Legacy Storage?

[Kirazy]

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember a dev post regarding legacy gear. If I remember correctly, the devs said they did foresee players putting mods into legacy gear and sending that gear to alts, but they did not foresee bound mods being placed into legacy gear and/or those bound mods being removed by the alt and placed into a different piece of gear the alt already had. When they realized this happening they simply allowed it to continue, rather than putting a halt to it.

 

I cannot find the exact statement, but I did find several links that would tend support my memory:

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=454232

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=496053

 

http://www.*********.com/forums/mmo/star-wars-old-republic/swtor-exploits/348554-transfer-bm-wh-mods-between-alts-using-legacy.html

 

This possibility was reported the very same day patch 1.2 (and legacy items) came out.

 

From what I can remember, it went up the chain for investigation, and came back as "working as intended" due to the relatively high costs involved in desocketing the components.

 

From someone in the thread you linked, which doesn't support the "oh, that was unintended but we'll allow it".

[Kirazy]

I've outlined a couple of these now a couple of times so please actually READ before asking the same redundant questions over and over. That's about 3 of you doing so now directly to me without actually referring to my concept(s) / possible reason(s) and telling me why it is/isn't a stupid idea which could actually progress the debate instead o running it in the circles they seem to be going in as you all can't seem to ignore the points you have no answer for.

 

In the time that I have been following your posts you have not stated what you believe the intended use case is. You have stated why you think it is an exploit... by (as you did below) referring to entirely unrelated game systems. Please, for the class, restate your belief for what the intended use case is. Failure to do so will continue to lead me to believe you don't have one.

 

Because I don't know where you originally posted it, and I'm not re-reading this thread to try and maybe find it.

 

Knowing some of the monumentous bugs the game has come out with ( and stayed in for quite some time ) is it a push for them to have neglected to think that adding bound items to a BoL shell would have made the shell bound? You know kinda like when you add in rating 169 mods etc. the gear becomes 168? It obviously didn't but whether or not this was intentional or not is the debate at hand.

 

What does item rating have to do with this? You call that a major, monumental bug? It's entirely possible they were entirely ignorant of that possibility. I'm a little skeptical no one thought of it.

 

Anyway let me ask a few basic questions and maybe progress things further since I'm bothering to answer those that address questions to me directly but none of you seem to want to address my counter points.

 

1. If this BoL item transfer allowing bound mod etc. transfer was intended ... why haven't they made a better system? Or why didn't they make a better system to begin with? Yes it's a money sink but it's such a stupidly awful way of sending bound mods etc. that I personally find it hard to believe that this was the design choice ( where as simple X cost based on gear level rating to unbind it to BoL would be much smarter ).

 

Why haven't they made a better system for handling customizing your appearance? Why are we stuck with modable gear as opposed to an appearance tab and a gear tab? Why do we have such an inferior dye system when compared to other mainstream MMO's, where we can only have one module, and the modules aren't customizable and we take what we're given?

 

A system that isn't entirely, perfectly convenient and is in fact quite kludgy is the norm for Bioware with regards to this game.

 

2. Again if this was the intended concept and they were heading down this line of thought why have they said no to allowing bound item transfer? You could argue this thread has about 60-70% weighting FOR sending bound items between legacy so if it had the community support AND they were already wanting people to do this why now stop it?

 

They have said that, as far as 2.9 is concerned, that it will not be possible. And then, what you and others seem to be ignoring, they stated they are still discussing it internally and the decision is not yet final. To wit, they're not the ones saying "it will never happen!" That would be you and those who support your position. Bioware isn't among those.

 

3. CM Crystals cost CC's to unlock for legacy yet you can send those via the BoL "loophole" and not pay the CC as intended. Would you also say this was an intended measure? To allow people to not spend CC's?

 

I don't think that is working as intended, however there is a cost to doing it in that way. You have to do it for each character, you have to extract the crystal from the weapon for it to be added to collections, and there is a credit cost associated with it. It's an enormous hassle and simply unlocking it account wide is much simpler.

 

Those are the main points I can think of against why this was never an intended concept anyway. I look forward ot your rebuttal/reply.

 

Your points talk about unrelated systems saying "THESE DONT SEEM INTENDED, THEREFORE THAT WASN'T INTENDED!" It's a fallacy and not relevant. I've answered them in any case.

 

Now, please, for the class, restate what you think the use case is? Cause I haven't seen you do so, and I'm not hunting for it.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Kirazy

[Ratajack]

From someone in the thread you linked, which doesn't support the "oh, that was unintended but we'll allow it".

