No you were quite clear because what I said was: In other words if the devs decided to raise the cash cap again to a point where premiums can live with it, then the devs have essentially (but not actually) devalued their own subscription model.
I imagine the specific thing I'm talking about (multiple sales to the repair vendor for a single repairing of gear) is not one of these deliberate impositions placed in the game by the devs. It didn't always exist because there was no such thing as a $2,000+ repair bill until a few years into the game's life. It is really just a consequence of the increasing cost of repairing higher item level gear, and it's not a static problem either. The magnitude of that consequence will get worse over time (albeit very slowly). Theoretically, there would be a point where even the most anti-premium people would have to admit it's ridiculous (although I admit we might not ever get to that point). I'm all for premium tier frustrations in order to incentivize membership, but this one isn't necessary. No one is subscribing for this alone. If a change were to happen that eliminates this problem and only this problem, no one would drop their sub over it. So I still haven't heard a good reason against it (as I find the frustrations/incentives argument to be rather weak when applied to this particular context). Whenever I bring this up, people just start making general statements about premium frustrations, membership incentives, and cash cap, and fail to explain how this would hurt.
Then you'd be wrong. Also considering this was the issue put forward when they recently raised the cash cap to only $3k do you still not think they put the frustration there deliberately or more so left it there knowingly, otherwise would they not have raised it to 10k right there and then? It's almost like you're trying to make us believe they have no idea what they're doing... which is it? That's rhetorical btw, we both know they put the frustration there on purpose you're just trying to wriggle your way out of buying a sub.
I'm not sure what you would consider "can live with it" versus "can't live with it." The only change I would request is so small that (1) it would never cross the threshold between "can live with it" and "can't live with it," and (2) it wouldn't affect the value of membership (tangibly or otherwise). The premium tier would be no less restrictive than it was when the game was launched.
I'm not aware of any dev comments on this so that was my belief. I could believe "left it there on purpose," but I'm not convinced by "deliberately planned out." Either way, it wouldn't change my opinion on it being an unnecessary aspect of the premium state. It would be such a small a change that it wouldn't affect the business of the game. No one would drop sub over it. Yet it would offer the slightest alleviation for premium players, which is not necessarily a bad thing, despite what the many anti-premium people on the forums want to believe. I can assure you this change would not make me drop my sub (nor would it anyone). I'm not arguing for any personal motive whatsoever. Edit: I am subbed.
I wouldn't call it steep numerically, but perhaps steep in the sense of the effects it would have on premiums, because yes, OP's number would, in addition to (mostly) solving the problem of my concern, have other consequences such as enabling them to purchase R&D items that are not purchasable right now. I knew this would get confusing as I never explicitly laid out an argument so I was bound to be seen as defending the OP's specific request.
You might not drop your sub, but don't be so sure no one would, you can't make that assertion. The reality is the frustration is there to ensure there's frustrations with the cash cap in the first place because the punitive nature of it, love it or hate it, pushes people to sub. The fact that people complain about it in the first probably should indicate its effectiveness. for every player that comes here and has a fat moan about it, how many do you think just subscribe and move on, ultimately giving the developers what they want; money...
Anyone who subs is doing it for far more than this repair thing. You're reaching if you think this is a deciding factor in anyone's decision.
I can't agree, I'm afraid. A slight increase in cash cap up to a sustainable limit for repairs isn't taking away the unlimited in-game cash we enjoy as Members. 10K does not seem unreasonable. Event runners dropping from content because they can't afford to repair their gear seems like it should not be happening, and is, IMO against the spirit of Event versions - that everyone can and should be able to play it.
Anyone's decision to sub is driven by a range of factors, but you're seemingly diminishing the punitive measures of the cash restriction as irrelevant, which is entirely incorrect. The cash cap is double pronged, people want to participate within the wider economy being the broker and trade but they also want to avoid any other restrictions that naturally come with the punitive measures of only having access to $3,000 All elements both negative and positive stemming from the cash cap are one of the biggest, if not the remaining biggest perpetual ongoing benefit motivating people to subscribe. Most other perks become increasingly more diminished as a a player progresses through the game, yet the cash cap remains of more static permanent value. So no, I believe you are incorrect good sir.
It's not quite like that. Premium players have to use a lot more ingenuity to get bang for their buck. But the broker is simply off-limits. Whether because they have to sell their wares ridiculously cheaply to come in under the 3K cap, or if they are trying to build an escrow vault for future membership, the most they can offer anything for is 60K.
I disagree that this change would have any significant effect on the overall punitiveness of the collection of cash cap related restrictions.
It is. Because £9 to sub for a month is inevitably better value. It's a historical anomaly - like Promethium Keys. Once it might have been useful, but it's been overshadowed, and is now effectively completely uneconomical.
Why are said premium players leaving it until their gear is entirely decimated before undertaking repairs, because that's the only time it becomes an issue. Notwithstanding the fact you're highlighting it as an issue in event content, why are people dying in event content? With respect it's pretty hard to die in event content. But for the record after one down Helmet - $110 Face - $113 Chest - $110 Back - $117 Waist - $110 Shoulders - $110 Hands - $110 Legs - $110 Boots - $110 Weapon - $110 Total - $1,110 For the second down $220 $227 $220 $234 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 $220 Total - $2,221 For the third down $330 $340 $330 $351 $330 $330 $330 $330 $330 $330 Total - $3,331 So as you can see it isn't until the third down repairs even start to exceed the premium cap where they couldn't just repair it all at once and would require a little shuffling. If you were in 'event' content and you died heaps then I would suggest perhaps 'die less', if you're in elite content then you can only die twice each fight anyway so repairing in between boss attempts should a wipe occur doesn't present any meaningful issue. The whole repair issue only comes up when premium players leave their repairs until their gear is utterly broken and they want to be melodramatic drama queens, despite the fact they've caused their own issue. But by all means, let's not let these facts get in the way of some beautiful hyperbole
