Personal Bases / Lairs

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, Rudra said:

Well, players can already build all the SG bases they want and store as much as they want, but why should we make doing so any easier than it already is?

 

I'm not sure I understand how allowing coalition members (or anyone for that matter) access to storage bins outside their own SG is going to create "more players hoarding".  Sure, they would be able to access storage more storage bins, but so can anyone else within the coalition (or not) so long as they had the correct permissions.  Some people may put stuff into storage, others will take it out.

[Rudra]

29 minutes ago, Excraft said:

 

I'm not sure I understand how allowing coalition members (or anyone for that matter) access to storage bins outside their own SG is going to create "more players hoarding".

I don't recall saying anywhere on this thread that it would create "more players hoarding". So please don't add to my arguments for the sake of arguing against the addition. What I said was that we should not make it easier for players to hoard. That I am against making it easier for players to hoard. And that enabling players to make multiple bases that effectively share storage capacity for the sake of hoarding will negatively impact the market. Because now it would be a much simpler affair of moving assets between bases and accessing them on any single given character rather than making use of the auction house function. You don't agree with my stance on the auction house. I get that. However, adding things like "creating more players hoarding" or any other comment I did not say to my comments so you can argue against that extension is a bad faith argument.

 

As far as the OP is concerned, the author wants to make it possible for a single given character to be part of multiple SGs for the purpose of being aware of the different activities said SGs may be running so the author can participate. That request can be achieved without linking bases to share storage capacity or making characters members of multiple SGs at the same time. And I have provided alternate suggestions to do what the author requested. Without having to deal with the increased storage without need for middle man character to facilitate transfers that making a character a member of multiple SGs would enable. That you or anyone else disagrees with why I oppose that is a matter of your respective opinions. Just like my opposition to enabling such a thing is a matter of my opinion. Hence my other comments stating that I believe multi-base shared storage as made possible by the game is something to be avoided. It is my belief that base storage should not be shared across coalitions or to non-SG/coalition members, for the reasons I have already stated. You don't have to agree with me. I even welcome your disagreement. However, we can disagree without it becoming yet another dragged out argument. Especially one that sees additions to someone's post as an argument that the person did not make.

[ShardWarrior]

On 3/3/2025 at 5:44 PM, Rudra said:

The more bases involved, the greater the effect. With 1 base, we're capped at... 20? storage items. (Been a while, so not sure about the limit.) Giving coalition shared access or single character multi-SG access increases that limit per base. So now you can have a dedicated storage base for each separate grouping of enhancements, sets, salvage types, recipe types, and more. So let's say I establish the Rudra Very Rare SG, and I only have purple sets stored in that base for all my alts, the Rudra AoE SG, the Rudra Melee SG, and so on and so forth. And that is just for completed enhancement sets. Then I can add bases for specific rarities of salvage. Just go out and farm Ouroboros/AE for the relevant salvage and store them in the appropriate base. Players would never need bother with AE for storage, offloading salvage/recipes/enhancements, or even getting what they need for what they want to make again. We would have effectively infinite storage capacity.

 

I do not think hoarding is an issue.  I can understand your argument, but it does ignore several critical points others have made here.  The first and I think most critical point is what @Doc_Scorpion mentions here -

 

On 3/4/2025 at 10:14 AM, Doc_Scorpion said:

And you left out the countering disadvantage.  The more granular your storage (the more SG's you have) the more complex and time consuming it becomes to manage.  And the more complex it is to manage, the fewer and fewer people that will actually do it.

 

This is important.

 

For starters, let us just look at base storage only, excluding character inventory (emails, recipes and salvage) and using the AH for storage.  

 

Bases are capped at 18 storage objects total, which is additive and includes any combination of Salvage Racks, Enhancement Tables and Inspiration storage.  You cannot have more than 18 total storage objects.  This does not include the Salvage Vault since that only ever links to 1 personal vault per character.  Each individual storage object is limited to 100 items.

