It doesn't matter. Why? Because it isn't Player error. (Give me some slack, trying to point to a specific post, and it might take a few tries. Ehh, I've never gotten the forums to point to a specific post before (even when it claims to be redirecting to my own posts). So I can't tell if it is working. I'll quote the post just to make sure people know the post I am referencing.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just like those of different sexual orientation from you deserve (or don't) different rights from you, or people of different skin color are lesser beings than you. Because you don't suffer it, it isn't worth considering. It isn't worth considering so much you must point out that you don't suffer it. Just for the sake of pointing out that you don't suffer it. Helpful, that.

Oh? Really? I could never have to do with a strong enemy "teleporting" into a combat that already had a strong patroller join the fight. It could never have to do with a characters health bar being static, and then have the past 15-20 seconds worth of damage finally show up and wipe out all of the characters remaining health in one go. It could never have to do with buggy combat that every so often attacks seems to do quadruple damage (both for players and mobs). It has to be player error. No chance it could be the game at all, could there?

These statements are (currently) wrong. We have yet to hear how the discussions about keeping pre-level 50 medpacks working as in live has turned out. But right now, the change is more than just balance. It affects more than just the crew skill. IF the change was only to biochem medpacks, this thread would be smaller. It would still be a contested change, but not so vehemently. There are a quite a few people who are against this change because it is so wide spread.

IF only I could believe that. If, and only if, the story mode/class quests were balanced to solo play (and I am not suggesting they were, nor that they should be) at launch they have shown that they have a higher bar set than many people can reach for solo play. I am a good gamer. Not the best by far. But well above average. And I hit roadblocks in the class quests that requires me to either find help (and on my varied schedule occasionally means convincing one of the other 3 people on planet to help) or out level the encounter. So why do I not think the encounters will get retuned? The developers are busy. New content can never wait. That is the business model. I think it is foolish to keep adding code onto "bad" code (code that needs fixing)... But I do not run the business. So new content always needs working on. Old content always needs repair. All of that is already keeping them from balance work in the game right now. Why should I expect that to change in the future? Add to that, just where are players supposed to bring up badly tuned encounters? On the forums? Where posters will berate them for QQ'ing, and "doin it wrong," and "learn to play the game?" Yeah, that will happen. Bug reports? Shouldn't those be saved for game glitches and bugs? Stuff that needs fixing, rather than stuff that would be really nice if they got around to? Well, I guess in this case it just might be something that needs fixing since it was a deliberate change that "broke" it. I just don't see the encounters ever really getting tuned. Especially since they are being tuned around "elite guildies" rather than "paying customer" level. Not "allow." Force. Now the usual response is "adapt or die," or "evolve or die." But when applied towards paying customers, it almost always changes to "cut my nose off to spite my face." For example: When is this ever good for a game? How many games have increased sales/subscriptions from making their customers work harder? Note the distinction. I am not counting games that provide harder challenges for those that want them. I am talking about games that require every player to already be high enough skill level or to train up. This does not mean the game should be made easier. (X=NOT[Y]) But why does "learn to play" = "best business practice?"

Disclaimer: I tend to solo primarily. Do not often PvP, or raid. And it is clear this game is not meant for people like me. I am not the demographic for this game. I admit that the need for medpacs in solo play are few. Problem is, when they are needed, multiples are usually needed. Multiples are needed so bad, that the 90 second cooldown is frequently the cause of encounter failure. (Again, when medpacs are even needed.) So... The change we get is that not only is the 90 second cooldown still there, but we are limited to one per fight? (With the possible moment of sanity in discussions to keep pre level 50 medpacs working the way they are now.) It doesn't help that if you were a big fan of the Knights of the Old Republic series, you were used to being able to chug medpacs the whole combat if you so chose. I have five characters (I admit, a small amount), all different base classes, and not one of them hasn't had at least one - and usually two or three - class quests that needed to be put off for two or three levels to get past solo. And some of them needed more than one medpac in. This change just makes parts of the solo gameplay too much of a chore. When the game becomes a chore, I no longer pay for it.

