Collectible Fragment Oversight=Problem

AyeshaBelladonna

So, turning the "fragments" into items you use has become quite a problem for many of us Guilds that try to collect Holiday spares for guild members that might be missing the event. Items like Apple-Bobbing Cauldron and others that were items to be combined into rune-boxes should have been left alone for the new system because now instead of being able to combine the fragments to save space we are stuck wasting dozens of spots because you cannot "use" or combine them anymore if you already unlocked that particular collectible. Berries, feathers, new "fragment" items I understand, but holiday fragments that already had the rune-box system? Couldn't those have remained exempt since the new system was supposed to help with inventory management? wouldn't a better solution have been to make rune-boxes stackable and leave the pre-existsing system in place for holiday items?

Dusk_Coven

They also need to audit their runebox / style page binding settings.
A Mask Runebox from the Witches event is theoretically not bound, tradeable, mailable, and saleable, but you cannot move it off the character that picked it up unless you're doing one of those things or depositing it in a guild bank.
And yeah, stacking -- when? Why not?

Mr_Walker

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

They also need to audit their runebox / style page binding settings.
A Mask Runebox from the Witches event is theoretically not bound, tradeable, mailable, and saleable, but you cannot move it off the character that picked it up unless you're doing one of those things or depositing it in a guild bank.
And yeah, stacking -- when? Why not?

It's to stop people like me from buying everything, and reselling it 6 months later at big markups.

AyeshaBelladonna

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

They also need to audit their runebox / style page binding settings.
A Mask Runebox from the Witches event is theoretically not bound, tradeable, mailable, and saleable, but you cannot move it off the character that picked it up unless you're doing one of those things or depositing it in a guild bank.
And yeah, stacking -- when? Why not?

It's to stop people like me from buying everything, and reselling it 6 months later at big markups.

Hey, If you're willing to dedicate the time, money, and energy to do it to flip for a profit who are they to try and limit you? lol we can grind motifs and they stack. we can stack limited edition Luxury furnishings and hoard them to flip for a profit later and THOSE only come around once a year....... this whole 'we can't even combine them into rune boxes' seems excessive since the rune boxes don't stack anyway though. LOL

AlnilamE

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

They also need to audit their runebox / style page binding settings.
A Mask Runebox from the Witches event is theoretically not bound, tradeable, mailable, and saleable, but you cannot move it off the character that picked it up unless you're doing one of those things or depositing it in a guild bank.
And yeah, stacking -- when? Why not?

Long ago at the dawn of ESO, the hireling mats came in boxes, and people exploited that by putting all their boxes in the bank and opening them with their highest level character to get the most expensive mats (and a higher chance at tempers).

ZOS "fixed" that by preventing any containers from being placed into the character bank.

And now here we are. They come up with a solution, but I'm not sure what that could be.

Another thing you can do is send the boxes to a friend/guildie as a return to sender and then pick them up with the character you want to use it on.

Dusk_Coven

AlnilamE wrote: »

Long ago at the dawn of ESO, the hireling mats came in boxes, and people exploited that by putting all their boxes in the bank and opening them with their highest level character to get the most expensive mats (and a higher chance at tempers).

ZOS "fixed" that by preventing any containers from being placed into the character bank.

And when they fixed it again by not having any containers at all, they didn't change the settings on containers I guess.
Definitely time for a review.

Did they hire from Fiverr to fix that? It's like the laziest fix possible and one with (as we are seeing) non-intuitive/unreasonable side effects.
Same with the timer for leaving a dungeon. Doesn't address the real issues people are having.

Alphawolf01A

Typical ZOS. Fix one thing and break three more in the process.

rpa

I find it annoying in extreme there are tradeable items I can't put in bank for use on my other chars. I ended up just using the stuff (motifs in this case) on my non-crafting character cause screw it, game is not in a state where I should care and I don't believe ever will get fixed, no matter what is promised.

Stuff which can be useless on one char and useful to other should be bankable.

Coatmagic

AyeshaBelladonna wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

They also need to audit their runebox / style page binding settings.
A Mask Runebox from the Witches event is theoretically not bound, tradeable, mailable, and saleable, but you cannot move it off the character that picked it up unless you're doing one of those things or depositing it in a guild bank.
And yeah, stacking -- when? Why not?

It's to stop people like me from buying everything, and reselling it 6 months later at big markups.

Hey, If you're willing to dedicate the time, money, and energy to do it to flip for a profit who are they to try and limit you? lol we can grind motifs and they stack. we can stack limited edition Luxury furnishings and hoard them to flip for a profit later and THOSE only come around once a year....... this whole 'we can't even combine them into rune boxes' seems excessive since the rune boxes don't stack anyway though. LOL

INC:
All motif pages will now go directly into the fragments section of your collections!
INC:
Luxury furnishings no longer stack and will be bind on purchase.

