Soulbound bags, soulbound bag slots: a real decrease in QOL when switching mains.

[Psientist.6437]

> @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > @"Psientist.6437" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > I've said this since ANet first did this: soulbinding of 24- and 28-slot bags was **never** a good idea. It does nothing for the player except complicate things; there's plenty of incentive to upgrade for those that feel the need of adding inventory. I'm not convinced that account binding is a good idea either, in this case, as I think there would be a market for people choosing to make the bags to sell to others too lazy to do so.

> > >

> > > There is no current way to help the OP because they already created 28-slot bags. The only way to prevent the issue would have been to not make 24- or 28-slotters, except to make 32-slot bags.

> > >

> > > It wasn't a good idea in 2017 and it's not good in 2019.

> > >

> > > Regardless, every time ANet has had an opportunity to address this, they've doubled down on it. They seem to think it's better to bind than not. They didn't change it when they spent dev time to ensure that the 32-slot bags would be account bound.

> >

> > Which begs the question:

> >

> > What does the studio gain by soul binding 24 and 28 slot bags? I could grudgingly accept account binding 32 slot bags as a way to provide individual players with a sense of accomplishment.

>

> They don't need to have anything to gain from it.

>

> They could have simply failed to consider all the issues associated with doing so. Maybe they were following some old design docs which makes all masterwork and higher things soulbound on use.

 

I can't take those ideas seriously. No personal offense intended and hopefully none realized. I don't think it is fair to the studio to assume such low competency.

[Khisanth.2948]

> @"Psientist.6437" said:

> > @"Khisanth.2948" said:

> > > @"Psientist.6437" said:

> > > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > > I've said this since ANet first did this: soulbinding of 24- and 28-slot bags was **never** a good idea. It does nothing for the player except complicate things; there's plenty of incentive to upgrade for those that feel the need of adding inventory. I'm not convinced that account binding is a good idea either, in this case, as I think there would be a market for people choosing to make the bags to sell to others too lazy to do so.

> > > >

> > > > There is no current way to help the OP because they already created 28-slot bags. The only way to prevent the issue would have been to not make 24- or 28-slotters, except to make 32-slot bags.

> > > >

> > > > It wasn't a good idea in 2017 and it's not good in 2019.

> > > >

> > > > Regardless, every time ANet has had an opportunity to address this, they've doubled down on it. They seem to think it's better to bind than not. They didn't change it when they spent dev time to ensure that the 32-slot bags would be account bound.

> > >

> > > Which begs the question:

> > >

> > > What does the studio gain by soul binding 24 and 28 slot bags? I could grudgingly accept account binding 32 slot bags as a way to provide individual players with a sense of accomplishment.

> >

> > They don't need to have anything to gain from it.

> >

> > They could have simply failed to consider all the issues associated with doing so. Maybe they were following some old design docs which makes all masterwork and higher things soulbound on use.

>

> I can't take those ideas seriously. No personal offense intended and hopefully none realized. I don't think it is fair to the studio to assume such low competency.

 

The same studio that requires people to complete events that frequently breaks and have been breaking like that for years?

 

Design docs not getting updated and someone new to the position simply following the latest thing they can find is also well within the realm of possibility.

 

Development is also often under tight time constraints as we can see from the delays. Given the choice between updating documents and finishing features for a release, which do you think will get prioritized?

[Moira Shalaar.5620]

> @"Psientist.6437" said:

> > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > I've said this since ANet first did this: soulbinding of 24- and 28-slot bags was **never** a good idea. It does nothing for the player except complicate things; there's plenty of incentive to upgrade for those that feel the need of adding inventory. I'm not convinced that account binding is a good idea either, in this case, as I think there would be a market for people choosing to make the bags to sell to others too lazy to do so.

> >

> > There is no current way to help the OP because they already created 28-slot bags. The only way to prevent the issue would have been to not make 24- or 28-slotters, except to make 32-slot bags.

> >

> > It wasn't a good idea in 2017 and it's not good in 2019.

> >

> > Regardless, every time ANet has had an opportunity to address this, they've doubled down on it. They seem to think it's better to bind than not. They didn't change it when they spent dev time to ensure that the 32-slot bags would be account bound.

>

> Which begs the question:

>

> What does the studio gain by soul binding 24 and 28 slot bags? I could grudgingly accept account binding 32 slot bags as a way to provide individual players with a sense of accomplishment.

 

At this point your question which you say has been begged cannot be answered anybody in the community apart from speculation. @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" has been very clear that they are not defending Anet's position, simply restating here what has been stated elsewhere.

 

If you desire that @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" speculate on what Anet thinks to gain, then perhaps you ought to stay that straight up. Saying "that begs the question" implies that you believe the answer given in the quoted post to be the offender in begging the question when in fact your question as restated is flawed because it is directed at a recipient unable to answer that on behalf of Anet.

[Psientist.6437]

> @"Moira Shalaar.5620" said:

> > @"Psientist.6437" said:

> > > @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

> > > I've said this since ANet first did this: soulbinding of 24- and 28-slot bags was **never** a good idea. It does nothing for the player except complicate things; there's plenty of incentive to upgrade for those that feel the need of adding inventory. I'm not convinced that account binding is a good idea either, in this case, as I think there would be a market for people choosing to make the bags to sell to others too lazy to do so.

> > >

> > > There is no current way to help the OP because they already created 28-slot bags. The only way to prevent the issue would have been to not make 24- or 28-slotters, except to make 32-slot bags.

> > >

> > > It wasn't a good idea in 2017 and it's not good in 2019.

> > >

> > > Regardless, every time ANet has had an opportunity to address this, they've doubled down on it. They seem to think it's better to bind than not. They didn't change it when they spent dev time to ensure that the 32-slot bags would be account bound.

> >

> > Which begs the question:

> >

> > What does the studio gain by soul binding 24 and 28 slot bags? I could grudgingly accept account binding 32 slot bags as a way to provide individual players with a sense of accomplishment.

>

> At this point your question which you say has been begged cannot be answered anybody in the community apart from speculation. @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" has been very clear that they are not defending Anet's position, simply restating here what has been stated elsewhere.

>

> If you desire that @"Illconceived Was Na.9781" speculate on what Anet thinks to gain, then perhaps you ought to stay that straight up. Saying "that begs the question" implies that you believe the answer given in the quoted post to be the offender in begging the question when in fact your question as restated is flawed because it is directed at a recipient unable to answer that on behalf of Anet.

 

No. Na offered speculation, an interpretation of what the studio said. They did not restate anything. I asked them to clarify their interpretation and they wisely decided to abandon their premise. Their premise was flimsy and worse, could erode the ability to understand the studio's intent with soul binding 24 and 28 slot bags. I understand being a fan of the game, the studio and apparently Na can make it uncomfortable to face evidence that the object of our affection has flaws. I prefer to face those flaws and at least describe them accurately. Of course my description will include some speculation but it doesn't require the studio to be incompetent or depend on a convoluted scenario derived from an interpretation of the word precursor. My description only requires the studio be willing to apply spurs when riding whales.

 

I looked up the term "begs the question", thank you for challenging my usage. I had no idea it had so many usages. I was using the vernacular understanding of the term, that one thing raises the question of another. I don't see any definition of the term that matches the definition you are attempting to propagate.

[crepuscular.9047]

well... that's a very poor choice the OP had made when all the information had provided upfront, then come back later complaining the grief his own decision was, and threatens to quit if it is not changed how the T&C to his liking.

 

accept your decision and take the consequence like a man

[Moira Shalaar.5620]

> @"Psientist.6437" said:

> I looked up the term "begs the question", thank you for challenging my usage. I had no idea it had so many usages. I was using the vernacular understanding of the term, that one thing raises the question of another. I don't see any definition of the term that matches the definition you are attempting to propagate.

 

Well, that is mildly embarrassing. Apparently I mixed my logical fallacies. I had read "begging the question" to mean dodging or leaving unanswered, which somewhat fit in the flow of your argument/discussion. After you looked it up, so did I, something I should have done in the first place. My apologies. I know better.

[Psientist.6437]

> @"Moira Shalaar.5620" said:

> > @"Psientist.6437" said:

> > I looked up the term "begs the question", thank you for challenging my usage. I had no idea it had so many usages. I was using the vernacular understanding of the term, that one thing raises the question of another. I don't see any definition of the term that matches the definition you are attempting to propagate.

>

> Well, that is mildly embarrassing. Apparently I mixed my logical fallacies. I had read "begging the question" to mean dodging or leaving unanswered, which somewhat fit in the flow of your argument/discussion. After you looked it up, so did I, something I should have done in the first place. My apologies. I know better.

 

I hope I am not dodging any questions, I am genuinely trying not to. I admit I put pressure on Illconceived and not just his premise. I want a respected forum contributor to propagate the obvious reason for soul binding 24 and 28 slot bags and not some convoluted theory about bags as Legendaries. I can't participate in the masochism that frequently emerges from fandom, the sentiment so well described in the post directly above yours.

 

Applying spurs while whale riding isn't sinister. In the context of fandom, it is dishonorable. In the context of data mining revealed preference it is noise.

[Dante.1763]

> @"crepuscular.9047" said:

> well... that's a very poor choice the OP had made when all the information had provided upfront, then come back later complaining the grief his own decision was, and threatens to quit if it is not changed how the T&C to his liking.

>

> accept your decision and take the consequence like a man

 

All the other bags in existence are account bound. It wouldnt be so much of an issue if you could use the bags from the bank to make the next tier, but at least i cannot do so. The bags if they are soulbound are un usable for crafting purposes unless they are soulbound to the character with the crafting profession, which is terrible design IMO and should be changed.