 

That second thread, from which you pulled the quote, was from JUL of 2012, more than three months AFTER the introduction of legacy gear, and even HE did not have the actual statement, not any links.

 

Much like I did, he simply posted what he remembered. I'm not saying that my memory is any more accurate than his, or that his is more accurate then mine. We both posted according to what we remembered.

 

I do find it ironic that you take his memory as gospel, yet try to dismiss my memory. I can't help but wonder if that is because my memory disagrees with your claims as to the actual and factual intent of legacy gear, and therefore "cannot be right".

 

 

Check this site from April 2012, shortly after the introduction of legacy gear:

 

*********.com/forums/mmo/star-wars-old-republic/swtor-exploits/348554-transfer-bm-wh-mods-between-alts-using-legacy.html

 

replace the asterixes with owned core (all one word, obviously--apparently the censor is working overtime)

 

Again, I'm not saying that my memory is correct, but it seems that there was some speculation, at least, that transferring bound mods using legacy gear might be considered an exploit.

 

EDIT: could not get the link to paste, so just typed the address

Edited July 17, 2014 by Ratajack

[Kirazy]

That second thread, from which you pulled the quote, was from JUL of 2012, more than three months AFTER the introduction of legacy gear, and even HE did not have the actual statement, not any links.

 

Much like I did, he simply posted what he remembered. I'm not saying that my memory is any more accurate than his, or that his is more accurate then mine. We both posted according to what we remembered.

 

I do find it ironic that you take his memory as gospel, yet try to dismiss my memory. I can't help but wonder if that is because my memory disagrees with your claims as to the actual and factual intent of legacy gear, and therefore "cannot be right".

 

 

Check this site from April 2012, shortly after the introduction of legacy gear:

 

*********.com/forums/mmo/star-wars-old-republic/swtor-exploits/348554-transfer-bm-wh-mods-between-alts-using-legacy.html

 

replace the asterixes with *********

 

Again, I'm not saying that my memory is correct, but it seems that there was some speculation, at least, that transferring bound mods using legacy gear might be considered an exploit.

 

EDIT: could not get the link to paste, so just typed the address

 

I consider his memory more reliable than yours because his statement was made only months after introduction. Yours, made today, is several years. Memory fades and changes and becomes more unreliable as time increases from the initial event.

 

I personally wasn't involved with the forums heavily at the time but no one in game talked in hushed tones about it that I can recall.

 

As to the link, I would love to read it but can't because it's censoring the domain.

[Ratajack]

I consider his memory more reliable than yours because his statement was made only months after introduction. Yours, made today, is several years. Memory fades and changes and becomes more unreliable as time increases from the initial event.

 

I personally wasn't involved with the forums heavily at the time but no one in game talked in hushed tones about it that I can recall.

 

As to the link, I would love to read it but can't because it's censoring the domain.

 

See my edited post for the censored portion. My apologies for the faulty link.

[MeNaCe-NZ]

In the time that I have been following your posts you have not stated what you believe the intended use case is. You have stated why you think it is an exploit... by (as you did below) referring to entirely unrelated game systems. Please, for the class, restate your belief for what the intended use case is. Failure to do so will continue to lead me to believe you don't have one.

 

Because I don't know where you originally posted it, and I'm not re-reading this thread to try and maybe find it.

 

 

In the time it took you to type all that out you could have found it.

You can find all posts by users from their profile screen also quite easily.

 

What does item rating have to do with this? You call that a major, monumental bug? It's entirely possible they were entirely ignorant of that possibility. I'm a little skeptical no one thought of it.

 

I'm getting the idea now I'm arguing with someone completely in capable of thinking outside the square or putting too much thought into anything for that matter but I'll humor you further.

 

You take bound items to a shell it increases the armor rating based on said item. All I was doing was making a possible link that the devs may have thought the same thing would have occurred when taking bound items to a BoL shell ... it would become bound.

 

All we can do is make assumptions currently because either way no one can prove anything without specific Dev word. Even your previous post of some thread that some user working off some memory stating it was working intended != Dev stating so.

Although funnily enough "working as intended" is often the easiest thing to say when you don't want to admit you are wrong and have to fix something in Dev speak.

 

Why haven't they made a better system for handling customizing your appearance? Why are we stuck with modable gear as opposed to an appearance tab and a gear tab? Why do we have such an inferior dye system when compared to other mainstream MMO's, where we can only have one module, and the modules aren't customizable and we take what we're given?

 

A system that isn't entirely, perfectly convenient and is in fact quite kludgy is the norm for Bioware with regards to this game.

 

Right so you aren't going to actually answer the question. That's cool.

 

To answer your further questions *sigh* it would appear to me at least that those things do what they are clearly intended to do. e.g. the appearance station changes your appearance albeit if you aren't happy with how it exactly works. However the BoL gear as being the sole means to transfer bound items? That doesn't even come close to being in the same ballpark as an appearance designer for designing your appearance.

 

You sir are grasping at straws and failing to grab any.

 

They have said that, as far as 2.9 is concerned, that it will not be possible. And then, what you and others seem to be ignoring, they stated they are still discussing it internally and the decision is not yet final. To wit, they're not the ones saying "it will never happen!" That would be you and those who support your position. Bioware isn't among those.

 

Be that as it may if it was something they were intending and meaning to put in then they would have gone down that avenue don't you think? Saying they might do it later seems to me to be a means to restrict the whining somewhat yet we're still over 40 pages ... might be at 80 if they blatantly said no.

 

Again though you've not actually managed to answer WHY they have said no if they want people to transfer bound items. Would be easier and less argument to say YES.

 

Also we aren't saying it will never happen. We are saying we would prefer it didn't and some are going as far as to say they should close the loophole they made in the first place.

 

I don't think that is working as intended, however there is a cost to doing it in that way. You have to do it for each character, you have to extract the crystal from the weapon for it to be added to collections, and there is a credit cost associated with it. It's an enormous hassle and simply unlocking it account wide is much simpler.

 

Oh so that's not intended but bound items must be? So then why have they not fixed it to use your own earlier argument against you? I mean logically if you think the bound transfer works as intended and tried to imply it must be intended because they haven't fixed it then logically the CM item transfer must be intended also because they haven't fixed that either right? Regardless of if it's simpler to just unlock it - there is still an arguably higher cost to do so with CC's than credits being CC's are more closely linked to real world money.

 

Your points talk about unrelated systems saying "THESE DONT SEEM INTENDED, THEREFORE THAT WASN'T INTENDED!" It's a fallacy and not relevant. I've answered them in any case.

 

Now, please, for the class, restate what you think the use case is? Cause I haven't seen you do so, and I'm not hunting for it.

 

I talk about unrelated system? Says the guy talking about appearance designers, dye systems and other MMOs? Right ... Not sure what tangent you are going on but it's the wrong one.

 

As for this whole restating things and class business please stop trying to turn this in to a popularity contest and acting like you are trying to belittle or embarrass me in front of everyone else ( assuming anyone else is actually reading ). At this stage I'm addressing your points and you directly so speaking out like I have to answer to this whole multitude of other people is just somewhat childish. If you want to find the posts I've stated the information you want go look for it and stop being so damn lazy.

 

If "the whole class" would like me to do so by all means let me hear the whole class say so. I'll go for 15 people asking to warrant a "class" heh. *waits for trolls*

[ivanhedgehog]

Which is why we have color dyes.

 

My most recent Mercenary on the Progenitor, using what would appear to be the Rakata Eliminator / Combat Medic armor set. The dye may differ ever slightly but comes close enough for me.

 

Most of which were designed by stevie wonder.

[ivanhedgehog]

Right so the multitude of bugs and issues that Bioware DON'T fix are only bugs and issues when they suit the people raising them? Or maybe they are all working as intended? As we know there are many from years ago ( have a read of the customer service threads or bug sections from time to time )

massive snip

 

I could be wrong but food for thought, not entirely sure on the whole timeline thing here but I would have thought if this whole BoL thing was an intended thing we would see a lot more BoL gear around ( but we won't as it impacts upon CM gear ).

 

Also I never said BW were ignorant of it for years, I'm saying like many things they haven't bothered to fix it as they have deemed it a) not worth the time trouble as in their eyes it doesn't do any major harm b) would cause too much of an uproar amongst the altoholics if they did change it. If you think they couldn't possibly have missed it in testing heh ... you don't play this game much do you? Anyone remember how successful the 16m GF was? OK that example could be argued not tested over server load so how about something else recent to my mind ( and others would have way better examples I'm sure ) in the awesome launch of the DF/DP ops on the live servers ... those were completely doable and well tested right?! Heh get real.

 

they hated the bug so much they added bugged offhands to the gree vendor.......ya right

[Manweth]

Play any other MMO with account storage.

 

NO GAME EVER ALLOWED TRADING of BoP items. Ever. Period. Zip it.

[Ratajack]

they hated the bug so much they added bugged offhands to the gree vendor.......ya right

 

I'm not going to say it was a bug or an unforeseen use of legacy gear, but I also will not claim that transferring bound mods was intended or foreseen from the inception of legacy gear.