*facepalm*

redlink1979

It's a problem to have Apple-Bobbing Cauldron in the frag system (or any other runebox items) because players want to be able to sell runeboxes.

Account bound items is ok to put on the new frag system but items that aren't bound to account shouldn't be included in there.

AyeshaBelladonna

redlink1979 wrote: »

It's a problem to have Apple-Bobbing Cauldron in the frag system (or any other runebox items) because players want to be able to sell runeboxes.

Account bound items is ok to put on the new frag system but items that aren't bound to account shouldn't be included in there.

Exactly. ESPECIALLY ones that were _already_ part of the rune box system. They don't want to come out with new rune boxes i get it.... but why couldn't't they just NOT mess with existing ones? we can still build and sell rune boxes for the swamp jelly and the pets and costumes from the borrowing and summers public dungeon thank goodness, but this 'filling 7 trader slots to sell the equivelent of one rune box' is crazy.

AyeshaBelladonna

Coatmagic wrote: »

AyeshaBelladonna wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

They also need to audit their runebox / style page binding settings.
A Mask Runebox from the Witches event is theoretically not bound, tradeable, mailable, and saleable, but you cannot move it off the character that picked it up unless you're doing one of those things or depositing it in a guild bank.
And yeah, stacking -- when? Why not?

It's to stop people like me from buying everything, and reselling it 6 months later at big markups.

Hey, If you're willing to dedicate the time, money, and energy to do it to flip for a profit who are they to try and limit you? lol we can grind motifs and they stack. we can stack limited edition Luxury furnishings and hoard them to flip for a profit later and THOSE only come around once a year....... this whole 'we can't even combine them into rune boxes' seems excessive since the rune boxes don't stack anyway though. LOL

INC:
All motif pages will now go directly into the fragments section of your collections!
INC:
Luxury furnishings no longer stack and will be bind on purchase.

*facepalm*

while motif pages would KILL the markets lol....I'd legit be ok with the amount of bank space that would clear up! XD

starkerealm

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

AlnilamE wrote: »

Long ago at the dawn of ESO, the hireling mats came in boxes, and people exploited that by putting all their boxes in the bank and opening them with their highest level character to get the most expensive mats (and a higher chance at tempers).

ZOS "fixed" that by preventing any containers from being placed into the character bank.

And when they fixed it again by not having any containers at all, they didn't change the settings on containers I guess.
Definitely time for a review.

Did they hire from Fiverr to fix that? It's like the laziest fix possible and one with (as we are seeing) non-intuitive/unreasonable side effects.
Same with the timer for leaving a dungeon. Doesn't address the real issues people are having.

You could still exploit it with other containers. There's some very peculiar behavior with some things, like the stolen shipments that come out of thieves caches. Since containers roll their contents when first opened, the decision was made to block them from being banked.

Taleof2Cities

AyeshaBelladonna wrote: »

Coatmagic wrote: »

AyeshaBelladonna wrote: »

Mr_Walker wrote: »

Dusk_Coven wrote: »

They also need to audit their runebox / style page binding settings.
A Mask Runebox from the Witches event is theoretically not bound, tradeable, mailable, and saleable, but you cannot move it off the character that picked it up unless you're doing one of those things or depositing it in a guild bank.
And yeah, stacking -- when? Why not?

It's to stop people like me from buying everything, and reselling it 6 months later at big markups.

Hey, If you're willing to dedicate the time, money, and energy to do it to flip for a profit who are they to try and limit you? lol we can grind motifs and they stack. we can stack limited edition Luxury furnishings and hoard them to flip for a profit later and THOSE only come around once a year....... this whole 'we can't even combine them into rune boxes' seems excessive since the rune boxes don't stack anyway though. LOL

INC:
All motif pages will now go directly into the fragments section of your collections!
INC:
Luxury furnishings no longer stack and will be bind on purchase.

*facepalm*

while motif pages would KILL the markets lol....I'd legit be ok with the amount of bank space that would clear up! XD

Unfortunately motifs in Collections would not work due to individual character master writ progression being tied to motif knowledge.

daemonios

Making inventory management a pain and offering a solution at a cost is freemium game 101. The problem? ZOS' solution doesn't solve all of the problems introduced to make more inventory space a must, including the neverending multiplication of fragments, and fragments of fragments, and bound containers, and so on. So if, like me, you've always subscribed because that is the one and only way you are willing to support the game, you're treated to a bloody mess of a system intended to sell something you're already buying anyway. Once again, thanks everyone who doesn't see what microtransactions do to a game.

