And why can I only carry 12 tickets? I can put my catapult in my other pocket if that would help.
I'll give you an actual answer from a systems point of view:
It keeps you logging into the game, giving you hoops to jump through to slows your progress. Putting an arbitrary limit on your tickets makes you have to keep thinking about the game and managing inventory at the forefront of your brain.
Even if its negative, if you are thinking about it, you are thinking about it and you are going to more likely to be interact with the situation.
They are not giving us things, they are enticing us to log into the game and they are manipulating the actions and potential feelings of their customers in order to maximize some metric.
It's always to maximize some sort of metric.
Trinity_Is_My_Name wrote: »Yep, if you had 12 and ate the Cake you lost the two you would have gotten. It's been that way since the beginning so we have to check to be sure to not have 12 when it's time to get 2 more tickets.
On that note if you have 194 Crystals for example and open a reward coffer having more crystals than you can take you will fill up to 200 and the rest are lost. I opened a 50 cyrstal coffer one day and took the contents not realizing I was at 194 already. Lost 46 crystals. Have to keep up on all these things...
Trinity_Is_My_Name wrote: »Yep, if you had 12 and ate the Cake you lost the two you would have gotten. It's been that way since the beginning so we have to check to be sure to not have 12 when it's time to get 2 more tickets.
On that note if you have 194 Crystals for example and open a reward coffer having more crystals than you can take you will fill up to 200 and the rest are lost. I opened a 50 cyrstal coffer one day and took the contents not realizing I was at 194 already. Lost 46 crystals. Have to keep up on all these things...
tinythinker wrote: »Sorry you missed those tickets.
To the broader issue:
If it is working as intended, it will keep working this way so it would help to let people know this is the case to avoid such things in the future. Maybe a dev post or a mention in the article for the next event.
I guess what the OP is trying to say, and I agree, that it really wouldn’t be that hard for ZOS to protect us from our inattentiveness. It really wouldn’t be that hard to look at your total, check what you are about to get, and if it’s over the cap, give you a warning that allows you to back out. It really is about lazy coding and the overall user interface/experience.
Bouldercleave wrote: »I guess what the OP is trying to say, and I agree, that it really wouldn’t be that hard for ZOS to protect us from our inattentiveness. It really wouldn’t be that hard to look at your total, check what you are about to get, and if it’s over the cap, give you a warning that allows you to back out. It really is about lazy coding and the overall user interface/experience.
I don't want or need ZoS to protect me from my own inattentiveness. That's how you learn to be attentive - by messing up now and again.
I think we all got what the OP was trying to say. He was trying to say that HE screwed up , lost two tickets because HE wasn't paying attention, and SOMEHOW it's all ZoS's fault because they are lazy, incompetent, and don't care enough about their customers to protect themselves from their own stupidity.
Taleof2Cities wrote: »Bouldercleave wrote: »I guess what the OP is trying to say, and I agree, that it really wouldn’t be that hard for ZOS to protect us from our inattentiveness. It really wouldn’t be that hard to look at your total, check what you are about to get, and if it’s over the cap, give you a warning that allows you to back out. It really is about lazy coding and the overall user interface/experience.
I don't want or need ZoS to protect me from my own inattentiveness. That's how you learn to be attentive - by messing up now and again.
I think we all got what the OP was trying to say. He was trying to say that HE screwed up , lost two tickets because HE wasn't paying attention, and SOMEHOW it's all ZoS's fault because they are lazy, incompetent, and don't care enough about their customers to protect themselves from their own stupidity.
Looks like someone already posted what I was going to say ...
The next time I craft a CP160 item for a writ turn-in ... gosh darn it it's all ZoS's fault because they are lazy, incompetent, and don't care enough about their customers to protect themselves from their own stupidity. 😉
Bouldercleave wrote: »And why can I only carry 12 tickets? I can put my catapult in my other pocket if that would help.
I'll give you an actual answer from a systems point of view:
It keeps you logging into the game, giving you hoops to jump through to slows your progress. Putting an arbitrary limit on your tickets makes you have to keep thinking about the game and managing inventory at the forefront of your brain.
Even if its negative, if you are thinking about it, you are thinking about it and you are going to more likely to be interact with the situation.
They are not giving us things, they are enticing us to log into the game and they are manipulating the actions and potential feelings of their customers in order to maximize some metric.
It's always to maximize some sort of metric.
FINALLY - a voice of reason. Thank you and have an awesome from me!
Taleof2Cities wrote: »The next time I craft a CP160 item for a writ turn-in
Bouldercleave wrote: »I guess what the OP is trying to say, and I agree, that it really wouldn’t be that hard for ZOS to protect us from our inattentiveness. It really wouldn’t be that hard to look at your total, check what you are about to get, and if it’s over the cap, give you a warning that allows you to back out. It really is about lazy coding and the overall user interface/experience.
I don't want or need ZoS to protect me from my own inattentiveness. That's how you learn to be attentive - by messing up now and again.
I think we all got what the OP was trying to say. He was trying to say that HE screwed up , lost two tickets because HE wasn't paying attention, and SOMEHOW it's all ZoS's fault because they are lazy, incompetent, and don't care enough about their customers to protect themselves from their own stupidity.
VexingArcanist wrote: »It is bad coding, pure and simple. Don't tell me this was a design intention. It's ineptitude that hasn't been corrected due to laziness, time better spent reskinning ponies than correcting ineptitude.