Kirazy Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Meh, might have been nice, but no biggie to me. Besides, I might get carried away if i have access to all my credits on every single characters. I'd love to do away with my spreadsheet that tracks where all my money is. :C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Agreed. You can mail money... so... but... it can't go in the legacy storage... makes no sense. It may have to do with the restrictions on F2P and preferred. F2P and preferred cannot mail credits, and both F2P and preferred have credit caps. F2P player has two characters, the main who has 240K and an low level alt that has 10K. F2P player is getting close to credit cap with main, so he puts 225K in legacy storage. He then pulls that 225K out with his alt. Voila!! No mailing credits restriction circumvented. In addition, how do they measure legacy storage against the credit cap? Does what's in legacy storage count against the combined cap for all players? What happens when a subscriber who has 10 million credits in legacy storage drops to preferred? Does he lose access to those credits, even if he has one or more characters with less than the credit cap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuriDogshin Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 I suspect you don't know anything about Bioware's intentions, process, or what they could or could not have done, or why they did or did not do a thing. Not the issue. As a veteran coder, I can imagine a lot of reasons why Legacy-pooled credits would require additional coding beyond what was needed to implement Legacy Storage. If that additional coding didn't provide enough bang for the buck, in BW's opinion, then it makes perfect sense that they did not do it. One cause of the additional coding hassles may be F2P and Preferred players, as has been brought up in the forums. You can disagree with the decision, but not being able to see why it may make sense is just ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sambril Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Count me as disappointed in not being able to share credits through it also - but I'm not that surprised. It seems Legacy Storage is just a retooled Cargo Hold, except that it can be accessed by all characters in a legacy and cannot take bound to character items. One other disappointment for me is the level 15 limit on accessing my strongholds. While it certainly makes sense to have such a limit when acquiring a stronghold, I would like to be able to access my legacy storage (apparently only through strongholds) with my new alts, to pick up gear etc. and to possibly access any other active terminals that I may place. So if I already have a stronghold from a high level character I still must wait until 15 on a new alt even though they will never need to acquire their own stronghold (and may in fact not be able to if I already have all 4). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirazy Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Not the issue. As a veteran coder, I can imagine a lot of reasons why Legacy-pooled credits would require additional coding beyond what was needed to implement Legacy Storage. If that additional coding didn't provide enough bang for the buck, in BW's opinion, then it makes perfect sense that they did not do it. One cause of the additional coding hassles may be F2P and Preferred players, as has been brought up in the forums. You can disagree with the decision, but not being able to see why it may make sense is just ignorant. No, I can see why. I can also not care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 No, I can see why. I can also not care. Not care? I'm curious as to exactly what it is that you do not care? Is that you do not care if you can place credits in your legacy storage? Is that you do not care how difficult it would be to code that or what BW's reasons for not allowing credits to be placed within legacy storage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordArtemis Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Well, I am not demanding it certainly. Frankly I expected to be underwhelmed and they did not disappoint. Like I said before, at least I have some utility out of it, unlike GSF which was a waste of space in the game for me....well, not completely true. Got some nice Legacy armor sets for free out of it. So I guess that's something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirazy Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Not care? I'm curious as to exactly what it is that you do not care? Is that you do not care if you can place credits in your legacy storage? Is that you do not care how difficult it would be to code that or what BW's reasons for not allowing credits to be placed within legacy storage? Bro, you're speculating without restraint. Just because something can logically be considered difficult doesn't mean that is the reason the feature is not present. It might be. It might not be. Stuff should be done right. If it can be done easily, all the better. If not, it still needs to be done right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) Bro, you're speculating without restraint. Just because something can logically be considered difficult doesn't mean that is the reason the feature is not present. It might be. It might not be. Stuff should be done right. If it can be done easily, all the better. If not, it still needs to be done right. I did not speculate about anything in that post. I simply asked what is was that you did not care. How is that speculating about anything? If you are referring to my earlier post regarding the restrictions on F2P and preferred possibly having some bearing on the decision not to allow credits to be placed within legacy storage, you might want to read that post again, slowly this time, so as to allow comprehension. Please show me where I said "this is the reason" in that post. Second, I did not realize that you had been placed in charge of defining what is done "RIGHT". I guess congratulations on your promotion are in order. Edited July 19, 2014 by Ratajack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuriDogshin Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Frankly I expected to be underwhelmed and they did not disappoint. That is one of the secrets to having a happy life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivanhedgehog Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 It may have to do with the restrictions on F2P and preferred. F2P and preferred cannot mail credits, and both F2P and preferred have credit caps. F2P player has two characters, the main who has 240K and an low level alt that has 10K. F2P player is getting close to credit cap with main, so he puts 225K in legacy storage. He then pulls that 225K out with his alt. Voila!! No mailing credits restriction circumvented. In addition, how do they measure legacy storage against the credit cap? Does what's in legacy storage count against the combined cap for all players? What happens when a subscriber who has 10 million credits in legacy storage drops to preferred? Does he lose access to those credits, even if he has one or more characters with less than the credit cap? if they cant disable legacy bank for nonsubscribers they dont deserve to call themselves programmers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RbAKAMalachi Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Put the same credit caps that are already in place for each of the tiers of players that have a cap on the legacy storage and the problem of circumventing the the cap for F2P players is null and void. For me personally I have many toons on my main server each with varying amounts of credits and for me log in to each one and transfer credits is a bit of a hassle. For convenience sake legacy credit storage would be a much faster way to ensure I get the credits I need to say buy an item from the GTN that is expensive and in low stock before it disappears. Which I may not be able to do if I have to spend twenty minutes for example logging in and out of each of my toons transferring credits. Some people have more time to grind for credits or said item than others like myself who's play time is limited. As for whether this is a programming issue or if there is some other reason for not allowing this I don't know, because BW hasn't specified as of yet as to why it's not being allowed. Personally I'm not going to rage quit over it. I do feel, given what little information we have, that not allowing credit storage in the legacy storage system is a poor decision . One that BW should consider addressing and if possible changing whether it's down the road or in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deewe Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) Well, I am not demanding it certainly. Frankly I expected to be underwhelmed and they did not disappoint. And who's surprised? Does Strongholds blows? Not really. Could they'd be much like much much better? For sure. Would it cost more to develop than what we are getting? Not even. The funds and the time consuming went into the hook system from designing it, to coding it, then tagging all items with categories, setting prices, rarity and so on. A total waste of $$$. Bad design, bad management decisions. Edited July 19, 2014 by Deewe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordArtemis Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 That is one of the secrets to having a happy life. Hehe, no doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 if they cant disable legacy bank for nonsubscribers they dont deserve to call themselves programmers. I'm confused as to whether you are advocating that legacy storage be subscriber only or that putting credits in legacy storage be subscriber only. If the former, I doubt that legacy storage will be subscriber only. If the latter, what happens when a subscriber who has 10 million credits in legacy storage and decides to go preferred? Does he lose access to all the credits he put in legacy storage? I also would have liked to see that ability to put credits in legacy storage, but I also understand that there may have been valid reasons not to allow credits in legacy storage. I understand that it might be more difficult to code than some people seem to think it would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mdgshorty Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Hey folks, I know there are a few questions surrounding Legacy storage and although I can't answer everything here are some of the bigger answers: How do I get Legacy storage? You will get Legacy storage for free with the completion of the "Introduction to Strongholds Mission" upon acquiring your first Stronghold. Legacy storage will also be craftable and is possible to appear on the Cartel Market. (In both cases this means it would be available on the GTN for credits as well) If I add another Legacy storage to my Stronghold, does this add more storage space? It does not. Adding more Legacy storage "units" will simply add another access point, similar to how the cargo hold works right now. You can increase the size by adding more bays (more in the next answer). How big will it be? Legacy storage comes, by default, with one bay unlocked. That bay will have 80 slots in it. You will be able to purchase additional bays with credits or Cartel Coins. Can I transfer Bind on Pickup (BoP) items through my Legacy Storage? This is still being worked on/decided in development. We should have an answer on this soon™. I hope that answers most of the bigger questions you have. -eric I have a question about this. I see we get one bay unlocked, but how many bays will we be able to unlock. I hope we can have more that 5 bays total. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Put the same credit caps that are already in place for each of the tiers of players that have a cap on the legacy storage and the problem of circumventing the the cap for F2P players is null and void. For me personally I have many toons on my main server each with varying amounts of credits and for me log in to each one and transfer credits is a bit of a hassle. For convenience sake legacy credit storage would be a much faster way to ensure I get the credits I need to say buy an item from the GTN that is expensive and in low stock before it disappears. Which I may not be able to do if I have to spend twenty minutes for example logging in and out of each of my toons transferring credits. Some people have more time to grind for credits or said item than others like myself who's play time is limited. As for whether this is a programming issue or if there is some other reason for not allowing this I don't know, because BW hasn't specified as of yet as to why it's not being allowed. Personally I'm not going to rage quit over it. I do feel, given what little information we have, that not allowing credit storage in the legacy storage system is a poor decision . One that BW should consider addressing and if possible changing whether it's down the road or in the near future. Credit caps may have something to do with their decision, but they might not. If credit caps were a part of the reason for their decision, it may also be that credit caps were not the only reason they made the decision they did. It might have also had something to do with the restrictions against mailing credits, even to your alts. it might not have had anything to do with the mail restrictions. If the credit caps were part of the reason, how do they put the same caps in place if it's LEGACY storage and ALL of your characters can contribute? How do they determine the "total credit cap"? Do they only go by the base number of character slots each tier has available or do they look at each account individually to determine the "total credit cap"? What happens when a subscriber has credits in legacy storage and drops to preferred? If the mailing restrictions were part of the reason, then how do they prevent the circumvention of those mailing restrictions via legacy storage? How do they prevent the preferred player from putting 300K credits in legacy storage with his main, and withdrawing them with his alt? if your answer is to restrict F2P and preferred from utilizing the "credit storage" of the legacy storage, then what about that subscriber who decides to drop to preferred? Does he lose access to those credits he may have in legacy storage since he would no longer be able to utilize the credit storage of the legacy storage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deewe Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Credit caps may have something to do with their decision, but they might not. If credit caps were a part of the reason for their decision, it may also be that credit caps were not the only reason they made the decision they did. It might have also had something to do with the restrictions against mailing credits, even to your alts. it might not have had anything to do with the mail restrictions. If the credit caps were part of the reason, how do they put the same caps in place if it's LEGACY storage and ALL of your characters can contribute? How do they determine the "total credit cap"? Do they only go by the base number of character slots each tier has available or do they look at each account individually to determine the "total credit cap"? What happens when a subscriber has credits in legacy storage and drops to preferred? If the mailing restrictions were part of the reason, then how do they prevent the circumvention of those mailing restrictions via legacy storage? How do they prevent the preferred player from putting 300K credits in legacy storage with his main, and withdrawing them with his alt? if your answer is to restrict F2P and preferred from utilizing the "credit storage" of the legacy storage, then what about that subscriber who decides to drop to preferred? Does he lose access to those credits he may have in legacy storage since he would no longer be able to utilize the credit storage of the legacy storage? If sub_type = F2P then max_credit <= 300000 else rickroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordArtemis Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 If I were designing the feature, the legacy bank would have been limited to 500k if you were preferred (the rest in escrow) with it's own unique withdrawals (another set of items they could sell) and completely disabled for free players (all credits in escrow). That is the way it could have been done IMO. Naturally subs would have had no credit cap. I also would have allowed repairs and purchases that can draw directly from the legacy bank instead of your own credit pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 If sub_type = F2P then max_credit <= 300000 else rickroll F2P have a cap of 250K per character. They have 2 characters slots available and can have an additional 10 slots, for a total of 12. That would be up to 3 million credits total. Yet, you want to cap them at 300,000? How do you determine the "total credit cap"? Do you say that all F2P are capped at 500K, regardless of he number of character slots they have? Do you look at each account individually and set the "total credit cap" to the 250K multiplied by the number of character slots, which would require MUCH different coding and would, IMO, be much more difficult to code. Do you count credits in legacy storage against the "total credit cap" or is each character still able to hold 250K in addition to what is the legacy storage? How do you keep the restriction against directly sending credits to your alt in place? If F2P player A can put credits in the legacy storage with his main and withdraw them with his alt, that would effectively circumvent the credit mailing restrictions that apply to F2P and preferred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 If I were designing the feature, the legacy bank would have been limited to 500k if you were preferred (the rest in escrow) with it's own unique withdrawals (another set of items they could sell) and completely disabled for free players (all credits in escrow). That is the way it could have been done IMO. Naturally subs would have had no credit cap. I also would have allowed repairs and purchases that can draw directly from the legacy bank instead of your own credit pool. Again, preferred players cannot send credits, even to alts. Allowing preferred players to place ANY amount of credits in legacy storage would effectively allow them to bypass this restriction. Preventing preferred and F2P players from utilizing the credit storage would have major implications for those subscribers who choose to drop to preferred. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with this decision. I'm only saying that I understand some of the possible reasons why BW made the decision they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deewe Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) F2P have a cap of 250K per character. They have 2 characters slots available and can have an additional 10 slots, for a total of 12. That would be up to 3 million credits total. Yet, you want to cap them at 300,000? How do you determine the "total credit cap"? Do you say that all F2P are capped at 500K, regardless of he number of character slots they have? Do you look at each account individually and set the "total credit cap" to the 250K multiplied by the number of character slots, which would require MUCH different coding and would, IMO, be much more difficult to code. Do you count credits in legacy storage against the "total credit cap" or is each character still able to hold 250K in addition to what is the legacy storage? How do you keep the restriction against directly sending credits to your alt in place? If F2P player A can put credits in the legacy storage with his main and withdraw them with his alt, that would effectively circumvent the credit mailing restrictions that apply to F2P and preferred. Oh crap we have to redo the whole engine and totally revamp the DB design because we need to lower the credit cap to 250k, we are so doomed! More seriously, it's not that difficult to implement a (eventually capped) credit sharing between characters and set up a few functions, DB rows and UI tweakings. Some of us know pretty well how game design, producing, 3D design, engine development, DB management, network handling, backups disaster recovery, QA and well everything tied to building and maintaining MMO works. No need for technical excuses, it's becoming annoying to have people keeping stating it's difficult BioWare are doing their best. The producer and lead designer doesn't want it or doesn't have the needed $$$ (read work effort) to add it now. As simple as that. Edited July 19, 2014 by Deewe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Oh crap we have to redo the whole engine and totally revamp the DB design because we need to lower the credit cap to 250k, we are so doomed! More seriously, it's not that difficult to implement a (eventually capped) credit sharing between characters and set up a few functions, DB rows and UI tweakings. Some of us know pretty well how game design, producing, 3D design, engine development, DB management, network handling, backups disaster recovery, QA and well everything tied to building and maintaining MMO works. No need for technical excuses, it's becoming annoying to have people keeping stating it's difficult BioWare are doing their best. The producer and lead designer doesn't want it or doesn't have the needed $$$ (read work effort) to add it now. As simple as that. Ok. Then you get a viable working legacy storage with credit storage that maintains ALL the credit restrictions that F2P and preferred players have and give to BW so that they can implement credit storage. I'm betting that you won't do that, though. It is much easier for you to sit here and complain on the forums that BW is screwing you over and that " it's not that difficult to implement ". BTW, while I can see possible reasons why BW made the decision that they did, that does not mean that I am not a little disappointed with that decision. Vice versa, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anaesha Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 Oh crap we have to redo the whole engine and totally revamp the DB design because we need to lower the credit cap to 250k, we are so doomed! More seriously, it's not that difficult to implement a (eventually capped) credit sharing between characters and set up a few functions, DB rows and UI tweakings. Some of us know pretty well how game design, producing, 3D design, engine development, DB management, network handling, backups disaster recovery, QA and well everything tied to building and maintaining MMO works. No need for technical excuses, it's becoming annoying to have people keeping stating it's difficult BioWare are doing their best. The producer and lead designer doesn't want it or doesn't have the needed $$$ (read work effort) to add it now. As simple as that. You keep saying things like this but do you even have any actual real world experience in coding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deewe Posted July 19, 2014 Share Posted July 19, 2014 (edited) Ok. Then you get a viable working legacy storage with credit storage that maintains ALL the credit restrictions that F2P and preferred players have and give to BW so that they can implement credit storage. I'm betting that you won't do that, though. It is much easier for you to sit here and complain on the forums that BW is screwing you over and that " it's not that difficult to implement ". BTW, while I can see possible reasons why BW made the decision that they did, that does not mean that I am not a little disappointed with that decision. Vice versa, as well. Look, I just want this game to be better, like not fair, but even better than what's out there. It's getting old each time they add something in game, they do it worse than what we can find in other games, even games that are 10 years older. There's no excuse to that. IF at least they'd do smaller things but highly polished it would be fine. But no they keep under-delivering and shooting themselves in the foot and in the process they waste precious resources ($$$). There are some very good concepts in the legacy strongholds, alas ruined by the general take on this feature. So in the end it makes it a so so feature, and that's the issue. Edited July 19, 2014 by Deewe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts