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

[Sylv.5324]

I am really frustrated. The class changes to Chrono made it basically obsolete in WvW (removing self-shatters in a game mode where clones die instantly drastically changes the viability of the class), and so I'm having to reroll to another class in order to keep raiding WvW with my guild. I get it, classes change, balance, etc, etc.

I played my mesmer/chrono since launch. I've put time and money into that character, eight years worth. He has maxed bag slots; I crafted him up to 28-slot bags for each slot. Why is it that I now have to spend real money in order to keep playing in the game mode I prefer, just to maintain the same quality of life? Why can't I move the bags I crafted to my new character? Why are bag slots per character instead of, like bank slots, per account?

It would be one thing if I were just like, 'welp, I'm tired of mes, let's switch to x'. But I'm not. You guys changed a core aspect of the spec to such a degree that I have to switch to an alt in order to stay useful to my guild. I understand you guys need to make money, but making my bags soulbound, really? When every other bag type is account-bound? Now I have to craft them to 32s (more gold, and yet you nerfed farms) just to be able to swap them at a vendor?

I am seriously considering quitting, with how aggravating this is. 'Oh, you want the same quality of life on your alt as on your main? Pay up!' is a crappy way to treat someone who's been loyal to your company for over a decade. I have no problem with whaling around, but that's in order to support your company. I don't want to support your company for making me pay for something I don't even want to do.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

We've yet to celebrate the 7th anniversary; how have you played your Mesmer for 8 years?
Would you pay, for example, 10 times the cost of a bag slot for an account-wide one?Does WvW shower so much loot? I've not experienced that, and always see comments on the forums about how it doesn't. Perhaps, your other characters will be able to 'get by' until a balance patch is found more favorable.

[Sylv.5324]

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:We've yet to celebrate the 7th anniversary; how have you played your Mesmer for 8 years?

The next anniversary is less than two months away. It's a lot closer to 8 than to 7.

[Blude.6812]

I have hated SOULBOUND storage,account bound and not being able to sell them would have been fine! (actually I hate ALL soulbound items and consider a really dumb restriction)

[Goettel.4389]

There hasn't been a change pertaining to the bags. Didn't you realize they were soulbound before?

[Sylv.5324]

@Goettel.4389 said:There hasn't been a change pertaining to the bags. Didn't you realize they were soulbound before?I didn't say there was a change to the bags. I'm saying that them being soulbound is crappy and I don't appreciate it.

[Goettel.4389]

@Sylv.5324 said:

@Goettel.4389 said:There hasn't been a change pertaining to the bags. Didn't you realize they were soulbound before?I didn't say there was a change to the bags. I'm saying that them being soulbound is crappy and I don't appreciate it.

The best time to evaluate was before you made them, right?

[Sylv.5324]

The tone of the responses indicates to me that spending another dime on ANet would be a mistake. Thanks for making that clear! :)

I've supported the company since the days of GW1, but I'm done.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

@Sylv.5324 said:

@Inculpatus cedo.9234 said:We've yet to celebrate the 7th anniversary; how have you played your Mesmer for 8 years?

The next anniversary is less than two months away. It's a lot closer to 8 than to 7.

Yes, the 7th anniversary, marking 7 years we have been playing. Next year, 14 months from now, we will celebrate 8 years of play.

[Goettel.4389]

@Sylv.5324 said:The tone of the responses indicates to me that spending another dime on ANet would be a mistake. Thanks for making that clear! :)

I've supported the company since the days of GW1, but I'm done.

Haz stuff plx? :)

[Bloodstealer.5978]

@Sylv.5324 said:

@Goettel.4389 said:There hasn't been a change pertaining to the bags. Didn't you realize they were soulbound before?I didn't say there was a change to the bags. I'm saying that them being soulbound is crappy and I don't appreciate it.

The fact your thread title says there has been a decrease in QoL due to soulbound bags/bag slots absolutely suggests you feel something has changed.. if not why the decrease if nothing has changed.

And yes as Inc has stated.. next year we celebrate 8 yrs. In 2 months time we celebrate 7 yrs.

I am seeing a pattern in your posting errors :)

[Zephyr.5382]

@Goettel.4389 said:The best time to evaluate was before you made them, right?

