The reason the remnant gear is now destroy only is that people were vendoring too much of it and it blew up the game economy. Adding something else you could sell would have the same effect.

Alright since we won't agree on item restrictions, I'd start with no more than it takes to open up 1 stronghold fully (about 2.5 million per room times 9 rooms = about 25 million) with any single character with a legacy max of 250 million (~10 strongholds).

It's been a while for me as well, but at one point it was possible to buy an item on one server then refund it on another. I don't know if that was changed or not. If it hasn't it should be. I'm not convinced of this. One would expect that a highly populated server like SF would have enough supply to prevent monopolies, but they exist there as well. It depends more on how easy it is to get into the "business". Crafting low end gear that uses low level mats is a lot easier to jump in and out of than crafting high end items that take large numbers of fairly expensive mats. It comes down to whether someone thinks there is enough reward to put in the effort to break a monopoly (which can be a lot of effort).

My bigger concern on transferring effectively unlimited stacks of items is that it is used to get around the credit restrictions. Mats that are gathered have no player cost, so selling them to a vendor is pure profit even though the payout per item has been reduced. It would be easier to code restrictions for all stacks than to pick and choose which stacks to apply it to. Some crafted items could be a problem if they are made from items that are much easier to obtain on the source server (such as PVP and Operations mats where server population plays a significant role in how easily they are obtained). Stuff made from grade 10 mats and below will never sell for significant amounts of credits anyway (the mats themselves are actually more valuable), but special materials can be quite difficult to obtain on a low population server (and the APAC server likely will always be relatively low population - what is and is not a viable population is open to quite a bit of debate). I'd rather see transfers opened up sooner with stronger restrictions than later with less restrictions and you could really do both. Start with more restrictive transfers then open them up more as you see what the influx of items/materials does to the server economy. Again, I think whatever restrictions are decided on should be applied to all server transfers not just specifically to the APAC server. It's pretty clear that the controls added to the other 5 servers are having a negative impact on new players (based on the number of complaints I've seen in the forums about the cost of just leveling on SV). Which was something many of us were concerned about when they implemented the quick travel fees and increased repair costs (but were told how "easy" it was to accumulate credits). That's a valuable piece of information that was gained from the "fresh start" aspect of the server. Like I said before, a "transfer" that moves all legacy unlocks and progress to the new server is something that can be done without any risk of destabilizing the server.

I'm sure its not a regional issue and is why some restrictions are needed.

I fully agree with #2 and partially agree with #1. There can be short term restrictions on items that are not detrimental to APAC players and yet don't allow the server to be flooded with items to the point people can start creating monopolies there (I know you don't agree but I think this is a real possibility that can cause far more damage than you believe and is almost impossible to reverse once it happens). CM items, gear, and other things that people don't have hundreds of are of no consequence and should be transferred normally. I'd even go so far as to say you could transfer legacy currencies at a level consistent with the number of characters you have (if you had 1000 of the currency and 100 characters you could move 10 with each character). Also all resell cooldowns should terminate on transfer to keep people from trying to refund items on the new server.

So should I get special consideration for moving my characters from the EU servers to the US servers. My ping to the EU went through the roof after the AWS upgrade (almost double the ping and lots more unstable) so I'm disadvantaged there now with lots of characters "trapped" there. Where exactly do you draw the line at giving special considerations to "disadvantaged" players?

I agree with this mostly, though I would not call it a "fresh start" server but a server with some semblance of a functioning economy. I think right now you have a lot of players that were complaining about the economy on the other 5 servers playing on SV because the economy is mostly working correctly (the ping to SV is much better than I expected from the US based on the playtest - and for me at least, the EU servers are much worse). That's not to say they should block transfers but rather they should consider the impact and take smaller steps. A straight up transfer of legacies would be a good start (that could happen basically immediately). The transfer of billions of credits (I know you don't support this but others are calling for it) and hundreds of thousands of items can be taken more slowly as it doesn't impact playing on the server. The last thing Broadsword should do is allow transfers to break the server just to appease a small group of "I want it all now players" (again, not including you in this group) just so they have to fix 6 servers instead of 5. It's not an all or nothing situation.

