Marlowe Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 We should be able to deposit credits in there. Ideally, in fact, we should have a unified wallet for the whole legacy, but being able to deposit credits there would be a good start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 We should be able to deposit credits in there. Ideally, in fact, we should have a unified wallet for the whole legacy, but being able to deposit credits there would be a good start. This has requested many times, and the devs have so far said they will not be adding legacy credit storage. I think this may have to do with the restrictions for F2P and preferred. F2P and preferred cannot transfer credits bewteen characters. Allowing legacy credit storage would bypass that restriction. Some have suggested that legacy credit storage be subscriber only, but that still leaves the issue of what happens when a subscriber who has credits in legacy storage drops to preferred. Do they hold all the credits that player has in legacy storage "hostage" until that player resubscribes? Do they allow that player to bypass the restriction against transferring credits between characters by allowing him to withdraw credits on any character? I'm guessing that they are simply choosing not to open that can of worms when subscribers can simply mail credits between characters now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heat-Wave Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 I think this may have to do with the restrictions for F2P and preferred. F2P and preferred cannot transfer credits bewteen characters. Allowing legacy credit storage would bypass that restriction. So we're going to harm players who pay for the game in order to hold up something against those who don't? What kind of backwards business thinking is that? Some have suggested that legacy credit storage be subscriber only, but that still leaves the issue of what happens when a subscriber who has credits in legacy storage drops to preferred. Do they hold all the credits that player has in legacy storage "hostage" until that player resubscribes? Yes and yes... Sub only, if you drop sub, those credits all go into escrow, you can get them out by resubbing, or by buying escrow unlocks. If you're not paying for the game, then you really can't complain about it, now can you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnkiduNineEight Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Its easy enough to email your own characters credits if needed. I understand and agree with the restrictions put in place to encourage non-sub accounts to sub. If this was in place they could have an end around their f2p/preferred restrictions so this is not a big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 So we're going to harm players who pay for the game in order to hold up something against those who don't? What kind of backwards business thinking is that? What harm to players who pay to play the game? The fact that you actually have to <GASP> mail those credits to your alt? Oh, the horror. How dare the devs expect you to actually type a few letters to send those credits. Don't they know you DESERVE to have legacy credit storage, no matter how it affects any other players or how difficult it may be to code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vornamen Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 How dare the devs expect you to actually type a few letters to send those credits. Don't they know you DESERVE to have legacy credit storage, no matter how it affects any other players or how difficult it may be to code. Well - for one, the mail system in this game sucks. I have to type the full name and spelling, for characters I own, every freak'in time. Even chrome will remember my pre-populated fields. Second, the moment I hit send, it drops me back to the mail inbox... which if I have items to send I have to click back, retype the name, do it again. And all that mainly because the number of slots is limited to 8. Pain in the ***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 Well - for one, the mail system in this game sucks. I have to type the full name and spelling, for characters I own, every freak'in time. Even chrome will remember my pre-populated fields. Second, the moment I hit send, it drops me back to the mail inbox... which if I have items to send I have to click back, retype the name, do it again. And all that mainly because the number of slots is limited to 8. Pain in the ***. The mail system auto populates names for me. Maybe I'm just lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneirophrenia Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) The mail system auto populates names for me. Maybe I'm just lucky. *Only* if the characters you're mailing is in the same guild or friend list and the same faction. There are many of us who have characters in different guilds and both factions. Auto-populated does not work in those instances. It's high time for BW to remove the credit mailing restriction for F2P/Preferred anyway. With the limited amount of credits they can hold, this supposed method to curb credit selling activities is flat out redundant if not pointless. Then there is also the fact that even F2P/Preferred players can make friends in the game who can in turn help them circumvent that restriction. I do it all the time for two of my preferred friends. Long version short, maintaining particular restrictions on F2P/Preferred is no excuse for not implementing a QoL feature, especially one that is very much expected given how hard BW has been pushing Legacy for nearly everything else. Edited October 13, 2014 by Oneirophrenia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 *Only* if the characters you're mailing is in the same guild or friend list and the same faction. There are many of us who have characters in different guilds and both factions. Auto-populated does