I don’t know if I’ve seen this proposed elsewhere in the forums, but the idea is (should be) simple.
Problem: I have, like many others, a ton of ships at my home base. The ship hanger has about 100 ships currently (I know I should sell some, but which ones??).
Request: The ability to create sub-hangers within the ship hanger to organize ships. This is in the same theory as the multitude of containers for all of the other in game objects. As an example I might choose to organize based on job type ie: Mining ships, PvE ships, PvP ships, and Capital Ships. There are obviously a bunch of other choices on how to divide ships.
Sub-Request: Some similar method of doing the same thing within corporate divisional hangers that have fit ships within them.
The game does not do well with nested containers. It’s the main reason you can’t put cans inside cans. While the idea may be simple the implementation would not be
Basically what Lugh said. Ships are already a container type, and can hold 1 level of additional container within them, for a total of 3 tiers of storage depth (Hangar storage → ship storage → container storage). Anything deeper than that leads to issues with the asset system’s ability to locate and act upon objects. It is sadly not a simple fix - a fairly sizable overhaul of the entire asset management system would be necessary to add viable nest levels and not break all the asset lookup features.
One might think ‘well, instead of adding levels, simply add tags to items that I can filter them by so I get the same organization without actually moving the objects!’. That is also sadly not entirely functional in current asset configuration because packaged items are incapable of having unique characteristics (you don’t actually have ‘items’ when they are packaged - you have a tally for the ID of the item in the asset storage DB, which is multiplied against the volume and value settings for the ID to determine occupied space and estimated value characteristics). Only unpackaged items could potentially have this kind of tag; and while that could help with storage filtering, I’m not sure it would be enough of an improvement in current features (naming each ship to include the desired tag and leveraging the existing search function) to be worth development effort at this point in time.