Not much you can do about closed accounts, unfortunately. If there was a way to tell which "new" players had closed accounts, they should get some kind of bonus as well. What I am seeing is two different groups of APAC players, those that just want to play on a server with good ping and their existing legacies and a second group that very much seems to be looking to make a profit out of the situation. I am happy to help out the former but very suspicious of the motivations of the later.

And none of that matters. If the character was created on the APAC server before it closed, special considerations should be made. If it wasn't no special considerations are warranted other than perhaps a reduced cost transfer.

That only applies to the players that were forced to move. Very few of the current APAC players were even around back then. Ones that were should get some special attentions (though not through the transfers themselves). Just being in the region shouldn't be a benefit (outside the improved current ping).

So did everyone else.

If the credits aren't on the server you can't buy them there. Limiting credit transfers in, inhibits credit sellers ability to flood the economy with credits (they'd have to "earn" them on the server like everyone else - they're effective at it but they would definitely be inhibited by transfer caps). Quite frankly, there should be limits on all servers regardless of the location. If you keep credits on the servers where they are generated and drain them effectively through trade taxes, you can keep the economies better under control.

And when the economy on SV goes belly up, which it will if BS follows what a lot of players are suggesting (unlimited transfers), who is to blame. I guarantee, that the APAC players will find some way to blame Broadsword for the broken economy that develops. What about the new APAC players that don't have billions to transfer, should they be at a disadvantage? The solution is simple. Allow transfers with credit caps and stacked item limits. That more or less keeps the economy in tact and lets the APAC players transfer over what they need. The last thing anyone wants is another broken server like the other 5.

That's probably too many, though it's not a bad place to start that discussion. Honestly I don't know what the right number would be. Broadsword would probably have to look at what they gain from subs vs what they lose from transfers (I don't know of any good source of info on the number of transfers that are currently occurring per month)

This is precisely why it is easy to produce a monopoly. You can easily shut out any seller by undercutting them by 1 credit (you have yourself complained about this possibility in another thread). For the record, I don't particularly agree with the change that shows only the lowest price but it is what it is now. As far as CM items are concerned, it is very unlikely there are sufficient supplies of them in anyone's inventory to make much of a difference. Unless you have a large number of items (or the ability to produce them quickly) you will never be able create a monopoly. Crafted items can be produced in large numbers and as such have a much more significant impact. As far as transfers go, I mostly agree with your posts: 1) limited credit transfers 2) a couple "free" transfers to APAC players to get the process started. Other players can transfer but pay the normal transfer fee (as can APAC players unwilling to "earn" additional transfers) 3) Earn a transfer program (though I think it should start with the opening of the server and not be applied retroactively) 4) the above situation applie only to APAC geo-located players (though there should be some sort of sunset on it) 5) no transfers off SV until the economies of all 6 servers balance (whether that be 6 months, a year, or more) Where we disagree is with the impact of large stacks of items (whether that be crafted items, mats, or other non-bound items that can be acquired/produced in large quantities). I feel they are most certainly a cause for concern in the overall health of the GTN for the reasons I have stated. I am however, not against some sort of gradated system that allows a player to bring more over to the new server over time, perhaps in a way similar to the "earn a transfer" idea. I am also not singling out the APAC server for this treatment. I think all servers should have the same rules (or at least the same rules when it comes to moving across regions)

Which is true but they are likely not sitting on piles of mats to make the item or pre-crafted items (and with credit limits they would need to be, so it's much easier to establish a monopoly on a small server like SV). Someone who has either of those (and only players transferring in would have that, those who started with the opening of the server get put right out of business) can easily re-establish their monopoly at virtually no cost ,while someone trying to get into the market has a significant cost of materials. If I am sitting on a large stockpile and someone new starts posting I just drop the price below what they are selling at until they go away (mine sell, they lose credits every time they post).

