Increase transmute crystal limit or not?

orgin_stadia

I'm literally swimming in Transmutation geodes. Overwhelming inventory space on all of my 8 characters.

What are peoples thoughts of increasing the limit from 1000 to 10000 or somesuch? Good or bad? What would be the pros and cons?

Perhaps a ESO+ perk?

Or should it just stay as it is.

spartaxoxo

They should just Increase it.

Kessra

Why do you need to increase the cap? If you at max or short before you could also reconstruct items and store them somewhere and once you need those transmutation crystals back just decon those items and you get 25 crystals per restored item back.

I also think that 1000 for ESO+ are enough actually. Once you completed all items of a set, reconstruction only costs you 25 crystals. You can actually reconstruct plenty of items with those costs, naturally benefitting those more who actually put in the effort to grind those items.

As of such, I don't really think an increase of the cap is really needed. Hording them to tens of thousand will only lead to a situation where the actual number of available crystals is more or less meaningless and may lead to a situation where people don't put in the effort to grind good items but buy them off of someone who did and then just reconstruct those few items they are interested in without actually thinking about their number of crystals they have or the costs it takes to reconstruct that item.

AlnilamE

I just transmute random weapons to nirnhoned and decon then so I have the stones when I need them for writs or want to sell them.

belial5221_ESO

If you swimming in them,you are obviuosly not using them,so what is the point of increasing to 5k or 10k,if in a month or 2 you'll be in same boat.If it that easy to get stones,destroy em,make gear,transmute traits,or something.

Parasaurolophus

I understand the logic behind these restrictions ... But it doesn't work. I have a huge number of geodes. As it turns out, I don't need a lot of crystals.

EmperorIl

A cap is stupid, there is absolutely zero reason for it.

majulook

AlnilamE wrote: »

I just transmute random weapons to nirnhoned and decon then so I have the stones when I need them for writs or want to sell them.

Yep this is what I do.... Potent Nirhoned it my go to get rid the bulk Transmute Geodes / Stones and keep the amount at max.

AlnilamE

EmperorIl wrote: »

A cap is stupid, there is absolutely zero reason for it.

Well, there is a reason. You don't have to like it, though.

estelrandir

One of my pet peeves (especially with other games) is having an artificially low cap on resources -- like transmute crystals. It's really frustrating when it's easy to cap in regular play. I'm all for getting rid of it, tbh.

Celephantsylvius_Bornasfinmo

Well let's see which are the most re-occuring subjects on the forum in relation to gamplay:

Random Dunegon Finder - Fake tanks, healers, people inviting low level characters (you have to do them on each character)
PvP - It's really laggy and especially at the end of the campaign when we go for our geodes (Can't combo, can't weave, can only AOE...hmm interesting that the new sets are AOE based right?)

So the geode hunting system is behind to areas of the game which are under stigmata. Yes, change something.

redspecter23

I say remove the cap as it's nearly pointless. We can store extra crystals either in geode form or in the form of gear we can deconstruct later. The cap isn't a cap so much as an inventory drain. That part of the system lacks logic, elegance and simplicity.

If ZOS felt we needed a cap for balancing reasons, they missed the mark. If ZOS felt we needed more inventory bloat, there would have been better ways to do that.

redspecter23

belial5221_ESO wrote: »

If you swimming in them,you are obviuosly not using them,so what is the point of increasing to 5k or 10k,if in a month or 2 you'll be in same boat.If it that easy to get stones,destroy em,make gear,transmute traits,or something.

You could say the same thing about gold. The argument has no logic. If you aren't spending your 500k gold, why do you want 5 million? Just destroy the excess.

Merlin13KAGL

redspecter23 wrote: »

I say remove the cap as it's nearly pointless. We can store extra crystals either in geode form or in the form of gear we can deconstruct later. The cap isn't a cap so much as an inventory drain. That part of the system lacks logic, elegance and simplicity.

If ZOS felt we needed a cap for balancing reasons, they missed the mark. If ZOS felt we needed more inventory bloat, there would have been better ways to do that.

You're not thinking like an accountant.

Inventory issues are lessened by ESO+. ESO+ is $$$. It's same reason we have exactly the same inventory space 8 years in with probably double the original content and a woodworker that can make a master level bow cannot make a simple storage container to hold items waiting for decon.