 

What might have been a bug, or an unforeseen use of legacy gear when legacy gear was introduced may well have become accepted by the devs. Acceptance by the devs would make it no less a bug, or an unforeseen use of legacy gear, though.

 

Once acknowledged by the devs as acceptable, even if unintended, to use legacy gear to transfer mods, it would make sense to add other legacy gear for moddable slots, not already covered.

Edited July 18, 2014 by Ratajack

[BuriDogshin]

I'm not going to say it was a bug or an unforeseen use of legacy gear, but I also will not claim that transferring bound mods was intended or foreseen from the inception of legacy gear.

Any so-called "bug" that makes your paying clients happy automatically transforms into a marketable feature.

This is a well-known axiom of commercial software development.

[Ratajack]

Any so-called "bug" that makes your paying clients happy automatically transforms into a marketable feature.

This is a well-known axiom of commercial software development.

 

This I know.

 

The fact that a "bug" can transform into a marketable feature does not necessarily make that "bug" intended from the inception as some people are claiming, though.

[GrandLordMenace]

They should really make it so that you can set where your crafted items or mats land, IE if you want you can send your characters crewskilling, set them to automagically send mats to the legacy bank, that way you don't have to play the login logout dance to transfer mats to the bank!

[MeNaCe-NZ]

The fact that a "bug" can transform into a marketable feature does not necessarily make that "bug" intended from the inception as some people are claiming, though.

 

True enough. The odd bit here then is why they wouldn't develop on said marketable feature. I would guess because of the the reasoning of why they made items bound in the first place - and surely it's not just so you can't sell it on the GTN or send it to friends otherwise it would all be BoL anyway.

 

So the point on it not being further developed in all this time certainly gives credence to that it probably was unintentional but decided to be left in.

 

I do wonder how different things would be if you couldn't use this method though ( in terms of the value of GTN items and activity in the earlier, now neglected, content ). I guess some parallel universe holds those answers.

 

They should really make it so that you can set where your crafted items or mats land, IE if you want you can send your characters crewskilling, set them to automagically send mats to the legacy bank, that way you don't have to play the login logout dance to transfer mats to the bank!

 

^^ This is a great idea though you would still need to ideally login/out to send them crewskilling in the first place. It would at least save on having to find a point to send things to storage. Even when I'm often on fleet on my main it's a pain just to run from the GTN to the lockers to store crafted items or having to shift them all around to suit in my inventory. Much easier if it auto went to storage as you say.

 

I think someone else mentioned in this thread about also being able to know how much of X item you have regardless of where it is. I think that could be developed upon to at the very least say you put something into legacy storage it automatically stacks it regardless of what bay it's in ( currently you can have for example 33 of each item in 3 different bays and have to try notice amongst the multitude of different icons which are the same and need to be stacked together ). A more awesome solution would be it stacks it all to 1 selected place regardless of if it's in cargo lockers or legacy storage but that's probably pushing my wishlist a bit much.

Also more sorting items would be helpful. For example I've got so much CM items I every now and then pull out to check values on and sell if worth it but I often miss them because the current sorting options don't always group them together ( quality or value ) so sorting by CM type would help here. I'm not in game right now but is there even an alphabetising option?

[LordArtemis]

As of Game Update 2.9, you cannot place or "transfer" BoP items through your Legacy storage. I will say that this issue is something that we will continue to discuss internally and could potentially change in the future.

 

Folks....this doesn't mean they didn't allow it and that is the end of it. The post clearly states they are going to continue to talk about it and could potentially change it in the future.

 

That means it's still up in the air. Might be allowed eventually, might not. FOR NOW it will not be allowed.

 

It's silly to ignore the actual post IMO.

[ivanhedgehog]

Play any other MMO with account storage.

 

NO GAME EVER ALLOWED TRADING of BoP items. Ever. Period. Zip it.

 

they could start a trend!!!! there will always be a first.

[ivanhedgehog]

True enough. The odd bit here then is why they wouldn't develop on said marketable feature. I would guess because of the the reasoning of why they made items bound in the first place - and surely it's not just so you can't sell it on the GTN or send it to friends otherwise it would all be BoL anyway.

 

So the point on it not being further developed in all this time certainly gives credence to that it probably was unintentional but decided to be left in.

 

I do wonder how different things would be if you couldn't use this method though ( in terms of the value of GTN items and activity in the earlier, now neglected, content ). I guess some parallel universe holds those answers.

 

 

 

^^ This is a great idea though you would still need to ideally login/out to send them crewskilling in the first place. It would at least save on having to find a point to send things to storage. Even when I'm often on fleet on my main it's a pain just to run from the GTN to the lockers to store crafted items or having to shift them all around to suit in my inventory. Much easier if it auto went to storage as you say.