Here's your explanation of how a large number of items transferred can negatively impact GTN prices: Player A has been on SV since it opened and has gotten to a point where they can farm enough materials to produce several dyes per day (we'll use dyes as an example but the same holds true for any crafted item). They are selling them at 200K each. Player B transfers several hundred pre-crafted dyes to the server and decides to drive Player A out of the market by consistently listing large numbers of dyes for less than 200K. Eventually Player A gives up on crafting those items and dumps all his mats. Now Player B is free to charge whatever he wants for the the dye so he sets the price at 800K. Since he still has a large stockpile of essentially "free" dyes to sell he can drive anyone else out of the market at any time he wishes. This results in an increase in the price of the dye (a monopoly). Supply vs Demand only works if there is not a monopoly in play and a monopoly is very easy to achieve with large numbers of essentially free items to sell. I have driven numerous players out of the market on the low side (personally driving prices down) because I have a near infinite supply of materials and the time needed to craft those items is insignificant (essentially the same as having them pre-crafted). I could, if I wanted jack prices up to whatever level I wanted and as soon as anyone new tried to get into the market, I could undercut them out of the market at virtually no cost to me. That's how large numbers of saleable items can undermine the economy. With jacked up prices, people turn to credit sellers more often and credit seller activity will increase boosting the number of credits in the game which will result in inflation.

Until the next daily server reset is probably the best you can hope for but even that would be an improvement.

I think this covers what the vast majority of players would be happy with (limited credit/item transfers). The discussion seems to be revolving now around how to implement transfers and how many "free" transfers are appropriate. Trixie's idea of limiting by "earning" them through subscribing is a good one. That would slow the rate of transfers yet still allow APAC players to eventually transfer all of their characters to the new server. Though, until the economies of all 6 servers come into balance, there should be no transfers off SV to prevent "profiteering" The heaviest discussion outside of that seems to be around un-bound items and whether or not they would negatively impact the economy on the server pushing it toward where the other 5 servers are (a broken economy requiring draconian measures to fix). A good way to deal with the potential impact would be to limit the initial transfer of items saleable on the GTN (you could choose to have them bound and bring over as many as you want or choose to have them unbound but limited in the number you could bring). If the initial influx of items didn't cause problems, they could allow additional transfers of items (or increase the limit). This approach would blend well with the "earning free transfers" approach. Perhaps something like being able to bring 10 "saleable" items with each character initially and then if that doesn't damage the economy, allow bringing an additional 10 items per month subbed after the transfers start. Ideally, whatever transfer requirements/restrictions decided upon would be applied to all servers, not just Shae Vizla

That works in a real economy where there is a large supply. The GTN is an auction house, not an economy and prices are much more easily controlled at a high level by a few players (there is little to no real competition for most items even on the inflated servers). While it might result in prices lower than the other servers it would most definitely result in prices higher than they are now and people are already complaining they don't have enough credits to play the game much less buy anything from the GTN.

That's stretching it quite a bit. There was very little if any difference in gameplay (you could just as easily have called the character Imp or Pub and it would have been the same). "Outlander was just a name to say that the chracter was not from Zakuul. There were times in KotFE as well where there were "shout outs" to previous class play so, pretty much the same as 2.0 and 3.0.

Actually it was Rise of the Hutt Cartel (2.0) that carved it down from sixteen to two (Pub and Imp) which was reduced further in Revan to just 1 storyline. So it is untrue to state that KotFE "caused" the change to a single storyline. It just folowed on from 3.0

I think this would overall be fair to other players (free transfers are quite valuable) with one additional restriction. The character transferred had to be created prior to the shutdown of the APAC servers. Additional transfers could be at a reduced rate Edit: Transfers would be subject to whatever transfer restrictions are decided upon by Broadsword.

While not specific to the APAC server, the transfer of credits and items between servers needs to be looked at carefully. Whatever decision is made for transfers to Shae Viszla should also apply to other server transfers to keep items and credits from moving freely between servers. There is nothing wrong with CM items claimed from Collections, but these should all be blocked from transferring though as they represent a significant incentive to "cheat" the system to gain the credits needed to buy them. Secondly, some form of inter-server transfer of items without transferring characters should also be looked at so that players can transfer items they craft or buy from one server to another without them being able to be sold on the GTN (for use within their legacies). Only items crafted on the server should be saleable on the server (gifting is a separate issue). Perhaps limiting to a certain number of items per month. That way you have potential access to all your items from anywhere in your account. Thirdly is gifting. There should be some limited ability to gift items between accounts of items that are "bound to legacy". Perhaps you could have a certain number of associated legacies (or super-legacies) where items can be traded as if they were your legacy. All in all, character transfers need to be revamped.