I didn't mean to imply that you weren't, I was using the generic/plural form of "you" in that sentence but from several posts in the various threads there are APAC players choosing not to play on it because they are waiting for something. That is undermining the server's existence. I didn't include your survey suggestion in the part I quoted because I do agree sending out a survey could help clarify things. The only problem you will run into there is the length of time it will take to get a survey out and the amount of time that you have to give to respond to it and then collate the results. Getting those answers may not be quick enough for some.

That's all water under the bridge at this point. Complaining about what they did or didn't do serves no purpose. If you want that server to survive you need to use it.

What needs to happen, regardless of your feelings on transfers, is that ALL APAC players get on that server and play at least some time. It doesn't need to be your primary server but you need to play as much time on it as you can spare. Broadsword is going to look at how many APAC players are actually playing there and use that to make their decision on how to proceed. If you want that server to be viable you need to be playing on it at least some of the time, preferably in the game play modes that are impacted by high ping.

If you wanted to go that route, a better way would be to institute an escrow system like there is for f2p and preferred players but at a much higher level. That reduces credit liquidity without taking away the credits and it makes it much more difficult to buy up all of an item on the GTN to resell at higher prices (due to the limited funds). Subs could retrieve credits from their escrow each day (for free) up to whatever the escrow limit was. The biggest problem right now is the APAC players refusing to even play on the server until they get free transfers (no one really knows how many that is but some people seem to think it is enough to make a difference). That is driving the population of the server down and making it appear there is not much interest in the server. All APAC players should be playing at least some of their time on the server regardless of how they feel about transfers. Not doing so potentially dooms the server to closing.

Again, you are still talking about characters and not players. It is a pretty safe bet to say that 90-95% of the APAC players who will play on that server are already there and playing (which is what determines the server population). You are talking about an exceedingly small number of players which will have negligible impact on the population of the server (but a very outsized impact on the server economy). My issue is with the belief that offering unlimited free transfers is going to somehow balloon the population of the server (the idea that it is better to have a broken server than a "dead" one). Mathematically, that is just not the case. Too few players are not playing there because they can't take all their stuff with them to make a difference. And before you say, "where's your evidence", there is no evidence to the contrary either. Transfers to that server should follow all the same guidelines as transferring between any servers in the game (and transfers out should be blocked indefinitely). There's nothing more to say on the matter.

That increases the number of characters on a server, not the number of players. It is players that are needed to populate servers, you can only play one character at a time. Having 100 characters does nothing to increase the population on the server.

That's making the assumption that there is a large group of players refusing to play on the server at all unless they get "full free" transfers (which would really be sad since they now have a server where they don't have to deal with terrible lag). It's much more likely they are already playing there because of the improved ping/experience and that the free transfers will add very few players to the server that are not already there.

You're just as wrong as she is on this. No amount of transfers is going to make a difference and will drive a significant number of APAC players that like things as they are away resulting in a net loss of players. I'm done with SV at this point. I was playing a significant amount of time on that server but I'm done. It can live or die on APAC players as far as I'm concerned now. I am sorry for those APAC players that are enjoying themselves now as that will come to an end with unrestricted transfers of credits..

That statement I agree with. The server shouldn't be treated differently. If you want to transfer 4 billion per character, fine, that costs CCs for everyone else, it should cost the same for APAC players.

Actually I can't. By allowing unrestricted credit transfers you are dooming the server to the same hyperinflation that has driven people away from the existing servers. Usually you stand on principles, but not this time apparently.

Whatever you want to call it. Broadsword clearly intended it as an an experiment on how their economic changes impacted new players (something that is impossible with the overblown economy on the other servers). You are just using the term "fresh start" to pretend there is something wrong with restricting the credit influx into the server.

What is causing the division is that every time an APAC player doesn't get their way they right away start accusing non-APAC players of "ruining" their server. How many APAC players actually like the fresh start server approach? How may non-APAC players were supportive of ways to get the APAC players back on a server that worked for them. The region bashing goes both ways but a lot of the blame goes to just a few APAC players at this point. Certain APAC players are blaming non-APAC players for the decisions made by Broadsword to look at limiting the inflow of credits. This had nothing to do with any non-APAC players. It was a Broadsword decision. Pretty much everyone knows that Bioware (and now Broadsword) never listen to the players so blaming non-APAC players for Broadsword's positions is completely unfair.

It's sad to hear that you too now are willing to accept the destruction of the economy of the only economically viable server in the game. I doubt it will draw in more than a few APAC players most of whom have wanted all along to take advantage of the server to boost their credits and dominate the markets. Best wishes for you and those of your colleagues who playing with a low ping was more important than destroying the server economy. I herby withdraw my support of any free unrestricted transfers to the APAC server from anywhere. If you are going to bring over billions of credits you can pay the CCs to do it.

It's too bad they didn't think ahead when launching the server of a way to transfer legacies over even if it left behind credits and items. That would have been a lot better than where it is at now with the uncertainty. They clearly are concerned about the economy and it is very unlikely they are going to allow unlimited transfers of credits anyway. They have already said that the economy in the game is something they are concerned with and watching closely on the server. Even now it's not to late to do a down and dirty transfer of character legacies (the legacy data should be independent of the character's possessions) and boost the server population. The economy on the server is healthy right now but it does need to be a home for people with terrible pings to other servers too. There is no reason it can't achieve both those goals.

I'd put snowballs at the bottom of the list precisely because you almost never see them used outside a few weeks a year. The issue with mounts is an everyday occurrence. There is no way they would remove the disruptive mounts since many people payed actual money for them but muting them on a player by player basis is something they could do to "get rid" of these complaint threads.

Anyway, regardless of the semantics, there are two solutions 1) disable all disruptive items server side 2) disable disruptive items client side Technically there is a third but more complicated way which would use a tag based system to disable them client side for only certain players (tying it into the ignore list might be a simpler way to do it rather than lots of toggles). Snowballs, loud mounts parked on top of RPers, large mounts parked on top of vendors, etc are all things that could be fixed with a client side "mod" without affecting everyone.

Mounts from planetary vendors cost next to nothing as well. By the time you reach level 10 and can use a mount, you should easily be able to afford one. There are already too many mounts in game. We really don't need any more.

you were in such a hurry to reply you didn't comprehend the bolded/underlined part

No one is suggesting this. They are suggesting modifying the visual appearance associated with being hit with a snowball (most people anyway). Just like changing the appearance of a mount to be smaller so it doesn't block the view of the vendor or quieting it's loud sound. These are client side changes that would affect only the people setting those flags. Everyone else could enjoy the "visuals". It's not unlike appearance MODs in other games. You say RPers should go somewhere else to RP, maybe the people who want to be disruptive should have to go somewhere else to be disruptive (special "disruptive" zones). As far as most things go, just having them in the game isn't disruptive, but how people are using them is. Allowing client side changes to block these things makes more sense than outright bans.

How about making the event companion purchasable with GS tokens (I'd be a lot more likely to spend the tokens on a companion rather than a cheesy reskin or customization). That way if you don't want them you don't have to buy them. There's plenty of other stuff for those not wanting companions to buy.

Can we get an opt out for people on large mounts standing on vendors (maybe make them invisible or shrink them down to tiny size). How about an opt out for people standing in the middle of RP groups with loud mounts or using any of the other "disruptive" forced participation. It's all pretty much the same, other people getting their fun by reducing yours Since a lot of the "disruptive" behavior is based on displays on your client machine, it would seem to be something relatively easy (not easy but relatively so) to incorporate into the client side software.

Sure. I like this idea for application to all server transfers. That way players interested in playing or moving to a different server can do so effectively for free if they don't bring tons of credits with them. That solves the issue of players creating a character on the "wrong" server as well as players that are dissatisfied with the gameplay on the server they are on because of changes over time. Moving lots of characters (and even items - I've rethought my position on this and with sufficiently strong credit transfer limits for the free transfers, price rises should be limited in the short term while the economic changes work themselves out) between servers is a lot less problematic than lots of credits. While I'm not an APAC player, I was able to play the game with less than 100 million credits for most of the time since launch including PVP and raiding without running out of credits, though I don't focus on any one particular game play mode.

Well Trixxie, it seems like there are some APAC players that transferring all their wealth to SV is more important than better ping so how about this update to your idea: Free transfers of all APAC characters until you reach a legacy max of 250 million credits (minimum character level of 20 to keep people from using throw away characters to transfer tons of items). After that, all transfers are full price. That way the people who want to transfer over for the experience of playing on a low ping server can transfer lots of characters while those for who it is more important to have lots of credits, can only transfer a few (or pay a lot to do it). The transfer cost should limit the influx of credits in much the same way as giving free transfers with limited credits.

Most likely to keep people from stockpiling them before an expansion to be able to fully upgrade immediately thus bypassing the grind BW/BS intended to stretch out game-play since expansions are so limited in content.

The lag issues are new. They started with the AWS update. When I placed them there, they had lag similar to the current lag on SV. Now SV is much better than EU.