When calculating GTN prices, you're calculating based on completed sales and not listed prices, right? If there are 20 Baby Grogu toys on eBay for $1M each, it doesn't mean they're worth $1M if nobody's buying them. If you look at Completed eBay items and see they actually sell for $50 or you can buy one at a store for $60, that's the value that should be calculated.

Honest question: As a returning player, I haven't seen the big credit sinks in the game. What is available at extreme credit prices OTHER than player-set highly inflated GTN items? What is the most expensive stronghold and vendor-purchased set you can get? How many credits does a character need to experience every part of the game that's NOT interacting with the GTN? Strongholds, common unlocks, mounts, power-leveling crew skills on missions, and all that combined probably don't add up to 500M total, so why do we need the ability to trade more than 500M in a single transaction?

Like you and @Ardrossan, I am also for price control for GTN items. Any items that can just be bought by characters (reputation vendors, Collector Edition vendors, preorder vendors or Cartel Coins) should have caps that are a relation to their vendor or cartel coin price. Current out-of-rotation Cartel Coin items (I think the Revanite Vindicator set?) can have higher buyout value, but anything that can just be outright purchased with credits or real money should have an in-game trade cap. 1M is a bit low for platinum, but 500M+ posts should be a thing of the past.

I'm telling you, Bioware. I'm an experienced major incident commander for large-scale SaaS services. Get me in here, and I'll help! For those of us waiting: Why not walk over to the thread about the economic changes coming in 7.3? That'll keep us busy.

"Will develop auto-failover, load shedding, circuit breakers, and safe deployments for cartel coins"

I am a cloud site reliability engineer and suffering from the tech layoffs here in the San Francisco Bay. I could log in and help out. What do you say, Bioware?

Cached, maybe? Or the status page flips on and off? Here's what I see: https://imgur.com/a/2oxvs9n

It's officially down: https://www.swtor.com/server-status

You're not alone. SWTOR is kicking me out "for inactivity" just as soon as I try to select the server Satele Shan. Here's a video. https://youtu.be/5d2JovAtxXo Tried relaunching, rebooting, no luck. Star Forge works so it's not my account or software. It's the server.

Adding new fees, specifically on high-value trades, will remove credits from the economy and reduce the profitability of market-destroying predatory practices. Predatory trading hurts the market by making it difficult for non-billionaires to participate in the player economy. It should hopefully reduce how often it happens by making those practices less lucrative. Hopefully. I agree that other credit sinks should be available in the game, and I think low-cartel-coin non-tradeable (like character face/body customization or bind-on-pickup dyes) should be available for high credit costs. However, multimillion-credit listings for items (like Collector's Edition vendor dyes, which cannot be purchased by any player who signed up in the last decade) should be far less profitable for the seller.

For your benefit and for those who do not understand the benefits of fees and taxes, here's a 5-minute TedEd on why governments don't print unlimited money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFTKKyYSCKs It relates to SWTOR because the game is constantly printing money. Quest rewards, vendor trash, and just plain drops will increase the currency supply in the economy. It doesn't stop, either. The more people play, the more currency is printed. Over many years of gaming, there will always be some inflation. The game needs a way to remove currency from circulation to prevent runaway inflation.

I think I mentioned this one in another thread among a list of other ideas, but I'm going to pop it out to a separate single post: Create a vendor in the game who is so Force-attuned that she is able to extend bonds from players to family. She charges a ton of credits and allows certain "bound" items to transition to "Legacy bound." It's a credit sink. It doesn't add new items to the game. It doesn't interfere with player-to-player trade. It just allows one player to use an item they already have but on an alt. You can even transition it to a kind of "Bind on equip + Legacy bound" that makes it bind to the next character (who can only be of the same legacy) on use. Name her "Liberare" (It's Latin)

That's the opposite I've seen. Items available from vendors are usually posted on the GTN for 10-500% more than vendor prices because they're preying on people who don't know which vendor to find the item. How about this: Making certain vendor-provided crafting mats expensive and recipes hard to get, but allowing items on the GTN (especially dyes and certain gear) to be crafted. That way, GTN dyes (and certain other cosmetics) are available in-game for enough work and still can be sold. This will curb the "pay to win at the economy" so people don't feel like they have to pay real money to sell things on the GTN just to have enough money to participate in the game economy. It's not directly removing the possible revenue from Bioware (people can still skip all the work in leveling professions and collecting materials). Still, those who contribute to the game and invest in their characters can get GTN recipes and craft previously GTN-only items. Alternately, items can cycle in and out of the GTN with a surprise on which items will go into the GTN and when. Sale prices should be unpredictable too. That way, the developers can discourage people from speculating and price manipulation by making speculative buying less predictable and profitable. GTN sales should be frequent, more interesting, and less predictable anyway. Those items don't need to leave the GTN entirely.

Why? I believe the goals should be a balance of "make the game fun and accessible to everyone, regardless of time played" and "keep inflation under control." Small credit sinks that cost the same for a lvl 5 character returning to the Jedi Temple as for a lvl 80 multi-billionaire are not equal. That lvl 5 character will be fast-traveling a lot more on any given planet to run quests and turn them in. The lvl 80 multi-billionaire... how often do they fast-travel per play session? When you run analytics of the fast travel money collection, make sure you do a comparison of "credits collected compared to credits earned." What you won't get from this is the analytics of how often users choose to skip quick travel when they otherwise would have. Those users are spending more time on speeders and taxis, reducing the amount of time they can spend enjoying the game. 5k for a trip across Nar Shaddaa is silly for the lvl 20 characters who will spend the most time on that planet. It only serves to delay how long it takes for them to participate in the player-driven economy. If you must keep small credit sinks, at least scale it to the character's progress. Think of this: it's possible for a city to increase revenue by increasing fuel tax. Wealthy people will grumble, but pay it. People with less wealth will have to choose between paying it, taking the bus (and a dramatically less enjoyable or convenient and more time consuming part of their day) or choosing between driving or a high quality meal later in the week. Now who are the biggest contributors of inflation?

Let me restate it in simpler words. I was replying to this bit in which you expressed anger for new "taxes" because taxes are for government protection, infrastructure, etc. Cash transfers, mail delivery, commerce, and the like are commercial enterprises, not governments. Those don't have taxes. They have service fees. In that context, identifying them as a "tax" is inappropriate, and this quote does not match the situation:

I think you are taking this a bit too seriously. The game AND all the credits exist in a fictional universe with fictional governments. That fictional GTN is run by a fictional cartel of Hutts who are legendary for hoarding fictional money. They are raising the fictional transaction fees. Get mad at them. Your fictional credits are stored in a fictional service of some time (because you don't carry around stacks and stacks of credit chips filling your inventory). They are raising the cost to transfer those credits to other fictional players. It's not "taxes" in the sense of a government entity. If it were, the prices on purchased goods would go up (sales tax) and the price to keep a Stronghold would be periodic and not just "buy once" (property tax) and the payout from quests or jobs would have an amount you have to send to a government every year (income tax.) Everything in the game is a fictional service, and those service fees can go up. It's okay to be disappointed in how difficult it is for new and returning players to participate in the player economy. That stinks. However, it's still all make-believe. If it does not bring you joy, then I hope you find something that does. **edit** It could do us a lot of good to stop calling these things "taxes" and start calling them by more appropriate names for their purpose. "GTN cut" or "wire transfer fees" or "transaction fees" are all more descriptive and are lore-friendly too.

I don't think so. I think it meant to be "COD mail" which I always understood as Collect On Delivery but possibly misspoke or had an error in the slide?

The video from @JoeStramaglia in today's livestream start at 34:19 here: https://youtu.be/xsdqJWnG-yY?t=2059 tl;dw: Thanks for everyone for providing constructive feedback. It's an ongoing issue and a lot of care is being taken on ajustments over time. Done already: Credit inflow and sinks. More to come Travel costs Durability loss and repair costs based on item level New in 7.3 Taxes for Secure Trade Mail Collect on Deposit Based on credit value and some item values listed in transaction Expect to see these changes in PTS GTN overhaul Increased usability Easier to find what you want Market data (!!!!) Buyout Price Limit (he does not say if it's up or down) Taxes on a progressive scale based on price Changes over more than one release GTN should be the primary driver of trade This will be over several phases, and not just for credit but for the game ecosystem PLAYER FEEDBACK AND DATA WILL DRIVE THIS DECISION Thanks Joe!

Hey I want to revisit this one and change tone a little from my last reply. Your comment above was interpreted as a condescending reply to someone who was respectfully disagreeing with you. HOWEVER, I am willing to admit that I am not steeped in SWTOR as deeply as you are. I decided to check out your YouTube channel and see how immersed you are in this. The answer is pretty damn immersed. You do a good job organizing your videos and vocally presenting your thoughts as well. Therefore, I will also accept that you are likely a member of guilds, Discord channels, and social circles that are more involved in the discussions and economic movement of the game and have more history than I do in SWTOR. From a returning player, it appears to me that we are suffering from high inflation because many long-term players have had time to amass a great deal of wealth over time. This devalues all credits, and makes it incredibly difficult for a new or returning player to participate in the economy. That's what I see from the outside. It may be flawed and, like you say, there may be additional forces at work. I am interested in knowing about them. My comments (which you say make no sense in supply and demand) were based on the economic principle of contractionary monetary policy. I won't insult you by filling this text box with a full explanation, but the main goal is to reduce the amount of currency floating around in the economy. In non-game economic structures, that will reduce demand for high-priced items because people cannot afford them unless prices go down. In SWTOR, the easiest way to reduce the amount of money in the economy is to tax all forms of trade. There is another issue at play, though. The supply there is technically unlimited, as I am sure Bioware would gladly sell any given user 2,000 platinum color crystals or 10,000 hypercrates if the user was willing to buy them. Offline economies don't have situations where the supply for high-priced items is unlimited like that, so standard economic policies may not apply. I admit this is a complication in the proposals I have suggested. Like you said, EA would not likely allow Bioware to increase the supply (thus reduce the demand) of these items unless players pay offline cash for them. So yes. I agree you're more immersed in SWTOR than I am and have dedicated a good deal of time and care into the game. It shows in your posts here and in your videos. I also agree that the application of economic policies that work for other models may not translate perfectly to SWTOR. I still do not appreciate your condescending tone without examples or corrections, but I will assume you were busy and didn't have the time to write them out. As a newly returning, less-than-wealthy person who enjoys SWTOR to a more experienced, more immersed player, I hope we can find common ground and give Bioware several options on what they can attempt. In the meantime, I hope you see that my disagreements with you were from a different standpoint and not a criticism of you as a person.

I'm willing to learn. Give me some specifics, preferably backed with data. *edit* And regarding permitting some minor cartel purchases to be purchasable by credits, I think it's worth evaluating the potential for them to lose paying customers because the game has a broken economy.

I realized I am typing a WHOLE LOT of words here but I do not want to dominate this conversation. For the sake of Bioware serving their community, I encourage everyone to use emoji to react to posts they like or agree with so Bioware can get a good sense of what the community wants. Otherwise, only the people who speak loudest will be heard. Likewise, I encourage Bioware to implement an emoji to where users can politely DISAGREE with posts. I'd like to know if people want to tell me I am full of BS. The closest we have to that is the "Confused" emoji.

I keep seeing that the cap on GTN list prices needs to be maintained or reduced, but I disagree. It must be raised. The problem Bioware is trying to address is the rampant inflation of all items brought on by the presence of ultra-wealthy players in the economy using that wealth to dominate the markets. At the time I write this, there are five listings for Ranrt Crystals on Satele Shan for amounts ranging from 38.8k/unit to 150k/unit for a total of 2,449,994 credits for a total of 30 units. That is already expensive, but what happens after that? There are seven more listings for 50 or 100 crystals at 7 MILLION credits per unit, all by a single player, "Fosgate Rocks." I am confident that the player will log in later, buy up the lower-priced units, and re-list them at 7M per crystal. THIS is wealth-breaking the economy. That is only one example of players using existing wealth to make more wealth and feed inflation. A character who wants to craft with that (because they did not spend cartel coins to level through or because they like the looks of that specific item) would not be welcome in this economy and would have to forage for those artifact crystals on their own. In order to target this kind of price manipulation, we have to make it expensive to monopolize, re-list, and post overly costly listings. At the same time, we need to remove credits from the economy to shave off the advantage that ultra-wealthy users have. Other posts have mentioned credit sinks for the ultra-wealthy, so I'll focus this reply on trade and GTN. First: All trade that transfers credits between accounts must have a delivery fee. If there are any loopholes to using the GTN, people will try to avoid paying the GTN, especially for expensive trades. It should still be cheap for players to give money to friends or guildmates (enough to play the game and buy in-game items), but it should be expensive for people to trade in the tens of millions of credits and higher. Second: Re-listing and monopolizing needs restrictions. Items purchased from the GTN should be legacy bound for some time to avoid instant re-listing at higher prices. Monopolizing crafting materials and other non-gear items should also be looked into, but I don't have any suggestions on implementing that. Some items should probably be instantly legacy-bound when purchased from the GTN. Third: There will always be items that people are willing to pay any number of credits to obtain, and there will always be people ready to sell those items. The solution is not to cap the GTN. It's to make sure those transactions happen on the GTN and that they come with a very high transaction tax. The sale of a 2B credit lightsaber with a 25% GTN cut would instantly remove 500,000,000 credits from the game. The seller still gets a whole lot of money, and the buyer receives the item they want. Prices will fall for those ultra-high-end items when buyers dry up, or sellers get too greedy in their pricing. Finally: Cartel Coin, rare drops, and vendor-purchased items should have a different scale from harvested or crafted items. The only way a new or returning player can participate in the hyper-inflated economy is to spend a lot of real money on a high-demand Cartel Coin item, sell it for credits, then use those credits to buy what they need. Selling a rare but not ultra-rare reward from an Archaeology mission for 20x the cost of the mission is fine. Re-selling it for 50,000x the cost of the companion mission is obscene. Similarly, items purchased at vendors and re-listed at the GTN at inflated prices only take advantage of newer, less experienced players who do not know where to find the vendor that sells those items. tl;dr: Raising the GTN cap and scaling the GTN cut for expensive items will not hurt regular players but will curb inflation when implemented with other solutions, like large credit sinks for wealthy players and moving some CC-only features to credits.

I like @Immortalelf's comment here. Unlocking things in Collections for the same legacy shouldn't always have to cost cartel coins. If I had the credits for this, I would absolutely use them to unlock certain outfits and cosmetics on new characters. I would also pay plenty of credits to transition an item from "Bound" to "Legacy Bound." Come to think of it: there are a large number of "cartel coin only" transactions that should be available for credits: Legacy unlocks in Collections, like above Character hair, eye, face, and body tuning (race would still be CC) Commander's Compendium (it's basically a faster way of buying hundreds of vendor gifts, which are already available for credits) Certain "mood" or "emotes" (why are these ALL locked in CC?) I would never pay real money for emotes, but I'd impulse buy a few cute ones to get rid of credits. I would have to really really love a character to dump cartel coins into hair/eye/face customization, but I'd probably make a few tweaks over the life of my character if it just cost credits. Look at the cartel market, see what nobody is buying even if it has appeal, and make it available for credits. Dyes are another big one. Make certain expensive CC dyes available at vendors (and recipes available for crafting, but the materials include something that costs credits) because people would buy a lot more if they didn't cost exceptional amounts of real money. The top tier of these can still be CC only, but 40 CC dyes should also be available for credits. This is way off topic for the original GTN post, so I'll stop typing now.

As much as I advocate for taxes on all transactions involving credits, I agree that "giveaway" and "item for item" transactions cannot be taxed reasonably. The goal of the taxes are to remove credits from the economy, and the way to do that is to go after credits. If high-end items start selling for "cartel packs" then either people will have to buy a ton of cartel packs (which add no new credits to the economy) for real money or they will have to buy cartel packs on the GTN for credits (which will pay the tax.) That is an unsustainable model, though. The more cartel packs floating around "as currency" and not open to be looted, the less they are worth. Except people will be paying real money for them, so the people willing to deal in cartel packs and not credits are going to be much fewer. This isn't even accounting for the idea that there is no way to fairly and accurately estimate the value of those items unless they're directly from a vendor. This would also take care of @cobrak's concern about guild uniform transactions. It's an item given freely, not adding new credits to the economy. Free non-credit item trades or giveaways should not be taxed.

I misunderstood! I thought you meant the guild pays the withdrawal, not the guild pays the duties. My mistake!