I subscribe, but I have to agree, not about them controlling the prices, but the limit to credits stored. If they offered an 'ala cart' subscription, say $2.00 a month for an unlock to the bank maximums, they could fix this without trying to manipulate the economy.

Where the hell is my thumbs up function....

Lolz... I think the cartel market tells another story

Awesome constructive feedback. Would you prefer no one talks about the issue? The point is they need a communicate better about the drop rates. if an advertised item is made from unobtainium, then they need to say so. I spent the money I was comfortable spending. I spent, I rolled and it did not pan out, that is all fine and good.... The core issue is if you are going to set a drop rate that is not in line with the rest of the pack, it is only common courteously to let you customers know this, either through a statement or better yet a new category, Platinum, etc.

You are welcome

Best to nuke it from orbit...

/Agree... quoted for truth. I am not prone to complaining or griefing, I have played this game since release and a stay out of the forum drama because I do not fid it productive. As the poster above pointed out, the current trend is not the norm and indeed needs to be called into question, not just for those who rolled the dice this time but for all of those who do so the next time and the time after that.

No doubt! you will get no argument from me. I'm not mad, I had the cash I rolled the dice. That comes to an end with this pack, as you say they are going after low hanging fruit.... but it seems they forgot to water the tree. Time will tell how many more jump away from packs and what effect that has on the game.

You do realize "People Like Us" help pay the bills for those chasing bugs and developing content. Guess they will be letting a developer or bug tester go next month when I stop buying packs.... Sorry about that

Seems you may be right I just jumped off the bus. No doubt they will need to let staff go next month when I do not participate.... Keep in mind one of those staff may be the guy chasing bugs and developing content. Sorry about that

All evidence to the contrary you seem to feel that all items in this pack are weighted equally. I do not, my experience and the experience of many of those posing on this forum as well as the qty. posted on the GTN all fly in the face of your assumption. I think we will need to agree to disagree.

Quoted for truth....

368 packs opened zero saber drops.... By 307 I was missing only two items from this release (sabers not included) By 368 At least one of every item dropped. (sabers not included) For me the issue comes down to expectations, they need to tell their customers that an item will not be dropping at the same rate as the other. They did away with bronze but added another drop that did not follow the same % as their other 'gold' items, and never bothered to tell anyone that they had made a new 'platinum' level item while still classifying it as 'gold'. No matter how you cut it, that is by definition 'Bait And Switch' As for the constructive portion: I think it comes down to the average players perception of value and spending habits. IMO, this should be the target. You want the players to work for items and perhaps spend a little more than they would have liked but at the end of the day you want them stepping away with the feeling that the trade cash-for-collectables was an equitable and even exchange. Where is the point of equality? I do not know but I assure you BW/EA does (or should). The issue (to me) is that they have lost sight of that and they are indeed taking advantage of their customers more than they need to, more than is healthy for the customer the game and the game economy. There are TONS of things they could do in the coding to make this work, not just base % drop but adjusted % drop based on the average return they would like to see from each pack. They could give a slight increase that scales as the customer opens more packs and then drops once they have already received that item....You could seriously nail down the cost to customer vs. return to customer within a few % points and then everyone can walk away content. Unfortunately they have chosen a path that is unhealthy for the customer and the game long term.

Agreed, the unintended consequences of this means a good price for those who did not buy packs and instead rely on the GTN, as there is now a glut of items (sabers excluded) but an awful return for those who went in heavy on packs chasing a saber. I think the poster above IS making a constructive observation... He is pointing out a flaw that they obviously had not looked at and this can only help for future adjustments.

/signed For me the issue comes down to expectations, they need to tell their customers that an item will not be dropping at the same rate as the other. They did away with bronze but added another drop that did not follow the same % as their other 'gold' items, and never bothered to tell anyone that they had made a ne 'platinum' level item while still classifying it as 'gold'. No matter how you cut it, that is by definition 'Bait And Switch' As for the constructive portion: I think it comes down to the average players perception of value and spending habits. IMO, this should be the target. You want the players to work for items and perhaps spend a little more than they would have liked but at the end of the day you want them stepping away with the feeling that the trade cash-for-collectables was an equitable and even exchange. Where is the point? I do not know but I assure you BW/EA does. The issue (to me) is that they have lost sight of that and they are indeed taking advantage of their customers more than they need to, more than is healthy for the customer the game and the game economy. There are TONS of things they could do in the coding to make this work, not just base % drop but adjusted % drop based on the average return they would like to see from each pack. They could give a slight increase that scales as the customer opens more packs and then drops once they have already received that item....You could seriously nail down the cost to customer vs. return to customer within a few % points and then everyone can walk away content. Unfortunately they have chosen a path that is unhealthy for the customer and the game long term.

Yep no argument on the other items, they all dropped as expected, I did not end up with a full set in the first 300, just a couple items missing but the light sabers, as the thread is titled are the issue.

No sir, I am not angry nor am I wrong. The drop rate for the light sabers is not in line with the other gold item drops, as evidenced by the multiple threads and my own experience. Cleary I am not a statistical anomaly.

Yeah that could work if they actually revived the Cert vendors with the drops from the prior packs, a single rotating inventory vendor so players could go after items they wanted. As those items are bind on pickup, you would likely not kill the GTN.

HAHAH yeah point taken... Those days have passed, as I said I will buy select items from the GTN and forget about my OCD collectors aspect.

No silly Jawa, its not for others, its for me... I rarely do group content. I just like to collect. and dress my digital doll up

I think it comes down to the average players perception of value and spending habits. IMO, this should be the target. You want the players to work for items and perhaps spend a little more than they would have liked but at the end of the day you want them stepping away with the feeling that the trade cash-for-collectables was an equitable and even exchange. Where is the point? I do not know but I assure you BW/EA does. The issue (to me) is that they have lost sight of that and they are indeed taking advantage of their customers more than they need to, more than is healthy for the customer the game and the game economy. There are TONS of things they could do in the coding to make this work, not just base % drop but adjusted % drop based on the average return they would like to see from each pack. They could give a slight increase that scales as the customer opens more packs and then drops once they have already received that item....You could seriously nail down the cost to customer vs. return to customer within a few % points and then everyone can walk away content. Unfortunately they have chosen a path that is unhealthy for the customer and the game long term.

Thank you! and back at cha!

Yeah agreed, I set a budget for the pack and roll the dice, this one I decided to keep going because I had the disposable income and it was not going to be an issue... plus I really wanted to see just how out of whack it was. Question asked and answered. But to your point on those souls that just can't let it go.... you are right, they are creating an unnecessary hazard for those with gambling issues.

Yep cant argue with that... always has been a gamble, now its just an unreasonable one I'm not crying about the money, I played I lost, all is fine. I just know that many cannot afford to spend that kind of coin on a ridiculously small chance. Just from a customer service standpoint its not good business to leave an average customer (I am not counting myself as an average spender) with a feeling that they were not getting a fair trade. Not saying they need to make them crazy easy drops but I think they need to real in the odds a bit.

Pfft please, I did not set the drop rate, I simply chose whether or not I wanted to spend my money. I now choose not to.