It's intended to be a pain on your inventory, and it's absolutely by design.

Kwoung

They increased transmute storage from 200 to 1000 when they added the stickerbook. Here is a nice 2018 thread wishing they would up it to just 500!

https://forums.elderscrollsonline.com/en/discussion/431073/transmute-crystals-cap

Of course that was back in the day when you pretty much had to PVP to earn any reasonable amount of transmutes in the first place and it always took 50 of them to change anything. Personally I think they should have left the stones in PVP, as earning them seems to be causing all sorts of issues in PVE.

Also, keep in mind that increasing storage space is only one of the options available to ZOS and probably the least likely they would take, as it could cost them money in database storage space. It is just as, if not more likely, that complaining about transmute bloat will get the drop rate nerfed to the point that storage would no longer be an issue.

ajkb78

Just eliminate the cap. It doesn't serve a useful purpose. To be honest I rarely hit the cap as I reconstruct a lot of gear, but I don't see what the problem is with people having 10,000 or even a million transmutes.

Kwoung

ajkb78 wrote: »

Just eliminate the cap. It doesn't serve a useful purpose. To be honest I rarely hit the cap as I reconstruct a lot of gear, but I don't see what the problem is with people having 10,000 or even a million transmutes.

As I pointed out just above your post... It would cost ZOS profits, as they would have to increase their database storage space, something they don't like doing. Also, the actual database storage is probably the least of the cost, backups are what cost the most long term, and increasing the size of something you need to keep multiple copies of on hand, gets really expensive.

redspecter23

Kwoung wrote: »

ajkb78 wrote: »

Just eliminate the cap. It doesn't serve a useful purpose. To be honest I rarely hit the cap as I reconstruct a lot of gear, but I don't see what the problem is with people having 10,000 or even a million transmutes.

As I pointed out just above your post... It would cost ZOS profits, as they would have to increase their database storage space, something they don't like doing. Also, the actual database storage is probably the least of the cost, backups are what cost the most long term, and increasing the size of something you need to keep multiple copies of on hand, gets really expensive.

I'm no expert on storage and databases, but wouldn't an integer be less storage than all the geodes and items crafted to store extra transmutes?

I'm not saying it's not about money. I assume every decision they make has to do with making more money. This one just seems more difficult to nail down exactly how the cap makes them more money in the same way that armory slots blatantly do.

majulook

redspecter23 wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

ajkb78 wrote: »

Just eliminate the cap. It doesn't serve a useful purpose. To be honest I rarely hit the cap as I reconstruct a lot of gear, but I don't see what the problem is with people having 10,000 or even a million transmutes.

As I pointed out just above your post... It would cost ZOS profits, as they would have to increase their database storage space, something they don't like doing. Also, the actual database storage is probably the least of the cost, backups are what cost the most long term, and increasing the size of something you need to keep multiple copies of on hand, gets really expensive.

I'm no expert on storage and databases, but wouldn't an integer be less storage than all the geodes and items crafted to store extra transmutes?

I'm not saying it's not about money. I assume every decision they make has to do with making more money. This one just seems more difficult to nail down exactly how the cap makes them more money in the same way that armory slots blatantly do.

I believe its 500 with out ESO+ and 1000 with ESO+. That's the money maker they give ESO+ a perk of this increase along with Bank Storage increase, the Craft bag, and Weapon Dyeing. Basically they need things to give ESO+ members for subscribing.

radiostar

For ESO plus it should just store in the craft bag, unlimited like other craft mats.

Kwoung

redspecter23 wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

ajkb78 wrote: »

Just eliminate the cap. It doesn't serve a useful purpose. To be honest I rarely hit the cap as I reconstruct a lot of gear, but I don't see what the problem is with people having 10,000 or even a million transmutes.

As I pointed out just above your post... It would cost ZOS profits, as they would have to increase their database storage space, something they don't like doing. Also, the actual database storage is probably the least of the cost, backups are what cost the most long term, and increasing the size of something you need to keep multiple copies of on hand, gets really expensive.

I'm no expert on storage and databases, but wouldn't an integer be less storage than all the geodes and items crafted to store extra transmutes?