not work in those instances. It's high time for BW to remove the credit mailing restriction for F2P/Preferred anyway. With the limited amount of credits they can hold, this supposed method to curb credit selling activities is flat out redundant if not pointless. Then there is also the fact that even F2P/Preferred players can make friends in the game who can in turn help them circumvent that restriction. I do it all the time for two of my preferred friends. Long version short, maintaining particular restrictions on F2P/Preferred is no excuse for not implementing a QoL feature, especially one that is very much expected given how hard BW has been pushing Legacy for nearly everything else. The credit restrictions, both the number of credits a preferred or F2P can have and the restriction against transferring those credits, are one the few remaining incentives to subscribe. IMO, they should not be removed. I do not object to the idea of a legacy credit storage. In fact, I would welcome it, provided that it can be implemented in such a way as to maintain the current F2P and preferred restrictions against transferring credits between characters, and not punish anyone who drops from sub to preferred. The decision not to implement legacy credit storage was made by the devs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muljo_Stpho Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) Let's see, what was that scheme I thought up in another topic just like this one...? So while it would be a significant change in how things work, this idea for legacy credit storage would involve an overhaul on the escrow system. The general setup might look something like this: * Each character has their own personal wallet (same credit restrictions on free/preferred as there are right now) * Each character on a free/preferred account has a personal escrow account (2mil and 3mil for the limits?) Subscribers will skip this one. * Each legacy will have a legacy escrow account (aka legacy bank). These will have use restrictions rather than having capacity restrictions. The rules would then look something like this: * Similar to how it already works, free/preferred's credits obtained will drop into their personal escrows if the character's wallet is maxed out and into their legacy escrow if the personal escrow is also maxed out. * Free/preferred can only interact directly with their personal escrow account. Direct access to legacy escrow is disabled. (It can only be accessed indirectly through personal escrow.) There is a fairly small withdrawal limit on the personal escrow (maybe 10k for free and 25k for preferred?). This will be seen as "funds authorized for immediate transfer" in the banking interface. If this value is below the limit for your account type when weekly resets happen, it will reset back to that value. The number may be raised above this limit by using one of the current escrow transfer items. When free/preferred uses the banking interface to make a withdrawal from escrow, funds are always pulled from personal escrow first before touching any credits in legacy escrow. As with current transfer rules, free/preferred may use these withdrawals to temporarily have more credits in their wallet than would normally be allowed. * Subscribers can interact directly with their legacy escrow account. The banking interface will allow them to deposit and withdraw with no restrictions. What happens when account type changes? Here are my thoughts: * Account goes from free to preferred: nothing happens besides getting the higher limits. * Account goes from free/preferred to subscriber: Each character's personal escrow is automatically emptied into their wallet since personal escrow will be disabled. * Account goes from subscriber to preferred: Credits in wallet over the limit are dumped into their personal escrow (and then into legacy escrow if over that limit as well). How would that sound? For a new free/preferred gathering credits there would be a buffer the size of the personal escrow account before they start putting credits into a place that the whole legacy can access (would it make sense to have the preferred's personal escrow be smaller than the free's personal escrow? so that reducing that buffer is a perk?), and even then their other characters will have transfer limits to deal with to obtain any of that money. Edited October 13, 2014 by Muljo_Stpho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneirophrenia Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) The credit restrictions, both the number of credits a preferred or F2P can have and the restriction against transferring those credits, are one the few remaining incentives to subscribe. IMO, they should not be removed. The credit limit for F2P/Preferred should not be removed (though the ceiling could use some adjusting given in-game inflation) but the emailing of credits should be taken out because like I said, it is a redundant restriction if BW is still intending on using "credit sellers" as the reason. That excuse simply doesn't have the logical backing given the plethora of other safeguards already in place. In any case, even after the "mail credit" restriction is removed, there are still many significant differences separating F2P from subscribers. Reduced XP gain (no rest XP), longer quick travel options, less crew skills, far fewer server character slots, lower commendation awards, retricted access to operations and warzones, just to name a few. All of those feature differences are important for F2P/preferred players whether they are crafters, end-game enthuthiasts, PVPers, or alt-holics and frankly, if they haven't subscribed by now, they probably never will. On the other hand, I highly doubt the lifting of a single "mailing credits" restriction is going to spur a bunch of existing subscribers to cancel, only to get bumped down to preferred and get hit with all those other limitations I listed