And you don’t pay for them with real money in LE, Just a small thing.
Enough said, they are not full functional storage, hence simply ‘nah’.
Yes, and it’s a really dumb idea, baffling even.
It’s one of the few things which make me facepalm about EHG.
You always have the same amount of tabs in a league as you have in Standard.
In LE you can have the minimum tab amount in Legacy and 200 remove only tabs.
That’s quite the difference.
At least increase tab amount to the maximum amount you’ve had anywhere, that’s the minimum to be expected.
No need for gold return or anything of the sort, just provide the baseline function.
It’s not dumb, it’s based on reason and true. Not everything that does not align with your preferences is dumb.
I just don’t think it is a good enough reason to cause friction, so I am supporting a gold refund.
That’s a solution that I made elsewhere in the forum, yes. If you had more tabs in the cycle than legacy, expand the legacy storage to the number of tabs in the cycle. You still need the remove-only tabs, though, so items don’t get lost.
First of all… the reasoning to do ‘nothing’ because of that is utterly dumb, won’t move from that aspect there, simply because it’s non-expected and also necessitates ‘some’ solution.
Which as you said… the ‘stock up’ on tab amount in Legacy would suffice.
As well as the ability to copy the Layout.
No need for the gold reimbursement, would be the superior option as all tabs are ‘non functional’ after all, just a placeholder… but the resources were used, so nothing gets lost.
That’s the state simply, you don’t get twice the value, you used the resources and afterwards they have no function anymore when the Cycle ends, that’s not conversation of value, goes against the principle.
And yet they function well as storage for your old stuff.
And if you were paying real money for them it would be different.
I kinda don’t disagree with that, but I get the devs’ viewpoint on it (though I don’t entirely agree with it).
1 Like
That is because many players that played 1.0 already had a bunch of tabs in legacy from playing EA.
Also because in PoE your stash tabs are kinda fixed, at least until you buy a new one). You can play for 5 years and they don’t change.
In LE the stash tabs you get in a cycle depend on how many you decide to buy in that cycle. So on cycle 1 you can buy 10 tabs, on cycle 2 50 and on cycle 3 only 1. How do you solve that using PoE’s system then?
The reasoning to do nothing is probably the same one as the reasoning to have gold, resources and faction progress behind a merge button. Because the amount of players that migrate from cycle to legacy is very small and they’re trying to save performance.
And for the small portion that does migrate, this is a one time thing. Once you do buy legacy tabs, it’s done.
I personally also think that you should get at least how many you had in cycle, but I can also get why they didn’t actually do anything with that.
My opinion is that EHG, intentionally or not, is choosing to be stingy about something you buy with in-game currency. So, from a business perspective, EHG is pissing of a part of their player base based upon something of ephemeral value.
They could just move the stash tab to legacy and be done with it. If you are full in legacy, it becomes remove-only. What is ‘lost’ by EHG in this scenario? What is lost by other players? I cannot honestly think of a single thing.
This, again in my opinion, is just one of many indicators that, someone, in EHG is really obsessive about ‘realism’, to the detriment of their relationship with players. It’s needleless and foolishly punitive and the only reason I can think why is because they don’t want legacy players getting ‘free’ value at the end of a cycle. It’s baffling, from a business perspective.
3 Likes
What is lost is that players that don’t like cycles and don’t want to play cycles feel like they have to play them so they can get stash tabs cheaper.
You might as well ask what does EHG lose if they already give us 200 tabs from the start.
1 Like
Maybe from their point of view, part of their player base is being unreasonably demanding about something with ephemeral value?
1 Like
This ephemeral value you perceive has intrinsic value for a good chunk of people as well as solutions to not cause the overarching value of tabs to be lost being presented already.
So nah, just a shitty situation.
You’ve stated yourself you wouldn’t mind EHG providing at least a system to automatically raise the minimum tab amount to what was available for the player at the end of a cycle.
Not only does it have functional purpose to actually being able to use those items rather then building back up to have the space to use it but also causes no ‘perceived loss’ to be felt given you’re actively working with less then before from one day to another.
The other thing which goes hand in hand with that is that we could’ve an option to copy over stash tab layouts this way if so wanted and hence reduce the overhead for organization-time substantially.
Yeah, but you can say the same about lots of things (masteries being a permanent choice as probably the most obvious example), doesn’t make it a good argument as to why something should change.
I’m sorry, I’m confused. We’re talking about legacy right? And you’re implying that you can’t use the items in the remove-only tabs?
Yes, I’m implying that. If you have 4 tabs available but let’s say 120 tabs in ‘remove only’ then practically 116 tabs are non-functional for you.
This includes for example saved up items to craft and put into MG, Nemesis items which will take up space, secondary outfits for a character if you make a single character and re-skill it accordingly to be another build depending on mood and so on. There’s a few situations where it happens.
As for the mastery lock… that’s flavor, it has distinct ups and downs with each different system. I don’t see a primary ‘downside’ for at least providing the minimum amount of tabs in Legacy which you had in Cycle though.
While I don’t disagree with you on the overall point of getting tabs, I don’t think your examples are good ones. In fact, quite the opposite. You have 5 tabs full of stuff to eventually craft. They’re remove-only, so you can keep using them in the exact same way. When you do want to craft on them, then you remove them from there.
After all, if you haven’t touched them during 3-4 months to the point where you let tabs full and full of stuff to “eventually use in the future”, you can just keep them there. They are functional in that they are storing all your gear until you effectively want to use them.
What is ephemeral to the provider is not necessarily ephemeral to the customer.
Here are the points that matter to me in this argument;
- ARPGs that have seasons and stash tabs have a one-for-one relationship between the tabs in the season and the tabs in Legacy. Other games have set the standard.
- EHG has deviated from the standard and has not communicated that up front
- Worse, though I think with good intentions, Mike communicated what he thought would happened - cycle tabs would be converted to Legacy tabs on a gold-equal basis (think of it like converting cycle tabs into gold, then buying a number of Legacy tabs that gold could afford on your legacy account).
All three of those things are true. They are not subjective. I guess you could try to argue the details on 1., but I won’t actually believe you are arguing in good faith.
Here’s the scenario that makes me not take EGH’s side in this; you are a new player, you start in Cycle, move to Legacy, start trying to work with your stash and discover that the tabs you had bought in cycle are now remove-only. It’s a big deal to that player. What EHG ended up doing, whether they were happy about it or not, was stingy to that new player.
Seriously? That’s your logic?
So you not liking Cycles precludes you for having any sympathy for the 1.0 new player, but you care about those players that might feel obligated to play Cycle even though it seems pretty clear based upon what Mike said about how they wanted it to work that this was something they’d resolve in the future?
That’s some tortured logic right there.
2 Likes
Masteries being a permanent choice is clearly communicated both in-game and out. I’m nit-picking on your example because it makes my communication point. It’s a tiny bit dishonest, I’m sure you can probably think of an example of something that isn’t exactly well-communicated by the game, but no one freaks out over (possibly because it’s an ARPG standard).
3 Likes
I’m not saying I don’t agree with you. In fact, I think the solution Mike hinted at all that time ago and which you already mentioned would be the best solution overall.
I also don’t think that the current “solution” is a good one.
But the argument “What does EHG lose?” can be applied to everything, including mastery respec/instant loadouts, full campaign skips, pets autopicking loot, etc.
It’s not a good argument, that’s all I was trying to point out.
I did say multiple times in this thread that I do think you should get tabs on going back to legacy. I just disagree with (which seemed like what you were suggesting) simply giving all the tabs even when you already have tabs in legacy.
This is what I disagree with. If your next tab costs 500k but you can simply make a cycle character and spend 10k for 5 more and you’ll get then in legacy at cycle end, that will force players to play cycles even when they don’t want to.
Solving a problem that is incoveniencing a minority of players by implementing a solution that will inconvenience a larger number of players doesn’t seem like a good solution to me.
There are many acceptable solutions to this (and I wish EHG would do one of them), but that isn’t one.
Overall, gotcha, 
I think there were a lot of new players playing cycle in 1.0. Possibly as many or more than existing players? I don’t know.
How many returned in 1.1. and tried to continue in Legacy? I certainly don’t know, but I wouldn’t be so bold as to claim that those players would view it as a simple inconvenience. EHG absolutely knows how many 1.0 Cycle players logged into those 1.0 characters in 1.1 Legacy. So, maybe their lack of communication on this issue means you are correct, it’s a minority.
I base it on stats from other games. The vast majority of players in seasonal based games play cycles/seasons/leagues. That is a known fact. And they play cycles exclusively.
The majority of the remaining players play legacy/standard/eternal exclusively. That is also a knows fact.
So the amount of players that play both cycle and legacy at the same time is a very small portion of the playerbase.
And there are also some that played cycle, gave up on it and decided to start playing legacy instead. But those are a one time thing.
That being said, I believe LE doesn’t exactly follow that trend for the reason that, for now, legacy and cycles have the same content, so I expect a larger number of players that played 1.0 in cycle to have started playing legacy in 1.1 than would normally be expected in other games.
All of that being said (again), I do admit that I was surprised with their current handling of stash tabs and especially, as you mention, on their communication (or lack thereof) of it.
You don’t, but others do & apparently, that’s all that matters. Whether you agree with their preferences or not.
I agree & what’s ephemeral to you may not be to me.
TBH, the only thing that I’m currently thinking of at the moment is that some people don’t like moving out of the big telegraphed hits and, apparently, just want to sit there & dakka as much as they can.
Yeah, that’s fair.
I think, love it or hate it, the “big area of death” on the ground is an VIDEO-GAME standard at this point (not just ARPG). Only sympathy I have for folks at this point is when the game has a fricken light show going on and do a poor job of layering the DEATH stuff to the top, making it hard to see the really important stuff.
In my mind maybe the “reset your skill-slot and you are going to have to re-level them” is a bit opaque the first time. As one of the first (if not first) devs to come up with skill-slots, there is a lot to learn there and players just don’t do a good job of reading stuff in-game. So… no sympathy for you! (not you, Llama, you, new player that needs to ‘git lernin’)
1 Like