I carefully organised about 130 stash tabs. I want to play legacy, I play offline and I don’t give a f* to rankings. I guess we’ll have to wait a few weeks/months to come back to this. I don’t know what people had in mind, but that’s very bad design.
1 Like
It’s been a while. Don’t know if they think we would forget eventually. But this still isn’t right and it still is fixable, at least in part with a gold injection.
I mean, how hard is it to determine how many stash tabs an account has purchased during cycle 1?
2 Likes
To be fair… in the big picture they can… and we will.
But I don’t think that’s what going on actually.
Rather I think that EHG has no logs on who had what in cycle 1 and hence can’t do anything even if they wanted about it since the back-end systems to allow it aren’t in place.
Gross oversight plainly spoken and something needed to be done before release… but the more likely reason then them being lazy or just not caring.
But all in all… it’ll leave some very disgruntled people - me included despite being not affected, since it’s a shitty situation which shouldn’t happen - behind and be a stain on their overall reception.
1 Like
Why would you need logs?
EHG knows how many tabs you had in cycle, since they’re still there as remove-only tabs. So all they would need to do is count how many there are and give you a gold refund for that amount.
I don’t think they will, though. They will simply improve their migrating system for 1.2 and let 1.1 be as is.
2 Likes
We would still like you to address this, EHG
3 Likes
Ok, just wanted to play some old build on legacy, and I noticed this stash tab thing. Damn this is beyond annoying. Why wasn’t this handled and communicated better ??
4 Likes
Because EHG messed it up… now won’t communicate further about the topic (for now) and likely wants people to forget about the situation.
Personally spoken a massive negative in my book for them.
2 Likes
I ended up buying new tabs it is what it is.
It would have been nice if i could have just moved a cycle tab over even it i had to pay for it
I can understand that just moving tabs over can be a complicated issue to some extent, especially if there already are legacy tabs and not all cycle tabs can be transfered 1:1 because of the different gold costs…
But just refunding the gold invested in cycle tabs would be a simple middle ground fix and should be easy to do, too.
1 Like
They could just have us copy the tabs with the structure, re buying everything and sorting items suck.
Second thing they need is a transfer character to offline feature, the online limit is too small as with permanent classes doing multiple builds is impossible with low online character space. Just let us move everything to offline after each cycle, problems with stashes would be also solved.
1 Like
Auto-transfer to offline is a really really bad idea. If I wanna play with friends and my character gets transferred to offline then that sucks after all.
So the legacy transfer is the only viable option. Also it relates to the preservation of value for your account in terms of online, even if most will never use it, the option to have that though is important.
If LE would transfer my character to offline from a cycle where I actually wanna engage in (rather then keeping on playing Legacy) then that’s a immediate situation where I’ll stop playing the game and never pick it up again until it’s changed because I for one do enjoy using the gathered stuff further on. If you remove that from me it’s a dealbreaker.
1 Like
Wasn’t talking about anything auto. Just give people to option to move their legacy characters offline to make space for a new cycle without having this whole stash issue and online space issue. After the cycle is over I do not need to play online anymore (I can play with other people in the new cycle) but having the character offline would be nice to go back to.
3 Likes
Yeah, opt-in for offline transfer (or doing it ‘whenever’) is fine, more then fine and something EHG should finally get done as it’s been a thing which should be possible since 1.0 when ‘true offline’ was introduced.
EHG has stopped communicating on the forums for the most part, because of all the toxic and entitled threads being created since launch.
They still communicate on discord, though.
Regarding this issue, recently Mike has said in reply to someone asking for gold refund for stash tabs:
“I just don’t understand where the expectation is coming from in the first place. It feels like this is being looked at this as though we’re withholding something that was earned. While I would think it’s more like we’re not giving double value for the tabs.”
1 Like
This is a official channel, so as a customer I can simply say ‘I don’t give a shit’ and be right about that, because it’s their forum, it’s their responsibility to upkeep customer connection here and on their discord, simple as that.
Which is a false statement.
A lack of understanding.
People bought the tab. It was ‘lost’ upon transition to Legacy.
You can’t use it anymore, you can only withdraw from it. Your value is gone.
Hence no, they’re actively ‘withholding’ said value people already invested and enforcing them to re-invest this value.
Now we have several situations:
A person has more tabs in legacy then in cycle - All is fine, their progress in legacy is further then in cycle, no need to act.
A person has the same amount of tabs in legacy like they have in cycle - still all fine, same stage.
And the problematic one:
People have less tabs in legacy then in cycle - Here it feels like shit, people complain and rightfully so. They got to ‘re-earn’ their status.
The same happens in Path of Exile, it feels bad to re-grind already done things.
Hence all unlocked crafting options you haven’t unlocked in Standard after a League gets converted over, you have it in Standard now, nothing ‘lost’.
Your Atlas status gets transported to Standard, no progression lost.
Your league mechanic progress also gets converted for those affected, items separately stored in a special tab for that. Hence you only need to slot the items back in.
Also your boss progress is kept.
A few small exceptions - which they need to fix - are existing… but that’s the standard way to handle those things.
So yes, that’s why people complain and I’ll stand fully behind those people who do. If you get back to 5 or 10 tabs from 100+ then that feels like crap.
The solution is simple: Ever got more tabs in cycle then legacy? You now got that exact number after merging. Not more. Not less. Just the number of tabs available.
Simple as that, all complaints taken care off, no mega-thread like this existing, no problem existing anymore.
This is a case of developers having a screwed perception to the situation at hand simply. A mistake from EHG.
6 Likes
Good summation at the start there.
There’s an even simpler solution: Just refund the gold people invested in cycle tabs to legacy players’ gold amounts.
It’s not the most elegant one but it’s by far the simplest so we can at least re-buy the storage space we worked for.
4 Likes
Did Mike really say this? Like, this is an actual quote and there is no other context?
I fail to understand where he’s coming from.
My perspective is that the customer paid in-game gold (so, not real cash) for a stash tab in cycle and now it’s only available for item removal in legacy. That is loss of functionality. I listened to a pre-1.1 Mike podcast where he said something like, “we’ll move over those stash tabs that fit based upon the cost of the tab”. The implication being that if you have 100 tabs in legacy and buy 10 in cycle… yeah, you weren’t getting any usable tabs. And I thought, “wow, that’s bold, that’s going to be complicated to do… that sounds aspirational, rather than doable”.
And here we are. This is unfortunate. 
1 Like
Yes, it’s an actual quote. It was in the context of someone asking for a gold refund of the cycle tabs for legacy.
I know that he once said he liked the idea of getting new tabs in legacy according to how much gold you spent in cycle. However, it seems that that idea was dropped for now.
1 Like
And that’s a bad move from the devs which should be respectively admonished.
Hence here we are in this thread doing exactly that.
3 Likes
I was thinking about that too, do you happen to still know when that was and/or maybe even have a link to that exact statement?
Mike did say that thing in the Discord.
For reference, the chat in question is in the official Discord in the ask-the-devs-not-support-no-bugs channel
I don’t know if the link will work but this is my last comment , you can click on what the messages are in reply to and follow it back to the beginning, heh
Or search my last comments in the Discord, they were all about this very issue ( also named Wissle at Discord)