This really isn't true. For credits, the Grade 6 missions aren't worth running. (If you are specifically looking for schematic/mission drops, they may be what you are looking for.) Even criting with the Grade 6 missions, you credit returns are only going to be about 2K. You are better off sticking with Grade 5, and lower. (Again, only if you are looking for credit returns.) (This is one of the things I am hoping 1.2 fixes.)

This right here? You are going to have to prove. And I mean more concretely than claiming it is true. Let me explain why: I won't even use the most conservative data. I'll use the most generous data. The most generous data claims that the best two or three slicing missions average about 20 to 25 credits per minute profit average. We will assume 25, to be the most generous to your claims. If you run the best two or three missions with all five of your companions (yes, it is impossible, but to be as generous as possible) that is 125 credits, average, per minute. Multiply by 60 minutes, and you get 7500 credits, average, per hour. Now, let us assume us lesser lifeforms just don't get the system as well as you do. Let us assume the best two or three missions actually average 30 credits per minute profit. 5 companions (still impossible, but giving you the benefit of the doubt) running them is 150 credits, average, per minute. For 60 minutes, that would equal 9000 credits, average, per hour. So, if you had claimed 10K average an hour, I could have bought it a plausible. But 20K-30K an hour? I claim exploit. With that being said, it is possible (statistically impossible, but still possible) to peak at 20K-30K an hour... But that would require damn near 100% critical rate from all the slicing missions run during that hour. In my research, the greatest profit gained for a group of five missions was almost 8500 credits for half an hour. That only happened when 4 out of 5 of the missions crited at the same time. I wasn't going out of my way to "game the system," so let's round that up to 10K for half an hour. Double that for an hour, and we get 20K. Just to fudge into that what a superior slicer might be able to do we can add an additional 50%, to make it 30K. In my case, that would require 10 out of 12 missions to crit during that hour. Statistically impossible. Which means it could happen once in a while. So, once you are averaging - over time - more than 10K per hour, I claim exploit. With more realistic averages in the 6K to 8K range per hour profit. Plus, whatever you can get from any missions/schematics that drop. And realistically, you should only be averaging 1 to 2, maybe 3 of those per hour.

Yes, and no. The more companions you commit to missions at one time, the more likely you will see a profit. If you only send one companion out at a time, it is possible (not very likely, but still possible) to see only loses enough to believe it is worthless. Without "gaming" the system (running only the best missions - which aren't always the obvious choice, resetting the mission list as needed to get them, etc.) I found the "real world" average of about 16 credits per mission minute profit. So, for the 30 minutish missions, about 650 credits profit on average. ((My thread on my research)) Since GTNs vary per server, and possibly per faction, the slicing missions can't really be counted on. They are far from worthless, but it may take a good deal of time (and trial and error) to find the missions that sell well, and those you are better off just selling to a vendor - and there are likely a couple. The skill is far from useless. But for credit gathering/making you may find other skills to be much more valuable. My lifetime slicer is making more returns on part time Underworld Trading materials on the market than he is from near full time slicing missions - counting selling off the skill discoveries. Slicings primary benefits are: Statistically steady income while offline (queue up missions before you log off), And; "Free" credits while on planet - in nodes. If neither of those are of particular use to you, you will likely find other skills much more useful to you.

You mean like Assault Cannons for Imperial Armstech crafters? (I feel 'specially bad for the crafters that put up artifact (purple) assault cannons on the Imperial Fleet GTN... At least there is a reasonable chance they would sell on Nar Shadaa.)

More Results:

You are right, I didn't mention that in my post. But I did record it on my data that I provided for those interested. (My data is much more detailed than my post.) I did missions in batches of 5. The longest mission in each batch (Data Race, with a 10K companion) took 30.6 minutes. The shortest, that only came up in a couple of batches due to my methodology, took 15.63 minutes. So, how you want to break that down is up to you. I would look at it as an average of 2005 credits per half an hour with all 5 companions running. Note: This does happen with the character logged off. But that is based on my methodology. For my mention of 16 credits per minute, I totaled up all mission times and divided the grand total by that to get an average of 15.9ish credits per minute.

I considered that in my case. And it is certainly possible. But unlike you, I was seeing it at the end of a session when I was tidying up before logging out. I wasn't in combat, or even playing the rest of the game. That makes an "operator error" less likely. Although, not impossible.

Relax. This isn’t a thread about how Slicing sucks, or is still great. It is simply an attempt to show how it probably appears to the “average” player. Assuming, of course, the average player doesn’t want to crunch numbers, and scour the forums for “proper” slicing strategies. My data, in CSV form, can be found here – for importing to your spreadsheet of choice. Methodology: Notes: Results: Conclusions: Slicing is very much a “team activity.” By which I mean, if you are only running one, maybe two companions on slicing missions, it could be very easy to see only crap results and write the whole skill off. Example: Scorpio running Taking Back Control. 4 of 12 runs (33.3%) were losses. If those were all you saw, it would be easy to assume the skill only costs credits. It would be easy to assume that the higher a companions affection, the less likely the crit chance. What I think is, it is based on mission difficulty or rating. The missions that crited most were grey to my character. Total profit after all 100 missions: 40100 credits (plus schematics and missions). ”Real world” results are a little less than 16 credits per minute of actual mission run time. It would be better if all my companions had 10K affection, and worse if affection reduction wasn’t even accounted for on mission time. Slicing missions aren’t as bad as the detractors make it out to be, but at the same time they aren’t inherently as good as the defenders make them out to be. To make it that good requires some serious work. Unrelated to my intended methodology: Affection seems to reduce the mission time by 15% at 10000 (if it is linear across all mission ranks). If a “+15 to Skill Efficiency” is the same as a 15% reduction in mission time, that means a total of 30% reduction is possible. (I did not have any companions with an efficiency increase for slicing to check with.) If that proves true, it is safe to assume that a 10000 affection is the same as a “+2 Critical Chance.” Although, what that really means is unclear. Maybe +2% (with a +4% possible with an affectionate companion) critical chance?

I used to have it happen to Slicing Missions (before the "Big Nerf" ;-P). I would send 3 or 4 companions out for lockboxes, and log out. Occasionally, when I would log back in, about half of them came back with only augments. I was thinking it was only when logging out. I only just started running them again, and it hasn't happened yet. I was thinking it was fixed... But it seems not.

Just for clarification: Are we calling a mission that gets a mission or schematic a crit? I ask because my small sample size (that I have to go through and compile all the data) suggests there might be different "levels" of crits. (Or maybe just different levels of success...) And just for a quick comparison without compiling all the data, my crit rate (if only counting when getting a mission/schematic) with Pointing Fingers is 12.5% - Imperial side.

Yes, and no. There are some that swear it is still profitable. (I am not claiming they are wrong, by the way.) And there are some, such as myself, that never actually see enough profit from it to make it worth it. (For record, I have a 400 slicing character from the first day of early access - well, he didn't have 400 slicing the first day. ;-P ) I think what that comes down to is that the development team expects slicing to produce X% profit across the server (maybe across the whole game). With the law of averages, for every person who claims "slicing is still a great money maker (or something similar)" that means there should be about one person saying "where is this profit people are claiming?" So, if any one reading this sees someone (maybe me) cursing slicing for being such junk, you should thank them/us. If it wasn't for us getting the shaft, the rest of you wouldn't be doing so well with slicing. :-P Oh, and also for the record, I still have missions from slicing that are waiting to sell on my server. :-/ They started to sell, then the patch that put the "One time use" in the description came out... And they are rotting on my servers GTN again. NOTE: I think the text was a good addition. I just think it burned some peoples impression of the missions.

Level 50 Sniper, 300K. Still struggling to get enough credits to buy level 3 Speeder Piloting. 400 Armstech, Slicing, and Underworld Trading Nearly all of my credits have come from normal play, and Underworld Trading. Slicing has been pretty much a wash, as the credits from nodes have cancelled out the credits "lost" running missions. (Note: I don't deny that it could have been bad luck.)

I am not sure I got an ending... :-P I was expecting a sort of "end credits" cut scene to let me know this story was finished. Instead the "movie screen" went black and the lights came on suddenly, making me wonder if the film reel broke or something. (All figurative, of course.) I'm not complaining... I am just confused. Add in all the "loose ends" from the story I would like answered, such as: I end up walking away with a bunch of questions, no answers, and a sort of "numb" feeling for the whole thing... Bah! Enough rambling! G'Night all. :-D

And that right there is the real problem. I do not know why anyone, you specifically, expect anyone - and I mean absolutely anyone - to keep running slicing missions when all they see (at the beginning, admittedly) are losses. Combine the "sticker shock" of net losses with the... ... Glitch, I'll have to call it, of mission lists not populating the same for everyone, and you can't blame people for not wanting to even give the skill any more time. Just in case you want to question what I mean by lists not populating the same for everyone; I never* have metal missions for Underworld Trading or Lockbox missions for Slicing - at any level bracket. *If I should have either of those, they are never (no note this time) above Moderate Yield. Both skills are at 400. This is consistent across logins, ship travel, running other missions, and every other tip for refreshing mission lists except starting a mission of the level bracket I would like to have a mission I am looking for, waiting about 5 minutes, and cancelling that mission. Repeat as necessary, until I get a moderate yield mission that I am looking for. Then there are others (usually the ones that say Slicing is fine, or even still overpowered) that do not have any problems getting the missions lists they want. I don't deny the possibility that it could all be "RNG Hate." But the more days it goes on, the less I can believe it is just "RNG Hate," and nothing else.

There. That is more accurate. When you have an Underworld Trading Order/Request for Grade 6 metals, and have nothing but Grade 5 Companion Gift missions, and boarding/disembarking your ship doesn't change the types of missions, and running fast low level missions doesn't change the missions... This can't be passed around as a cure all. ((To be fair, the missions themselves could have been changing. I never looked at the mission names, only the mission types.))

First: I didn't see any way to search within the forums to check if there was a better thread for this. Second: I have seen posters (on other forums) flip their lids over anything that suggests changing things, so let me try to cut those people off early by saying: 1) I am *NOT* trying to remove anything as it is. I am looking for an option for those that would like to use it. 2) I am *NOT* claiming this is important, or easy to code in. If I ever even hint at my idea being simple, I mean it only as the concept is simple. I hope that covers it. On with the show. One of my characters is an Armstech. I plan, and expect, to eventually (please note the word "eventually") have every recipe for Barrels known. That is a lot of recipes. And it doesn't even take into consideration all the other weapons. What I suggest, is that if a player selects this option, a more advanced recipe will "replace" a lesser recipe on the list. Now hold on! I do not actually mean take it off the list. Bear with me. For my example, I am going to use Skill Barrel 2. Normally, when you Reverse Engineer enough Skill Barrel 2's, you will learn the Skill Barrel 2 recipe and both will be on your list. Reverse Engineer enough Skill Barrel 2's and you will get a Advanced Skill Barrel 2 recipe and all three will be on your list. My idea would be that when you gain the Skill Barrel 2 recipe, only it will be on your list on the left. When you select it, on the right pane of the Crafting window you would get a drop down box that allows you to "downgrade" it to the lower quality item. In this case, Skill Barrel 2. If you have Advanced Skill Barrel 2 known, it will be the only Skill Barrel 2 on your list, and when you select it the drop down box would let you select either it, or Skill Barrel 2, or Skill Barrel 2. As you see fit. I was thinking this drop down box could go after the name of the item, or perhaps more ideally, in the Requirements box. Maybe in that little space in the upper left corner of the Requirements box. In my mind, which really doesn't matter to anyone, I would call the current layout "List" and my suggestion "Tree" for selecting the display option. It isn't clear to me if you can learn Commando, or Patron versions of the Barrels before "grade" 14... But if you can, I am looking at 264 Barrel recipes alone. (22 "grades" * 4 types [skill, Reflex, Patron, Commando] * 3 qualities [Green, Blue, Purple]) Maybe more if there are special barrels, now or in the works. This has a minor hiccup when an item can branch out into different higher quality recipes. But as of now, from my end of things, I don't see any reason each of them couldn't contain the drop downs for the lower qualities. I welcome any who can take this idea and make it even better.