 

I think someone else mentioned in this thread about also being able to know how much of X item you have regardless of where it is. I think that could be developed upon to at the very least say you put something into legacy storage it automatically stacks it regardless of what bay it's in ( currently you can have for example 33 of each item in 3 different bays and have to try notice amongst the multitude of different icons which are the same and need to be stacked together ). A more awesome solution would be it stacks it all to 1 selected place regardless of if it's in cargo lockers or legacy storage but that's probably pushing my wishlist a bit much.

Also more sorting items would be helpful. For example I've got so much CM items I every now and then pull out to check values on and sell if worth it but I often miss them because the current sorting options don't always group them together ( quality or value ) so sorting by CM type would help here. I'm not in game right now but is there even an alphabetising option?

 

these are the same devs that made rare crafting mats that were never used to craft anything..you could only sell them to a vendor.

[Kelbun]

Please note: If this has been asked and answered please bare with me.

 

Exactly....EXACTLY how big will legacy storage be? 200 slots like our current Storage? Or will it be more? Crafting mats alone I will probably fill 200 slots. I am hoping its more. And can Credits be stored there as well?

[Khevar]

these are the same devs that made rare crafting mats that were never used to craft anything..you could only sell them to a vendor.

That reminds me, just last week I found a stack of Hollinium on a toon I rarely use.

 

I remember when 2.0 was on the PTS, there were all sorts of theories about what it might eventually craft.

 

Yeah ....

[BuriDogshin]

[Regarding BoL items being a bug:]

So the point on it not being further developed in all this time certainly gives credence to that it probably was unintentional but decided to be left in.

BoL Gree offhands and the filling out of the BoL Mainhands selection so that all classes have BoL mainhands: that constitutes "further development" by any reasonable definition. Were you not aware of these recent developments?

[MeNaCe-NZ]

BoL Gree offhands and the filling out of the BoL Mainhands selection so that all classes have BoL mainhands: that constitutes "further development" by any reasonable definition. Were you not aware of these recent developments?

 

Well you got me there, they added a few more BoL items so no doubt this was their plan all along! Crafty ole BW. Good spotting!

Of course that does rely on if you believe adding more of the same ( legacy items ) constitutes "further developement" but hey, meh, minor inconvenience.

Personally following the trend that BW uses of "further development" I would only believe it if I saw "Hardmode" and "Nightmare mode" bind on legacy items.

[BuriDogshin]

Well you got me there, they added a few more BoL items so no doubt this was their plan all along!

That's what you say, but not what I ever said. All I pointed out was your erroneous statement that there had been no further development of Bind-to-Legacy gear. There has been.

 

Feel free to make any conclusions you like from that, since you do not seem to mind being demonstrably wrong.

[Count_Mario]

If they add some check for CM items and only them to be put into the vault if they are properly unlocked, then I see a great value in a legacy storage system. It would also help to fullfill to different wishes often brought forward, like being able to change any outfit into BoL and by that way, it would also be a viable substite for a much more difficult to implement Appearance Tab. I am no programmer, but I believe it would be easier and less problematic to upgrade a Legacy Vault to something that can store any kind of armor, instead of working on two other projects that may never fit into the schedule.

 

If they combine a Collections unlock for armor, weapons or toys with the ability to put a certain item into the vault it would also generate a lot of money by increased demand of Unlocks. And allowing us to pass on Legacy gear, they would most certainly see higher sales of CM gear.

[undiess]

If they add some check for CM items and only them to be put into the vault if they are properly unlocked, then I see a great value in a legacy storage system. It would also help to fullfill to different wishes often brought forward, like being able to change any outfit into BoL and by that way, it would also be a viable substite for a much more difficult to implement Appearance Tab. I am no programmer, but I believe it would be easier and less problematic to upgrade a Legacy Vault to something that can store any kind of armor, instead of working on two other projects that may never fit into the schedule.

 

If they combine a Collections unlock for armor, weapons or toys with the ability to put a certain item into the vault it would also generate a lot of money by increased demand of Unlocks. And allowing us to pass on Legacy gear, they would most certainly see higher sales of CM gear.

 

If it was that route - then they just might as well make the account unlock for CM gear basically convert the gear to BoL instead of BoP when you get a set from collection. It would seem a lot easier for both Bioware and for players.

[Count_Mario]

If it was that route - then they just might as well make the account unlock for CM gear basically convert the gear to BoL instead of BoP when you get a set from collection. It would seem a lot easier for both Bioware and for players.

 

Well, that might constitute a problem with retroactively changing already multiplied items or not?