I'll just say QFT.

OP, I agree that the soul bound idea is stupid--especially with the bags. I recently felt compelled to take one of these bags all the way to the 32-slot version to avoid this exact issue in the future. I hate to break it to you, but, like @Goettel.4389 said, you should have planned ahead....

[Psientist.6437]

There are ways to avoid this particular example of the studio's shallow and arbitrary approach to creating market activity and acute demand for gold, but it sure would be nice if their approach didn't have to be shallow and arbitrary. I would describe this example as econ-bro, edge lord approach; bait a trap and hope a player approaches. I can not think of anything soul binding the intermediate bags does besides create economic activity and acute demand for gold. If it did, we would see it.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

According to the dev responses, the intent was that 24- and 28-slot bags would be precursors to the 32-slot. Thus, as with using a precursor weapon before you make a legendary weapon, the item becomes bound.

I disagree strongly with that choice. However, unlike others, I accept that they thought it was a good reason. And I accept that despite having seen our feedback, they've doubled down on that stance since.

---

That said, it's just about the only anti-QoL choice they've made since PoF began. Most gear stacks, once you reach L80 (in the form of unID gear bags). Nearly everything has "open all" or "consume all" as an option, more things stack, more things drop into the wallet or material storage, and so on. I need less bag space on newer toons than I needed a year ago... or 7 years ago for that matter.

As others have noted, it's also easily avoided. It's also a ridiculously expensive option. 26 to add 4 slots; 53g to add 8; and 120g to add 12 slots, compared to sticking with a 20-slot bag.

I'm not suggesting that the OP should keep playing. If the game isn't bringing them joy, they should stop; there's no need to invent a reason or name a "final straw," especially if they have to rely on fudging the facts.

[Hashberry.4510]

Ehh those bags are a gold sink for folks who are maxed out. Totally not necessary, particularly since the Unid gear went global.

I get frustrations with the class bungling can make other stuff more annoying. Good luck.

[Psientist.6437]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:According to the dev responses, the intent was that 24- and 28-slot bags would be precursors to the 32-slot. Thus, as with using a precursor weapon before you make a legendary weapon, the item becomes bound.

I disagree strongly with that choice. However, unlike others, I accept that they thought it was a good reason. And I accept that despite having seen our feedback, they've doubled down on that stance since.

Would you expand on the bold? Are you implying that soul binding 24 and 28 slot bags exists because the studio sees 32 slot bags as equivalents to Legendary gear? I would interpret the studio's use of the term precursor to mean that they see 24 and 28 as temporary stops on the way to 32. If so, then the studio uses soul binding to penalize those players who don't want to complete the journey. Since soul binding will have to create the mini crisis of sunk cost fallacy being experienced by the OP, then we must assume that is the studio's intent.

Please offer me anything else that you think soul binding accomplishes. If we can tell the OP that they could have avoided soul-binding and this mini crisis of sunk cost then we should be willing to accurately explain why soul binding exists.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

@Psientist.6437 said:Please offer me anything else that you think soul binding accomplishes.I don't think soul-binding accomplishes anything. I was offering up ANet's explanation, not my own.

If we can tell the OP that they could have avoided soul-bindingIt is not possible. 24- and 28-slot bags are character bound.

we should be willing to accurately explain why soul binding exists.I have offered the explanation. I don't agree with ANet that they made the right call, but since they have doubled and trebled down on the decision, it doesn't seem likely that they will change things.

Accordingly, I accept that this is the mechanic in the game: that it's not worth it to me to craft 24- or 28-slot bags.

[Khisanth.2948]

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

According to the dev responses, the intent was that 24- and 28-slot bags would be precursors to the 32-slot. Thus, as with using a precursor weapon before you make a legendary weapon, the item becomes bound.

I disagree strongly with that choice. However, unlike others, I accept that they thought it was a good reason. And I accept that despite having seen our feedback, they've doubled down on that stance since.

Would you expand on the bold? Are you implying that soul binding 24 and 28 slot bags exists because the studio sees 32 slot bags as equivalents to Legendary gear? I would interpret the studio's use of the term precursor to mean that they see 24 and 28 as temporary stops on the way to 32. If so, then the studio uses soul binding to penalize those players who don't want to complete the journey. Since soul binding will

have to

create the mini crisis of sunk cost fallacy being experienced by the OP, then we must assume that is the studio's intent.

