Please undo the change to Reinforced Olmakhan Bandolier

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

Since when can you compact anything in a specialty bag? I use the oiled ones (for example) because I can sell stuff from them, but they don't move around.

Since the first reward bag ever came out? I can compact all my reward boxes, bags, and jars to include the Karka Shell one. And even if you couldn't, you should be able to regardless.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Ardenwolfe.8590 said:@"Illconceived Was Na.9781" said:

Since when can you compact anything in a specialty bag? I use the oiled ones (for example) because I can sell stuff from them, but they don't move around.

Since the first reward bag ever came out? I can compact all my reward boxes, bags, and jars to include the Karka Shell one.

I apologize for using ambiguous phrasing. You & I are discussing two different things. By "specialty" bag, I mean, oiled or invisible or equipment bags. None of those compact, as far as I know. You're referring to bags given as rewards, which have predominantly been "ordinary" bags with special names; those compact like, well, normal bags.

And even if you couldn't, you should be able to regardless.I don't see how that follows. Bags that filter incoming items work a particular way for a reason, which a lot of people make use of.

Now maybe you mean that you would prefer that all reward bags given for any achievement be normal bags: no special filters. I'd have no problem with that. But I don't think it should be one way or another. I'm happy just to have the extra storage space; I can figure out how to make it work for me, as long as ANet doesn't keep changing its function.

[Shirlias.8104]

A vendor which allows you to trade a 32 slot bag for another could do the thing ( they add vendors with pof because of the souldbound version on 32 slots ).

like https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Dalal#vendor21

However, once again, the whole thing is mostly stupid if you think about it.

They decide to add a free bag through LS4 ep 2 achievements

This is definitely a good thing. Players would appreciate a free 32 slot bag which could be worth 150/180g.

However, they decide not to put the base version but a "particular version".

This was probably not the best choice ( even though it is clear that the goal was to provvide a 32 slots with problems, and with "problems" I mean not a standard version, which would have been used by 100% of the players without any complaints ).

Also they didn't think about the possibility to give players a choice.

This, also, was definitely bad.Plenty of times you have to chose your reward from a list, and so this could have happened with the invisible bag.

It would have be win/win for everybody:

• Players would have had a choice between 4 kind of bags.
• Anet shouldn't have think about a new recipe.
• The would have been no complaints.

Shortly, everything happened because the real goal was not to provvide players something useful, but something incomplete ( the recipe could have been add to any vendor, so it's not an excuse ) and probably not useful for everybody ( even though the new recipe could have been easily introduced ).

It's not the first time things stuff that happens, and honestly I am not surprised at all.Nice one for giving an invis bag ( which could have been not necessarily used for stacking containers ) and then removing it.

[Rasimir.6239]

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:I preferred invisible version better. Healthy solution would be giving us a vendor or MF recipe to change now fixed bag into old version.There IS no "old version" of this bag. It's one object that wasn't working as intended (by ANet) and now got fixed to work as intended. If you want a bag with the functionality this one wasn't meant to have, then you'll have to create a completely new object in the object database and give that one the properties you'd like to have (in this case: prioritize consumables, don't compact, invisible instead of just prioritize consumables, don't compact) plus its own object id and whatever other properties objects in this game's database need to have to function in game. Technically speaking, your "healthy solution" would require the creation of a new bag as well as a new vendor (tab), something which I suspect isn't as quick and easy as handing out paper bags at your local grocery store.

[Rasimir.6239]

@"Shirlias.8104" said:This was probably not the best choice ( even though it is clear that the goal was to provvide a 32 slots with problems, and with "problems" I mean not a standard version, which would have been used by 100% of the players without any complaints ).Personally, I prefer to use "special" bags for all of my characters' inventories (oiled, craftsman's, siegemaster's, (fractal) equipment, invisible) because I prefer the way those bags help me organize my inventory, so at least this one person out of the 100% of players is more content with the special bag than a standard bag, thank you :) . Granted, I probably wouldn't have complained if it were a standard bag (gift horse and all), but replacing a siegemaster's satchel on a character that's carrying a lot of consumables around is indeed more useful to me.

[Shirlias.8104]

@Rasimir.6239 said:

@"Shirlias.8104" said:This was probably not the best choice ( even though it is clear that the goal was to provvide a 32 slots with problems, and with "problems" I mean not a standard version, which would have been used by 100% of the players without any complaints ).Granted, I probably wouldn't have complained if it were a standard bag

Oh God, you got the point of my message ( that was addressed not to you or a specific player but the whole community! ).But you should have read the whole post instead

Also they didn't think about the possibility to give players a choice.

This, also, was definitely bad.Plenty of times you have to chose your reward from a list, and so this could have happened with the invisible bag.

It would have be win/win for everybody:

• Players would have had a choice between 4 kind of bags.
• Anet shouldn't have think about a new recipe.
• The would have been no complaints.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@Rasimir.6239 said:

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:I preferred invisible version better. Healthy solution would be giving us a vendor or MF recipe to change now fixed bag into old version.There IS no "old version" of this bag. It's one object that wasn't working as intended (by ANet) and now got fixed to work as intended. If you want a bag with the functionality this one wasn't meant to have, then you'll have to create a completely new object in the object database and give that one the properties you'd like to have (in this case: prioritize consumables, don't compact, invisible instead of just prioritize consumables, don't compact) plus its own object id and whatever other properties objects in this game's database need to have to function in game. Technically speaking, your "healthy solution" would require the creation of a new bag as well as a new vendor (tab), something which I suspect isn't as quick and easy as handing out paper bags at your local grocery store.

ArenaNet is 400+ employee AAA company. The "its to hard" excuse should die already.

[Rasimir.6239]

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@Rasimir.6239 said:

@Shirlias.8104 said:This was probably not the best choice ( even though it is clear that the goal was to provvide a 32 slots with problems, and with "problems" I mean not a standard version, which would have been used by 100% of the players without any complaints ).Granted, I probably wouldn't have complained if it were a standard bagOh God, you got the point of my message ( that was addressed not to you or a specific player but the whole community! ).But you should have read the whole post instead

Also they didn't think about the possibility to give players a choice

.

This, also, was definitely bad.Plenty of times you have to chose your reward from a list, and so this could have happened with the invisible bag.

It would have be win/win for everybody:

• Players would have had a choice between 4 kind of bags
  .
• Anet shouldn't have think about a new recipe
  .
• The would have been no complaints
  .

Oh, I did read your whole post. They didn't give us a choice as to which bag we want, but choose one to implement as a quest/collection reward. There are times when they choose to give us a selection, and there are times when they don't.

In this case, 32 slot bags with other behaviour have been available since PoF, and several people have been asking to also make one available that has the same functionality as the siegemaster's satchel, namely prioritizing consumables. To me it looks like ANet's goal with this was not to give an alternate route to the 32 slot bags already in game but to simply introduce one with a different behaviour.

There's more to it for ANet than "just giving people what they want". Extra work to put in the selection and extra objects, both from a pure coding/configuration point as well as concerning the distribution and accessability of items (in this case: bags and bag space) and giving people the illusion of "something to do". Putting four (or however many different bag functionalities you want) new objects (bags) into the database instead of just one. Last but not least the hassle of dealing with customer support for all those that find they've choosen the wrong bag from the list after all. All of this may look negligible, but when you take into account that there are a lot more rewards in game that could do with the "let us choose" treatment it adds up quickly.

Seeing what people complain about on the forums, there would've been complaints regardless of what they did. Complaints from people who want different bag functionality. Complaints from people who choose the "wrong" bag at the selection window. I'm pretty sure you could even come up with a person to complain that they have no use for the bag since they've outfitted all of their characters with 32 slot bags already 8) .

No matter what ANet does, there won't be "no complaints", simply "different complaints". I for one appreciate that they do think things through and try to give a good variety in rewards, and not just cater to those complaining the loudest at the time. Just because I wouldn't have complained either way doesn't mean I'm indifferent on the subject. I trust that ANet is realistic enough to not strive to do things that get the least amount of complaints but rather those that they think are best for the game as a whole. So just because I'm a person that's not in a habit to complain about gifts/rewards that aren't 100% what I'd like to have doesn't mean your proposed solution would be perfect.

[Shirlias.8104]

@"Rasimir.6239" said:No matter what ANet does, there won't be "no complaints", simply "different complaints".

Oh, that's not true.If four 32 slot bags exist and you give players 1 for free of their choice, there won't be any complaint.

It's you that convinced yourself about that.

Like now, the community could be split between the old and the new bag.If there would have been 4 bags to chose betwee, there won't have been any complaints ( unless things like "I choose the wrong bag", but this is a "SUPPORT TEAM" issue, as you know ).

Nothing but Logic.

In before "people would have asked for a free mount instead" or stuff like this.

[Rasimir.6239]

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:

@Rasimir.6239 said:

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:I preferred invisible version better. Healthy solution would be giving us a vendor or MF recipe to change now fixed bag into old version.There IS no "old version" of this bag. It's one object that wasn't working as intended (by ANet) and now got fixed to work as intended. If you want a bag with the functionality this one wasn't meant to have, then you'll have to create a completely new object in the object database and give that one the properties you'd like to have (in this case: prioritize consumables, don't compact, invisible instead of just prioritize consumables, don't compact) plus its own object id and whatever other properties objects in this game's database need to have to function in game. Technically speaking, your "healthy solution" would require the creation of a new bag as well as a new vendor (tab), something which I suspect isn't as quick and easy as handing out paper bags at your local grocery store.

ArenaNet is 400+ employee AAA company. The "its to hard" excuse should die already.But where do you stop? You want a second bag (which, btw, if it's the invisible 32 slot bag you're aiming for, is already available from PoF), the guy next to you wants a different variant of another reward item, and the one next to them again wants another one. ANet has to draw the line somewhere and choose which rewards to give where (and how many variants/objects to give to choose from). In this case, they drew the line at one non-choosable reward item. Maybe they'll offer a bag with the combined invisible/consumable functionality in a future release, but for now they've decided on this one.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@Rasimir.6239 said:

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:

@Rasimir.6239 said:

@"Kheldorn.5123" said:I preferred invisible version better. Healthy solution would be giving us a vendor or MF recipe to change now fixed bag into old version.There IS no "old version" of this bag. It's one object that wasn't working as intended (by ANet) and now got fixed to work as intended. If you want a bag with the functionality this one wasn't meant to have, then you'll have to create a completely new object in the object database and give that one the properties you'd like to have (in this case: prioritize consumables, don't compact, invisible instead of just prioritize consumables, don't compact) plus its own object id and whatever other properties objects in this game's database need to have to function in game. Technically speaking, your "healthy solution" would require the creation of a new bag as well as a new vendor (tab), something which I suspect isn't as quick and easy as handing out paper bags at your local grocery store.

ArenaNet is 400+ employee AAA company. The "its to hard" excuse should die already.But where do you stop? You want a second bag (which, btw, if it's the invisible 32 slot bag you're aiming for, is already available from PoF), the guy next to you wants a different variant of another reward item, and the one next to them again wants another one. ANet has to draw the line somewhere and choose which rewards to give where (and how many variants/objects to give to choose from). In this case, they drew the line at one non-choosable reward item. Maybe they'll offer a bag with the combined invisible/consumable functionality in a future release, but for now they've decided on this one.

make achievement reward a box with a bag of your choice, for people who are unhappy make a vendor where you can exchange the bag to other functionality, it's not about giving new bag for free, it's about swapping functionality

[Rysdude.3824]

I like the invisible function as well. Its 2 in 1 item. Please allow us to switch it.

[Rasimir.6239]

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@"Rasimir.6239" said:No matter what ANet does, there won't be "no complaints", simply "different complaints".

Oh, that's not true.If four 32 slot bags exist and you give players 1 for free of their choice, there won't be any complaint.

It's you that convinced yourself about that.

Like now, the community could be split between the old and the new bag.If there would have been 4 bags to chose betwee, there won't have been any complaints ( unless things like "I choose the wrong bag", but this is a "SUPPORT TEAM" issue, as you know ).

Nothing but Logic.

In before "people would have asked for a free mount instead" or stuff like this.32 slot bags exist in-game in 4 functionalities (plain, equipment, crafting material, trash). ANet introduces a 32 slot bag with the 5th functionality available to bags (consumables) that's been asked for, and puts it in game as a collection reward. Your logic is to scrap the asked for bag variant and instead introduce an alternate way to get the bags that already are in game. I'm sure there's people that would like this, but it doesn't really look like what ANet set out to do. What's logic got to do with offering a reward with a totally different goal instead of the one they implemented?

Btw, customer support is a very real and potentially quite expensive aspect of anything they put in game, so I suspect that to give out a reward that might bring with it considerable support expenses is something ANet won't do lightly.

[Shirlias.8104]

Aa said before, the recipe could have add to a vendor. And there we could have had a choice between 5 bags.

I am sorry but you don't want to see the proper way to introduce items. It's not that players like to whine all the time, but that sometimes anet do deliberately stuff not in a fair and proper way.

Everybody would have been able to guess that, if the real goal were to give players a 32 slot bag, there could have been different options, like giving a standard bag or a choice between all bags.

If things had been made that way, how could have a player made a complaint?

Also remember that they gave an invia bag, and after that they decided to remove it.They didn't even test the item before releasing it.

[Tanner Blackfeather.6509]

"Fair" and "proper" are both subjective.There is quite often a difference between what players ask for and what the developer sets out to do. In this case, what a lot of players are complaining about and offering solutions to actually have very little to do with that ANet seems to have set out to do.

The type of bag (prioritizing consumables) was pretty clearly the starting point, with the achievement as simply the delivery mechanism.

[revolucion.3864]

This a shame, the item is no longer of any use to me, so I guess : "You are about to permanently destroy Reinforced Olmakhan Bandolier. Enter the item's name below to confirm before destroying."