 

So as an example, a single player account can have 1,000 characters per server.  Each character can create their own individual super group and corresponding super group base for storage. Using that, we can see a single account can have -

 

Storage Object	Object Limit (per base)	Item Storage Capacity	Total Storage Capacity (per base)	Bases per Server (per account)	Total Account Storage (Items)
Personal Vault	1	100	100	1,000	100,000
Salvage Rack/Enhancement Table/Inspiration Storage	18	100	1,800	1,000	1,800,000
		Totals:	1,900	1,000	1,900,000

 

Just using these base objects alone, an individual can store up to 1,900,000 items in bases on an account, and again, excludes individual storage on each character which further increases this number.  That is an enormous amount of inventory to keep track of on a single account.  I very, very, very highly doubt there is anyone doing this, and if there is, they are an extreme edge case.  Assuming a player right now is doing this, they still need a mule on the same account or a different account to move things between characters, and even if they did not need a mule, this is still an absolutely enormous amount of inventory to track.  Remember, this is just base object storage and excludes the recipes, salvage and enhancements storage stored within a characters inventory.  All of that combined with the above further exacerbates the tracking and management.

 

If someone really wants to keep track of that much inventory on a single account and has the time and patience to do it, more power to them.  Granting coalition access to storage objects within a coalition is not making the tracking and maintenance of this inventory that much easier. 

 

I forgot to add, I agree that changing storage objects to allow for coalition (or any non-SG member) access is not necessary.  Outside of storage access, I agree everything that the OP is looking to do can already be achieved through the use of base entry macros, private chat channels, and tools like Discord.

 

I was only addressing the concern about hoarding.

Edited March 6 by ShardWarrior

[Rudra]

11 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

I do not think hoarding is an issue.  I can understand your argument, but it does ignore several critical points others have made here.  The first and I think most critical point is what @Doc_Scorpion mentions here -

Except I'm not ignoring it. As of right now, in the game, players can hoard. As an extreme edge case, we can have the scenario you presented. As of right now, we as players can:

 

Create a character for the sole purpose of making a storage base. For the time being, we set aside character considerations such as name loss for level over time.

Have that character create a SG for the sole purpose of making a storage base.

For ease of tracking, the SG can have a name that informs the player of what that base is going to store without being too obvious like Purple Enhancements Storage SG.

Have that character throw a storage base together. 18 storage items won't fit in the entry room, so a second, larger room is added and the storage items added.

Have that character add markers to groups of storage items for ease of tracking. I already do this in the active bases I have for different salvage tiers, where banners are color coded and/or have letters to mark ranges of for what is supposed to be in those storage items. (I have 1 "active" base on Torchbearer and 1active base on Everlasting. All other bases are thematic for friends to look at or RP in.)

 

All very easy so far. Total work required is maybe 10 minutes including the banners to mark different uses for the storage items. Now that player makes another character to do the same thing, except the base is for storing a different range or different items. Whatever that player wants. All good so far. Player wants to put in the effort to do all this? More power to him/her/them.

 

As of right now, to transfer anything from Base A to Base B for storage, or to transfer items from Character A to Base B since they are in different SGs and SGs can't share storage item access, that player has to either e-mail himself/herself/themselves said items individually to store, or create/log on a mule character on a second account to facilitate that transfer. That's a bit of time that player has to devote to hoarding, especially with the sorting. (Having characters named for tracking what their bases store such as say Purple Avenger or AoE Master goes a long way to simplifying things.) Maybe that player decides that the accumulated drops aren't worth the hassle of logging on the mule to start the process at the time and either holds onto it for a while longer until decides to go through the process of transferring, or throws it on the AH so others can make use of it. (Basic items like enhancement drops just get vendored.) Now you add in the ability to use storage items across a coalition or by simply accessing the base via a base code. Now you no longer have the coalition's cap for SGs to work around and you no longer have the tedium of accessing a mule character to handle transfers. Now the game is encouraging players to hoard. No more incentive to just toss it on the AH rather than log on a mule and start the transfer process to the appropriate storage bases. And it is that encouragement, and the cutting out of game elements that are not imposed on the player by other players such as Group Fly usage, the probability of assets being less available to other players even with seeded assets at their dev set prices as price caps for assets on the AH, that I oppose. Go ahead and hoard all you want if you choose to hoard. The game very much makes it possible. Especially since prestige was removed. (Which I am extremely grateful for every time I go to build a base.) Play however you want as long as you are not harrassing others. The game itself should not be encouraging it though. I'm not even saying that hoarders should find things harder, because that would be wrong, an attempt to punish others for playing differently. It should not be encouraged by changes to the game though. It already is a thing. Let it be a thing. Don't make it any easier.

[ShardWarrior]

 

5 minutes ago, Rudra said:

As of right now, to transfer anything from Base A to Base B for storage, or to transfer items from Character A to Base B since they are in different SGs and SGs can't share storage item access, that player has to either e-mail himself/herself/themselves said items individually to store, or create/log on a mule character on a second account to facilitate that transfer. That's a bit of time that player has to devote to hoarding, especially with the sorting. (Having characters named for tracking what their bases store such as say Purple Avenger or AoE Master goes a long way to simplifying things.) Maybe that player decides that the accumulated drops aren't worth the hassle of logging on the mule to start the process at the time and either holds onto it for a while longer until decides to go through the process of transferring, or throws it on the AH so others can make use of it. (Basic items like enhancement drops just get vendored.) Now you add in the ability to use storage items across a coalition or by simply accessing the base via a base code. Now you no longer have the coalition's cap for SGs to work around and you no longer have the tedium of accessing a mule character to handle transfers. Now the game is encouraging players to hoard. No more incentive to just toss it on the AH rather than log on a mule and start the transfer process to the appropriate storage bases. And it is that encouragement, and the cutting out of game elements that are not imposed on the player by other players such as Group Fly usage, the probability of assets being less available to other players even with seeded assets at their dev set prices as price caps for assets on the AH, that I oppose. Go ahead and hoard all you want if you choose to hoard. The game very much makes it possible. Especially since prestige was removed. (Which I am extremely grateful for every time I go to build a base.) Play however you want as long as you are not harrassing others. The game itself should not be encouraging it though. I'm not even saying that hoarders should find things harder, because that would be wrong, an attempt to punish others for playing differently. It should not be encouraged by changes to the game though. It already is a thing. Let it be a thing. Don't make it any easier.

 

In this example, the impact on making hoarding easier with regard to eliminating the need for a mule is so de minimis as to not even be worth noting.  As for incentives to toss something in the AH, that incentive would be not having to bother with storage and maintenance to keep track of that inventory.   I am just being honest, I do not think that the proposed idea would encourage hoarding or make it any easier than it already is or more desirable.  For all anyone knows, maybe it would make it easier for people to pull stuff out of storage and put it in the AH.

 

I can only speak from my personal observations here, but from my experience people want to sell excess salvage and recipes for influence, not hoard large amounts of it just to sit on it for some potential future use.  Especially since salvage is seeded and so inexpensive on the AH. 

[Rudra]

5 minutes ago, ShardWarrior said:

 

 

In this example, the impact on making hoarding easier with regard to eliminating the need for a mule is so de minimis as to not even be worth noting.  As for incentives to toss something in the AH, that incentive would be not having to bother with storage and maintenance to keep track of that inventory.   I am just being honest, I do not think that the proposed idea would encourage hoarding or make it any easier than it already is or more desirable.  For all anyone knows, maybe it would make it easier for people to pull stuff out of storage and put it in the AH.

 

I can only speak from my personal observations here, but from my experience people want to sell excess salvage and recipes for influence, not hoard large amounts of it just to sit on it for some potential future use.  Especially since salvage is seeded and so inexpensive on the AH. 

That's fair. My stance still hasn't changed though. So we disagree.