above. Once you have tasted Kobe beef it is hard to swallow salisbury steak on a daily basis, at least for me. The decision not to implement legacy credit storage was made by the devs. Quite true. But it doesn't mean it was an informed and intelligent decision. In fact in my opinion, this decisions is on the level of "speeding in the HOV lane during rush hour while on a suspended license". Edited October 13, 2014 by Oneirophrenia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratajack Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 The credit limit for F2P/Preferred should not be removed (though the ceiling could use some adjusting given in-game inflation) but the emailing of credits should be taken out because like I said, it is a redundant restriction if BW is still intending on using "credit sellers" as the reason. That excuse simply doesn't have the logical backing given the plethora of other safeguards already in place. In any case, even after the "mail credit" restriction is removed, there are still many significant differences separating F2P from subscribers. Reduced XP gain (no rest XP), longer quick travel options, less crew skills, far fewer server character slots, lower commendation awards, retricted access to operations and warzones, just to name a few. All of those feature differences are important for F2P/preferred players whether they are crafters, end-game enthuthiasts, PVPers, or alt-holics and frankly, if they haven't subscribed by now, they probably never will. On the other hand, I highly doubt the lifting of a single "mailing credits" restriction is going to spur a bunch of existing subscribers to cancel, only to get bumped down to preferred and get hit with all those other limitations I listed above. Once you have tasted Kobe beef it is hard to swallow salisbury steak on a daily basis, at least for me. I think the credit caps are fine as they are. I do not think they need to be raised. If that F2P player wants to hold more credits, then they can fork over a few bucks to become preferred or even subscribe. If that preferred player wants to hold more credits, then they can subscribe. If you are not going to pay to play the game, then do not expect to get all the perks that those who do pay to play get. Quite true. But it doesn't mean it was an informed and intelligent decision. In fact in my opinion, this decisions is on the level of "speeding in the HOV lane during rush hour while on a suspended license". I must not have gotten the memo that anyone who does not agree with you must not be informed and intelligent or that any decision that does not meet with your personal approval cannot possibly be an informed and intelligent decision. I'm sure the devs had their reasons for not implementing a legacy credit storage. I doubt that they chose not to implement legacy credit storage just to aggravate you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oneirophrenia Posted October 13, 2014 Share Posted October 13, 2014 (edited) I think the credit caps are fine as they are. I do not think they need to be raised. If that F2P player wants to hold more credits, then they can fork over a few bucks to become preferred or even subscribe. If that preferred player wants to hold more credits, then they can subscribe. If you are not going to pay to play the game, then do not expect to get all the perks that those who do pay to play get. Inflation is a simple financial principle and yes, it does happen in MMOs, often times wildly and abruptly. Games that don't recognize this and adjust their policies accordingly will die off. Simply look to CoH/CoV and see what unchecked inflation did to the in-game economy. Many level 50 purple enhancement exploded from 5 million inf to 10 or even 20 inf million in matter of months. Paragon not only didn't address the issue, they actually exacerbated it by introduce the farm fest that is Mission Architect. Sure enough, the server population became noticeably smaller with each passing month and the game finally folded 2 and half years later. Now, if one day in the future of TOR the Free/Preferred credit cap of 250/350k becomes only enough to buy a rather basic cartel mount or crystal from the GTN due to inflation, who is going to stick around? Not everyone is going to take that as a motivation to subscribe, especially if they weren't attached to the game to begin with. It's not as if there isn't a plethora of other MMO competitors out there. I must not have gotten the memo that anyone who does not agree with you must not be informed and intelligent or that any decision that does not meet with your personal approval cannot possibly be an informed and intelligent decision. Regardless, the simple fact remains that the logic behind the decision remains poor. As I have already mentioned previously, BW has been attempting to integrate "legacy" into nearly every aspect of the TOR experience since the feature was first introduced back in upate 1.2. Legacy experience, legacy character titles, legacy strongholds, legacy cargo hold, legacy conquest objectives, legacy collection unlocks, legacy achievements, legacy attribute bonuses, legacy global unlocks, legacy character perks, legacy companions, legacy bound gear, the list goes on. About the only things that haven't been added to the legacy family of features is datacrons and friend/ignore lists. Yet when it comes to legacy credit storage, they're now telling us it is all of the sudden off limits? Seems rather inconsistent and arbitrary. That is the definition of poor logic and yes, those who are making decisions by utilizing such flawed logic are in fact opening themselves up to intellectual criticisms. If by removing the roadblock that is F2P/Preferred credit movement restriction may ultimately result in the implementation of this QoL improvement then so be it, remove away. Edited October 14, 2014 by Oneirophrenia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts