it’s cargohold) there more volume then highest-in-nest container’s volume. Maybe just (for not allowing infininite nest) developers have to add some 0,01m (or some 1% from overall container volume) additional volume to any container if it have been put inside other container…
For example - if there’s 2 standard (with no squeezed space inside) containers both 30000 m.c. unpackaged volume they won’t fit inside each other because if it will be fitted inside other container it will add to it’s volume that 0,01 m.c. and will have 30000,01 m.c. that won’t fit (inside) same cargo volume container. BUT! If it’s packaged (for example having 300 m.c. packaged volume) it (and more 98 of it) obviously HAVE TO FIT inside same unpackaged one counting:

(300 m.c. + 0,01 m.c.)*(1+98)=29700,99 m.c. that obviously fits to 30000 m.c. (unpackaged container cargohold) container.

I don’t see any problem doing it as PACKAGED container IS JUST AN ITEM and NOT CONTAINER (it can’t have anything inside as it already packaged) as it known in the game.

But somewhy packaged container (that’s just like some wrecks) have been perceived by the game as NOT item but as some nest-possible object besides it’s not at all (repeat - packaged NOT-PLANCK container have not to have any limits about placing it inside other - assembled - container, because it’s ORDINARY ITEM OBJECT).

Is it good enough?

I remember that i wasnt able to create a courier contract with more than 600 items without using a container for some of them several years ago. IT might be contract limitation and not a container one.

Logically, it seems as if it easy to do. But then it comes down to having to alter 17-years-old spaghetti code and the way server deals with items. Introducing a change for the sake of change is bound to create a ton of problems along the way (dont fix something that aint broken).

That’s why after product has being released it’s good time to start optimizing a code (sure it’s good @beta stage already but… if not… at least after release) )))
And fixing a code errors what (i want to believe) CCP do right now hardly and not just ‘sucks in’ their spaghetti [code] and feast it others with just spicing it with some graphics.

Still can’t see a problem to make packaged containers a ‘just an item object’ (and not nested-one) making them possible to place it inside another (nested one object) container, because it literally (different image, different name, why not different attributes and category? for example: ‘packaged containers’) totally other object then nested-object itself…

Packaged items dont have any attribute other than item ID and quantity. The whole stack of them has a unique ID in database (that can be changed if you split stack several times and stack it back together in different order). I assume that limitations inside containers work with itemIDs and server doesnt differentiate between packaged and assembled containers.

In theory it should be possible to specifically re-check restricted IDs whether they are assembled or not. It may be possible explain the situation about packaged containers to devs and file it as bug report. As for assembled containers - i think they are fine as they are now.

I love these. It’s such an easy fix, just click click done.

It’s even better when it is followed up with “well I’m a programmer so I know…”

That’s not problem at all. There’s “GROUPID” (besides itemid field you r writing about) field already exists in the database that can fix such problem in a moment (just set one group value for packaged, next group value for assembled, next group value - for ‘planck’ containers). So… I don’t understand why CCP doesn’t do it.

Agreed.

So… You like to not to have opportunity to deliver packaged containers inside assembled containers?
So… Do you like to carry everything in your hands instead of packing your stuff inside some bag when you r on vacation going to relax?

That’s not about “i’m programmer” but about naturality of game behaviour (for not making newbies thinkg - WHAT’s A DUMB GAME).

Irrelevant to my post

Irrelevant to my post.

No it’s about people saying things like,

As if they understand the underlying issues or conflicts. You “don’t see a problem” as if CCP can wave a wand and make it so.

If it was easy I’m sure they would have no issue making that change. I am not a programmer, however I’ve dealt with SQL databases enough to know often these situations are not trivial. It largely comes down to cost/benefit like every other decision in any software development decision.

Hmm… ANd I thought forums is for discussion of more game possibilities rather than CCP excuses from the mouth of capsuleers )

Ehm… Is CCP here? No? SO why we talking about their ‘problems’?

I think that’d be a good such function (possibility to place packaged containers anywhere - even @ other containers) to do in a game. What do you think (don’t write that CCP excuses please. I need YOUR EXACTLY and NOT CCP opinion)?

You wrong ) If everything would be easy in the game - who’d paying them a money for more possibilities then ? $) THat’s a developers task - to make a game most complex for the player for him to pay for little simplification (paying subscription). Didn’t you know? $)))

But making a game compex they somwhen just forget about some simple things to do.

Players (and forums) exists right for that tasks - for capsuleers have opportunity to tell developers about some nice things ‘to do’ a game more beautiful and pleasant.

About sql (from view of): I repeat: while container is packaged - that’s not a nested object - so no any resource-affected ‘investments’ problems exists while placing such (packaged) containers inside other (assembled which are nested objects in that case) containers.

So… “You like to not to have opportunity to deliver packaged containers inside assembled containers?” That’s exactly relevant to your post. If your post is your opinion and not a CCP excuses.

Sure discussion is fine. You lost the plot however when you went down the path of arguing a fix is easy and there is no reason they shouldn’t do it.

Would I like to be able to put containers in containers? sure. Would I even presume to understand if this is something doable in the game and be worth the effort? Of course not.

I just supported a:

as this is a discussion.

Thank you )

Not very well, as Ms_Steak effectively agrees with my assessment, that none of us knows the feasibility in the code to make such a change.

But if you are now saying you agree, then everyone here is in agreement. Would it be nice? Sure. Is it possible for CCP to do? no clue.

/discussion

But do we talk about fears CCP is experiencing or about ‘what to be nice’ in a game here? )
Everything that have a logic - can be programmed. That’s for sure. Only obstacle not doing it that can exists - is lazyness of ones who program it. Yep, we really don’t know how lazy CCP are but, as I said, we don’t talk here about CCP itself, we talking about their product and things that can be (done) better inside it. If someone (CCP that case) won’t be too lazy to do it.

Talking to Ms_Steak and discourcing about possible ways of such feature implementation we (her and me) just helping CCP to save their time on their own discuccion ‘about paths of doing it’ and focus on it’s implementation exactly choosing one of the way proposed by us.

Yep - that’s one of the thing why forums exists - to steal someone’s ideas who showed negligence posted valuable ideas at shared forum ) (however - do us a favor - steal our ideas, but implement such feature please!)

Ideas for better management of inventory have been around longer than I have been playing the game - nested containers, partitioned containers, etc… For industrial players, it’s virtually impossible to sort your materials, blueprints and finished goods unless you create your own ALT corp.

CCP knows this. It’s possible they don’t want to change it, more likely it requires deeper surgery than they can tackle as one of CCP Karkur’s “little things” and is part of a more extensive overhaul that has spent the past several years struggling to make it to the top of the backlog - like Faction Warfare!

Priorities do change - module tiericide is back after several years buried in the backlog - so we can hope, but don’t expect!

Calling CCP lazy is not a win for you.

Making edits to a codebase that is over 17 years old is not as simple as you are pretending. The fact is that no change is minor - it requires research time to identify all of the impacted areas, time to actually develop the code update that will deliver the desired result within the existing framework, more time to test the code (though they don’t do a great job on this sometimes), and then finally time to package it into a deployment and get it out there.

All of that is at a COST to CCP - paying for a developer to do the research/coding/install. There is a finite number of man hours available, based on approved budget for developer hours, that have to be allocated based on a cost/benefit analysis. And they have to sink some hours just to get enough data to DO a cost/benefit analysis.

So don’t sit here and call them ‘lazy’ for not coding a feature that you think is ‘easy’ - you very clearly have no idea what you are talking about. The concept is simple, the execution may be as well (but knowing EVE it isn’t- the storage system is archaic), but is it really worth CCP’s time to do nesting non-Plank containers instead of any number of other changes? If the answer from CCP is ‘no’, that’s the result of a business decision process - not ‘CCP is too lazy to get it done’.

1 Like