[Pifil.5193]

I'm glad they fixed this bug, I've been waiting for them to do that before I equipped it.

[Mandragorin.5978]

You have no use for it anymore? Maxed out with 32 slot bags on every character on your account? That's not very likely (not that its impossible), and I call bunk on that particular statement. I personally would have prefered a true 32 slot invisible bag as the reward. That being said, I have completed the collection for the gasp fun of it. One more point...to those saying it should have been an option of what bag you wanted from a list and "there was no reason not to do so". Yes there is a reason. They could have chosen from a list, but what list? A list of all availability types would that truly have made every player happy? What if I "needed" a bag that doesn't exist. Let's presume I wanted a bag that filters out drops that can salvage to leather. I need lots of leather and only want to salvage those items. A bag that sorts that for me is what I need. Point being anet can not (not should they try) to please 100% of all players. From my vantage point, they gave me a free 32 slot bag for completing a portion of the game that also awarded some AP points! I can find a character on my account to use any form of a 32 slot bag they decide to reward me with. I am very happy to get the free 32 slot bag (regardless of what version it is).

[Ardenwolfe.8590]

Pretty much everything Shirlias said and said well. All this hand wringing and debate over something that has such an easy fix is amazing to me.

Again, give us a choice over how we want the bag to operate or which bag we want.

Everybody wins.

[Shirlias.8104]

@Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:The type of bag (prioritizing consumables) was pretty clearly the starting point, with the achievement as simply the delivery mechanism.

I don't agree, because they fixed it after.So they first gave an item, then modified it.

[Tanner Blackfeather.6509]

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said:The type of bag (prioritizing consumables) was pretty clearly the starting point, with the achievement as simply the delivery mechanism.

I don't agree, because they fixed it after.So they first gave an item, then modified it.

They designed an item (that has been asked for by quite a few players). They then figured out an interesting delivery mechanism.Going live, it is discovered that the item worked slightly different from intended, so they fix it.

My point however, was that their intent was never "give players a non-crafting way to get a 32 slot bag", that was incidental.The intent was "introduce >20 slot bags sorting consumables", and they decided to tie it to the map via a series of collections.

Thus, any suggestion based around offering a "more useful" kind of bag is trying to solve the wrong problem.

[GrubySzymek.1362]

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@"Tanner Blackfeather.6509" said:The type of bag (prioritizing consumables) was pretty clearly the starting point, with the achievement as simply the delivery mechanism.

I don't agree, because they fixed it after.So they first gave an item, then modified it.

The item still have the functionality we had with released, what they didn't intend was making it "invisible" bag.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@"Ardenwolfe.8590" said:Pretty much everything Shirlias said and said well. All this hand wringing and debate over something that has such an easy fix is amazing to me.

Again, give us a choice over how we want the bag to operate or which bag we want.

Everybody wins.

If it were "free" to offer changes to the mechanics, sure, then everyone wins. But every time the developers add something new, it means they aren't working on something else that we might also want.

In six months, is this really going to be something that you wish ANet had spent more time on? Or would you prefer them devoting the same time to fixing bugs or working on other QoL issues?

I wouldn't have minded if the 32-slot reward bag was a no-frills version... or if it were "just" invisible. But having 12 extra slots on a bag, without having to spend 200 gold seems great to me, whatever its features.

[Shirlias.8104]

@Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:

@Shirlias.8104 said:

@Tanner Blackfeather.6509 said:The type of bag (prioritizing consumables) was pretty clearly the starting point, with the achievement as simply the delivery mechanism.

I don't agree, because they fixed it after.So they first gave an item, then modified it.

They designed an item (that has been asked for by quite a few players). They then figured out an interesting delivery mechanism.Going live, it is discovered that the item worked slightly different from intended, so they fix it.

My point however, was that their intent was never "give players a non-crafting way to get a 32 slot bag", that was incidental.The intent was "introduce >20 slot bags sorting consumables", and they decided to tie it to the map via a series of collections.

Thus, any suggestion based around offering a "more useful" kind of bag is

trying to solve the wrong problem

.

Indeed it was silly to release a new item witout checking it first, but even so some appreciated the old version more than the new.

But more than this, what i dislike mostly is that they managed to offer all players not a standard ( which would have been useful to 100% players ) version of the bag and then adding a vendor with a recipe for the new, but a "particular" one which could have been appreciated not by all the community ( and as confirm, the fact that the bag were used as an invisible one ).

[Tanner Blackfeather.6509]

And it seems they weren't interested in giving players a plus-size standard bag. That's my entire point.

You're trying to argue the sushi joint should have been selling thai food, when the problem was that they couldn't offer the planned sushi menu at opening and some people got used to their temp menu. (Yes, I know that analogy is silly)