Starlock

daemonios wrote: »

Making inventory management a pain and offering a solution at a cost is freemium game 101. The problem? ZOS' solution doesn't solve all of the problems introduced to make more inventory space a must, including the neverending multiplication of fragments, and fragments of fragments, and bound containers, and so on. So if, like me, you've always subscribed because that is the one and only way you are willing to support the game, you're treated to a bloody mess of a system intended to sell something you're already buying anyway. Once again, thanks everyone who doesn't see what microtransactions do to a game.

Post-launch monetization (including but not limited to microtransactions) doesn't have to be bad. Whoever makes the decisions on monetization has the ability to make them more or less predatory in nature. That there have not been increases to the base game bank/inventory space since launch - and that it seems a new cash shop only item is coming out that will increase this space - is very telling. This game isn't as harsh about inventory space as some I've seen *cough*falloutfluckyoufirst*cough*, but that still doesn't excuse it.

At a minimum, maximum bank space should have been increased by 10 for every non-dungeon DLC/chapter, ideally with the 10 spaces unlocked complementarily for players who purchase that DLC/chapter. But this would be far too nice from the company that brought us gamble crates and transformed events into cash shop redirects...

darthgummibear_ESO

Agreed 100%. Not being able to combine collected fragments into runeboxes if you have the item was a really stupid move. I have a full page of the apple parts now that I can't do anything with because I have the memento already. This development team has absolutely zero foresight.

daemonios

Starlock wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

Making inventory management a pain and offering a solution at a cost is freemium game 101. The problem? ZOS' solution doesn't solve all of the problems introduced to make more inventory space a must, including the neverending multiplication of fragments, and fragments of fragments, and bound containers, and so on. So if, like me, you've always subscribed because that is the one and only way you are willing to support the game, you're treated to a bloody mess of a system intended to sell something you're already buying anyway. Once again, thanks everyone who doesn't see what microtransactions do to a game.

Post-launch monetization (including but not limited to microtransactions) doesn't have to be bad. Whoever makes the decisions on monetization has the ability to make them more or less predatory in nature. That there have not been increases to the base game bank/inventory space since launch - and that it seems a new cash shop only item is coming out that will increase this space - is very telling. This game isn't as harsh about inventory space as some I've seen *cough*falloutfluckyoufirst*cough*, but that still doesn't excuse it.

At a minimum, maximum bank space should have been increased by 10 for every non-dungeon DLC/chapter, ideally with the 10 spaces unlocked complementarily for players who purchase that DLC/chapter. But this would be far too nice from the company that brought us gamble crates and transformed events into cash shop redirects...

Name one game that became better with microtransactions. I'm kind of tired of the old trope that "it doesn't have to be bad". The results are in plain sight.

Starlock

daemonios wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

Making inventory management a pain and offering a solution at a cost is freemium game 101. The problem? ZOS' solution doesn't solve all of the problems introduced to make more inventory space a must, including the neverending multiplication of fragments, and fragments of fragments, and bound containers, and so on. So if, like me, you've always subscribed because that is the one and only way you are willing to support the game, you're treated to a bloody mess of a system intended to sell something you're already buying anyway. Once again, thanks everyone who doesn't see what microtransactions do to a game.

Post-launch monetization (including but not limited to microtransactions) doesn't have to be bad. Whoever makes the decisions on monetization has the ability to make them more or less predatory in nature. That there have not been increases to the base game bank/inventory space since launch - and that it seems a new cash shop only item is coming out that will increase this space - is very telling. This game isn't as harsh about inventory space as some I've seen *cough*falloutfluckyoufirst*cough*, but that still doesn't excuse it.

At a minimum, maximum bank space should have been increased by 10 for every non-dungeon DLC/chapter, ideally with the 10 spaces unlocked complementarily for players who purchase that DLC/chapter. But this would be far too nice from the company that brought us gamble crates and transformed events into cash shop redirects...

Name one game that became better with microtransactions. I'm kind of tired of the old trope that "it doesn't have to be bad". The results are in plain sight.

Um... I think you mistake the intent of my post.

daemonios

Starlock wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

Making inventory management a pain and offering a solution at a cost is freemium game 101. The problem? ZOS' solution doesn't solve all of the problems introduced to make more inventory space a must, including the neverending multiplication of fragments, and fragments of fragments, and bound containers, and so on. So if, like me, you've always subscribed because that is the one and only way you are willing to support the game, you're treated to a bloody mess of a system intended to sell something you're already buying anyway. Once again, thanks everyone who doesn't see what microtransactions do to a game.

Post-launch monetization (including but not limited to microtransactions) doesn't have to be bad. Whoever makes the decisions on monetization has the ability to make them more or less predatory in nature. That there have not been increases to the base game bank/inventory space since launch - and that it seems a new cash shop only item is coming out that will increase this space - is very telling. This game isn't as harsh about inventory space as some I've seen *cough*falloutfluckyoufirst*cough*, but that still doesn't excuse it.

At a minimum, maximum bank space should have been increased by 10 for every non-dungeon DLC/chapter, ideally with the 10 spaces unlocked complementarily for players who purchase that DLC/chapter. But this would be far too nice from the company that brought us gamble crates and transformed events into cash shop redirects...

Name one game that became better with microtransactions. I'm kind of tired of the old trope that "it doesn't have to be bad". The results are in plain sight.

Um... I think you mistake the intent of my post.

I apologize if I did. It seemed to me you were defending microtransactions. I am of the opinion, at this point, that they are ALWAYS bad. They create an incentive to sell you not the game itself, but always one more of whatever virtual goods the publisher trades in. One more crown motif. One more apex mount. One more time-limited personality. One more collector's edition with theme-appropriate hats. That is why I responded to your saying it doesn't have to be bad.

AyeshaBelladonna

daemonios wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

Starlock wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

Making inventory management a pain and offering a solution at a cost is freemium game 101. The problem? ZOS' solution doesn't solve all of the problems introduced to make more inventory space a must, including the neverending multiplication of fragments, and fragments of fragments, and bound containers, and so on. So if, like me, you've always subscribed because that is the one and only way you are willing to support the game, you're treated to a bloody mess of a system intended to sell something you're already buying anyway. Once again, thanks everyone who doesn't see what microtransactions do to a game.

Post-launch monetization (including but not limited to microtransactions) doesn't have to be bad. Whoever makes the decisions on monetization has the ability to make them more or less predatory in nature. That there have not been increases to the base game bank/inventory space since launch - and that it seems a new cash shop only item is coming out that will increase this space - is very telling. This game isn't as harsh about inventory space as some I've seen *cough*falloutfluckyoufirst*cough*, but that still doesn't excuse it.

At a minimum, maximum bank space should have been increased by 10 for every non-dungeon DLC/chapter, ideally with the 10 spaces unlocked complementarily for players who purchase that DLC/chapter. But this would be far too nice from the company that brought us gamble crates and transformed events into cash shop redirects...

Name one game that became better with microtransactions. I'm kind of tired of the old trope that "it doesn't have to be bad". The results are in plain sight.

Um... I think you mistake the intent of my post.

I apologize if I did. It seemed to me you were defending microtransactions. I am of the opinion, at this point, that they are ALWAYS bad. They create an incentive to sell you not the game itself, but always one more of whatever virtual goods the publisher trades in. One more crown motif. One more apex mount. One more time-limited personality. One more collector's edition with theme-appropriate hats. That is why I responded to your saying it doesn't have to be bad.

Starlock wrote: »

daemonios wrote: »

Making inventory management a pain and offering a solution at a cost is freemium game 101. The problem? ZOS' solution doesn't solve all of the problems introduced to make more inventory space a must, including the neverending multiplication of fragments, and fragments of fragments, and bound containers, and so on. So if, like me, you've always subscribed because that is the one and only way you are willing to support the game, you're treated to a bloody mess of a system intended to sell something you're already buying anyway. Once again, thanks everyone who doesn't see what microtransactions do to a game.

Post-launch monetization (including but not limited to microtransactions) doesn't have to be bad. Whoever makes the decisions on monetization has the ability to make them more or less predatory in nature. That there have not been increases to the base game bank/inventory space since launch - and that it seems a new cash shop only item is coming out that will increase this space - is very telling. This game isn't as harsh about inventory space as some I've seen *cough*falloutfluckyoufirst*cough*, but that still doesn't excuse it.

At a minimum, maximum bank space should have been increased by 10 for every non-dungeon DLC/chapter, ideally with the 10 spaces unlocked complementarily for players who purchase that DLC/chapter. But this would be far too nice from the company that brought us gamble crates and transformed events into cash shop redirects...

Not here to debate their $$$$ micro-transactions. that is neither here nor there. In this instance we are talking about in-game free items we are encouraged to farm that they overlooked in their attempts to reduce inventory issues for us and instead wound up with an opposite effect. Yes, i can see how that would possible shift into a $$ debate over the fact that zos hasn't done well with inventory options for long time players but lets not let this get derailed into a micro-transaction debate. We want/need the attention on the issue of them screwing up a perfectly fine system that was in place and helpful for in-game market AND inventory management purposes because apparently they didn't think far enough ahead.