[TheMoneyMaker]

People "toss" stuff on the auction house because they want money. Most stuff can be just sold at stores for a fair, possibly better price than they'd get at the auction house. Only things I bother to auction off are the things that can't be sold at stores. But maybe I'll just keep all that from now on to justify your silly concerns about hoarding.

[Excraft]

22 hours ago, Rudra said:

I don't recall saying anywhere on this thread that it would create "more players hoarding". So please don't add to my arguments for the sake of arguing against the addition.

 

Apologies then as I seem to have misunderstood you.  It seemed to me your posts on not making it easier to transfer items around would encourage more players to hoard.  See below.

 

21 hours ago, Rudra said:

'm not even saying that hoarders should find things harder, because that would be wrong, an attempt to punish others for playing differently. It should not be encouraged by changes to the game though. It already is a thing. Let it be a thing. Don't make it any easier.

 

20 hours ago, TheMoneyMaker said:

People "toss" stuff on the auction house because they want money. Most stuff can be just sold at stores for a fair, possibly better price than they'd get at the auction house.

 

I agree.  Most people value the influence they can get from selling things versus hoarding it where it isn't earning anything.

[Rudra]

26 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Most people value the influence they can get from selling things versus hoarding it where it isn't earning anything.

Something for your consideration. Just as an example. I have built multiple bases. Two of those bases have storage bins, and they are on different servers. My bases are automatically open to all my friends, an to anyone in the chat channel that wants to look around in the bases and add a character to them. I invite them to add their characters to my SGs. I don't put anything into my storage bins, and yet my bins are all full. And my friends are routinely going through the storage bins moving things around to sort them for ease of locating what they may want later. I started adding color coded banners and other labels to those bases to help with the sorting based on what was asked for. When asked, my friends say they store things in them for their next character. Makes sense to me. Great idea. Except they don't make new characters except for maybe every fourth or fifth blue moon. Now, if they were to ask me to add storage bins to my other bases for them to store things in? I would. I would even log on the owning characters for those bases to put things in storage or take them out for them every time they are on since I play more often than they do, so I'm pretty guaranteed to be on when they need me. Or they can make an alt account to have mule characters in those other SGs to facilitate transferring things without me. I would welcome having their alts in my other bases. (I would actually like to see those other bases get some use.) They can stockpile away all they want. I'll even help them with it. I still don't think characters should be allowed to be part of multiple SGs at the same time or that SGs should be able to open their storage bins to other SGs in their coalition.

[Excraft]

Not going to lie, I've no idea what you're getting at there other than you have friends who "store stuff for their next character", then forget about the stuff they stored.  Most people I know store some rarer items only, then sell the rest.  Most salvage, IOs (even attuned), recipes and such are dirt cheap on the AH.  Saving tons of dirt cheap salvage for a rainy day isn't something we do.  I'm sure there are people who do just that, but again, I don't see eliminating the need for a mule toon to have any great impact on it.

[Rudra]

53 minutes ago, Excraft said:

Not going to lie, I've no idea what you're getting at there other than you have friends who "store stuff for their next character", then forget about the stuff they stored.  Most people I know store some rarer items only, then sell the rest.  Most salvage, IOs (even attuned), recipes and such are dirt cheap on the AH.  Saving tons of dirt cheap salvage for a rainy day isn't something we do.  I'm sure there are people who do just that, but again, I don't see eliminating the need for a mule toon to have any great impact on it.

My point is that people store things. (And they didn't forget anything they stored. Every time I go to buy anything from the AH, my friends remind me that they have it available in the base and I can take it. [I don't.]) Regardless of the reason why people store things, people store things. The game already makes it possible to store almost anything we want. (We can't store inf' or recipes in bases.) Because I know people store things for a variety of reasons does not change my opinion that the game should not make doing so any easier than it already is. And it is already plenty easy. I was hoping to clarify my feelings on the matter, but apparently I had the opposite effect. Sorry.