I'm not saying it's not about money. I assume every decision they make has to do with making more money. This one just seems more difficult to nail down exactly how the cap makes them more money in the same way that armory slots blatantly do.

Think of it this way... what is in your bank/inventory slots in the game doesn't matter, that space was already allotted and part of the overall equation, and is in fact simply a pointer to a particular game item stored in each slot. They chose to make the craft bag unlimited, well because it pays for itself. Also when they made that decision, they calculated exactly what it would cost and were fine with it. I know it sounds dumb, simply adding an extra digit or two would actually cost something, but across 19 million or whatever players, it adds up, because even the ones not playing and don't use it, still have to have their database records expanded regardless.

A similar thing actually turned out to be a huge issue back in the beginnings of SWG, where nearly every item was a unique item and 10's of thousands of new items were being created daily, causing serious database bloat.

etchedpixels

redspecter23 wrote: »

I'm not saying it's not about money. I assume every decision they make has to do with making more money. This one just seems more difficult to nail down exactly how the cap makes them more money in the same way that armory slots blatantly do.

0-1000 fits in a 16bit word, 0-65535 fits in the same space, so they can clearly update it. Presumably they put a cap on for some reason. It's a joke cap though because you just turn stuff into 25 create/25 destroy items and bank those.

kargen27

Leave it where it is at. They were not meant to be hoarded. They were meant as a way to lessen the grind for good traits not completely replace the grind. ZoS has been kind enough to leave work arounds in the game. You want to be able to change traits on a whim it should come with sacrifices and inventory slots seems a very small sacrifice given what you get in return.

Noerra

I need more in general lol!

I don't want to have to farm them by running randoms on all my alts... it time gates me in the things that I love doing most in the game.

My passion is theory crafting new builds all the time and it would be a huge help to be able to transmute more often without the need to grind as much

Instead of a increased limit... I would actually prefer an increased drop rate =/ I scarcely do dungeons - right now I'm mostly questing, doing house stuff, gathering resources, trading, and pvping....

I wish pvp gave more stones!

francesinhalover

I'm thankful we can even get 500 and so essily. With a cap of 1000

Back in the day it was pain to have 50 imagine 100. And even if you reached cap (200) you would suffer
It was so bad i quit eso for 3+ years

orgin_stadia

Kwoung wrote: »

ajkb78 wrote: »

Just eliminate the cap. It doesn't serve a useful purpose. To be honest I rarely hit the cap as I reconstruct a lot of gear, but I don't see what the problem is with people having 10,000 or even a million transmutes.

As I pointed out just above your post... It would cost ZOS profits, as they would have to increase their database storage space, something they don't like doing. Also, the actual database storage is probably the least of the cost, backups are what cost the most long term, and increasing the size of something you need to keep multiple copies of on hand, gets really expensive.

Storage isn't a problem here unless they are doing something very weird. They are storing values in 8,16,32 or 64 bits (or even 128bit).
8 bits - 0-255
16 bits - 0 - 65535
32 bits - 0 - 4 billion
64 bits - 0 - 18 quintillion

So even if they are using a 16 bit value they could increase it to 65k without affecting storage at all. The limit they have now has nothing to do with storage.

Kwoung

orgin_stadia wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

ajkb78 wrote: »

Just eliminate the cap. It doesn't serve a useful purpose. To be honest I rarely hit the cap as I reconstruct a lot of gear, but I don't see what the problem is with people having 10,000 or even a million transmutes.

As I pointed out just above your post... It would cost ZOS profits, as they would have to increase their database storage space, something they don't like doing. Also, the actual database storage is probably the least of the cost, backups are what cost the most long term, and increasing the size of something you need to keep multiple copies of on hand, gets really expensive.

Storage isn't a problem here unless they are doing something very weird. They are storing values in 8,16,32 or 64 bits (or even 128bit).
8 bits - 0-255
16 bits - 0 - 65535
32 bits - 0 - 4 billion
64 bits - 0 - 18 quintillion

So even if they are using a 16 bit value they could increase it to 65k without affecting storage at all. The limit they have now has nothing to do with storage.

I was mostly going on the requests to store "unlimited", millions or 100k of transmutes (not that that would ever be achievable anyways). Or if they added it to the craft bag, they would have to add another row to accommodate, as I would assume it is predefined for every type of material that can be stored in there currently.

As for ZOS doing something weird, that was also part of my reasoning as I have played this game for a while and can see quite clearly how the performance in general has been plummeting, so something weird in their game/DB design is far from out of the question. Heck, just the amount of time it takes me to login has increased dramatically over the past couple years (with no addons loaded before someone says that), and that is pretty much all about simply loading my character... from the database. Two years ago it took me maybe 15 seconds to login, now I am lucky if it is even close to a minute, and it is usually much longer than that. I know it was 15 seconds because I used to time it, and see what the optimal login/out time could be with the bare minimum of addons loaded to rip through daily crafting writs and research traits on a dozen chars. 15 seconds used to be base for me, and 32 seconds with minimal addons loaded.

Anyhow, unless they decide to sell something in the crown store to increase the storage space for transmutes, I doubt it will ever happen no matter how handy it would be for the players. And that isn't out of the question by a long shot, I can easily see them selling a "transmute satchel or something for 5-10k crowns.

Hurbster

While we are at it, make them tradable as well.

Troodon80

I was in favour of increasing them before and they did. That was before the set collection system, too, so everything cost 50 crystals to transmute. I don't think it needs another increase. I have geodes on a specific geode-mule character just for safe keeping. As also said, you can reconstruct items at very little material cost and deconstruct them if crystal limits and inventory space are an issue; you can do daily dungeons for 10-crystal geodes per character per day, then open them and reconstruct an item costing 25, you now have a convenient way to create your own 25-crystal geodes on demand (just as an example).

As for a reason as to why they don't remove the cap... I can think of a few. Purely speculation, of course. Not least of which is that they can make it appealing to have ESO Plus -- and I personally don't see a problem with this -- which doubles the amount you can carry. If they up the limit to approximately 2^16/2-1 for non-Plus, it's a number that most people will never care to reach, let alone desire Plus to have double. Most people will have Plus for DLC and Craft Bag, but adding more incenntives like housing furniture limits and transmute crystals makes sense.

Just for reference, if they increased it to 32767 for non-Plus and the average cost to transmute or reconstruct something was... let's say 50, instead of 25 minimum, you'd be able to reconstuct some 655 items. If you collected all the pieces of a particular set and your average was 25, you'd be able to reconstruct 1310 items. You don't think this is a tad overkill and unnecessary? And you can double those numbers for Plus.

etchedpixels wrote: »

16bit word

Microsoft spceific windows.h definitions and not standard limits.h definitions. Ew.

knightlylion

Kwoung wrote: »

ajkb78 wrote: »

Just eliminate the cap. It doesn't serve a useful purpose. To be honest I rarely hit the cap as I reconstruct a lot of gear, but I don't see what the problem is with people having 10,000 or even a million transmutes.

As I pointed out just above your post... It would cost ZOS profits, as they would have to increase their database storage space, something they don't like doing. Also, the actual database storage is probably the least of the cost, backups are what cost the most long term, and increasing the size of something you need to keep multiple copies of on hand, gets really expensive.

What? You think they are physically storing these things in a server somewhere.. lmao. It's literally one bit of information to add a zero to the end of the cap. A single zero.

Kwoung

knightlylion wrote: »

Kwoung wrote: »

ajkb78 wrote: »

Just eliminate the cap. It doesn't serve a useful purpose. To be honest I rarely hit the cap as I reconstruct a lot of gear, but I don't see what the problem is with people having 10,000 or even a million transmutes.

As I pointed out just above your post... It would cost ZOS profits, as they would have to increase their database storage space, something they don't like doing. Also, the actual database storage is probably the least of the cost, backups are what cost the most long term, and increasing the size of something you need to keep multiple copies of on hand, gets really expensive.

What? You think they are physically storing these things in a server somewhere.. lmao. It's literally one bit of information to add a zero to the end of the cap. A single zero.

And multiply that single bit by 19 million accounts, then back it up daily and keep at least 30, maybe more copies of that backup. As someone who has been in charge of servers and backups, it can adds up very quickly, which results in buying more storage or renting more cloud space, neither of which are cheap. Anyways, as I said above, the chance of them doing anything QOL related without being able to monetize it, is near zero anyways.