Please offer me anything else that you think soul binding accomplishes. If we can tell the OP that they could have avoided soul-binding and this mini crisis of sunk cost then we should be willing to accurately explain why soul binding exists.

Unless they have changed the crafting system, if the bag is bound to a character other than the crafter it can no longer be upgraded. This completely invalidates the precursor claim and comparison to weapons. This final step for weapons is done in the forge and the rest of the ingredients are account bound so it does not suffer from that problem. This has also been a problem with the guild weapons since HoT came out.

[Etria.3642]

I feel your pain; my wvw guild has politely instructed our chronos(which includes me) to turn to a different class.

That said, long ago I reacted to the silliness of soulbinding the bags to not only not making them but not buying bag slots either. My new guardian has the starter pack, the free 32 from sandswept, and 3 halloween pails. I sort through bags while waiting for gates/walls to go down. My main PVE has an invisible 20 slot and pact bags, but all my other characters make do with cheapo 18 slots.

Things that are not account bound that I want to save get shipped to my alt account. I also definitely use the mail to my alt, then send back method to condense stuff.

But I wish heartily that they would just change it.

[Khisanth.2948]

... and nope. Crafting system still has the same problem. Just checked in game. If the item is soulbound to a different character it can not be upgraded.

[Psientist.6437]

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:Please offer me anything else that you think soul binding accomplishes.I don't think soul-binding accomplishes anything. I was offering up ANet's explanation, not my own.

If we can tell the OP that they could have avoided soul-bindingIt is not possible. 24- and 28-slot bags are character bound.

we should be willing to accurately explain why soul binding exists.I have offered the explanation. I don't agree with ANet that they made the right call, but since they have doubled and trebled down on the decision, it doesn't seem likely that they will change things.

Accordingly, I accept that this is the mechanic in the game: that it's not worth it to me to craft 24- or 28-slot bags.

To be accurate, you are offering your interpretation of the studio's explanation. An interpretation that doesn't accurately represent their explanation. The allusion to Legendary weapons is your own. Why do you think your interpratation is valid?

A player can avoid the mini crisis caused by soul binding 24 and 28. You have offered advice describing how.

Soul binding clearly accomplishes something. It penalizes players who don't complete the journey to 32 slot bags. It creates the mini crisis that so many players have described. Do you think it is valid to assume this was the studio's intent?

I don't know if the studio will change anything and I am willing to not invest in bags above 20 slots. I am not willing to let the studio hide their intentions.

[Khisanth.2948]

@Psientist.6437 said:

@Illconceived Was Na.9781 said:

@Psientist.6437 said:Please offer me anything else that you think soul binding accomplishes.I don't think soul-binding accomplishes anything. I was offering up ANet's explanation, not my own.

If we can tell the OP that they could have avoided soul-bindingIt is not possible. 24- and 28-slot bags are character bound.

we should be willing to accurately explain why soul binding exists.I have offered the explanation. I don't agree with ANet that they made the right call, but since they have doubled and trebled down on the decision, it doesn't seem likely that they will change things.

Accordingly, I accept that this is the mechanic in the game: that it's not worth it to me to craft 24- or 28-slot bags.

To be accurate, you are offering your interpretation of the studio's explanation. An interpretation that doesn't accurately represent their explanation. The allusion to Legendary weapons is your own. Why do you think your interpratation is valid?

A player can avoid the mini crisis caused by soul binding 24 and 28. You have offered advice describing how.

Soul binding clearly accomplishes something. It penalizes players who don't complete the journey to 32 slot bags. It creates the mini crisis that so many players have described. Do you think it is valid to assume this was the studio's intent?

I don't know if the studio will change anything and I am willing to not invest in bags above 20 slots. I am not willing to let the studio hide their intentions.

Furthermore ... if we are going to use legendaries as examples it can be argued that we should be moving away from soulbinding as demonstrated by the fact that all items created for the 2nd gen weapons are account bound.

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

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.

[Psientist.6437]

@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.

[Khisanth.2948]

@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.