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.

The problem is that takes two full storylines (one for Imp and one for Pub) or one side has to lose while the other wins. That doesn't provide much incentive for the "losing" side to play the expansion knowing ahead of time nothing you do (or accomplish) matters. With as little content as the DEVs have been able to produce of the last few years (the Expansion cycle is something like 2-3 years now) half the people playing the game would have nothing engaging to play for years (if they are the "losing" faction). You are always going to have to have a third party be the big bad so both sides have something to fight against. Sooner or later you run out of rogue/traitor Sith to fight.

The daily areas are the best. You get lots of credits (and other rewards) for very little effort and they can be completed on multiple characters each day. They also take very little time to do now with the changes to respawns.

I think that is part of their point. They want to discourage people from listing items with very high prices in the hope they will sell eventually. They are looking for prices that encourage faster turn-over. Relisting every 12 hrs to get the best yield is going to be more effort than they want to put into it.

The issue is your dividing the game community into "APAC" and "non-APAC" (which is mainly where my issue with your posts lies) and making it an adversarial relationship. I'm sure there are plenty of APAC players that would like a "fresh start" server as well so it's not just a "APAC" vs "non-APAC" issue.

How about: 1) Allow transfers of legacy (all legacy unlocks, boosts, etc) combined from all servers associated with the account 2) Allow limited transfers of characters (3-5 maximum in the short term no restrictions on items) I would be fully supportive of this approach and you could have your unlocked CM items as well. To me this satisfies both the "APAC" players transfer needs and the concerns about the economy. I would be supportive of transferring more characters with a hard limit on both credits and items (perhaps even at reduced cost for the item limited characters).

Originally this was about just transferring legacies which I don't think anyone was actually opposed to. What it has become is people wanting to transfer billions of credits (or their equivalent value in items to sell on the server). The "discussion" is about what is the right course to take there. If they could somehow limit it to old APAC players (and we should probably stop calling them APAC players when what is meant is "southeast asian" players - the West Coast of the US is actually part of APAC and generally has the same ping to the server in Sydney as to the US servers), that also probably wouldn't be an issue but I think most people doubt that system could work. How exactly do you determine who is an "APAC" player (e-mail provider, bank location, etc) and should it only apply to those who were active before the server shut down (those that started later were at no significant legacy or wealth disadvantage as a result of the server closure and weren't "forced off" the server since they were never on it in the first place) are important questions to answer.

For starters, you have absolutely no evidence that this is the case nor does anyone else have evidence it was opened for another reason. APAC players have been asking for a server in their region for a while now and others have been asking for a fresh start server. Opening a fresh start server in the region allowed Broadsword to potentially address both communities at the same time (I don't have any inside knowledge here either but it seems logical). It is your demands and dismissal of other people's opinions that has turned a lot of players off on supporting you. Every time someone suggests something reasonable, you go after them and demand that Broadsword do it your way and if they don't "They just want the server to fail". No one wants the new server to fail. For the record, I was supportive of your position of better advertisement and even limited transfers and many of your ideas were fine but I stopped posting in support of you when you went down the road of "this server if for APAC and they are the only ones who should have any say in how it evolves". Everyone has a stake in the game's survival, not just APAC players, just US players, or just EU players alone.

You know attacking US and EU players doesn't help your cause. You need them to support you in your crusade because there are not enough APAC players (if you exclude the western US from APAC) to provide the population you want. Broadsword has likely already looked at it and come to that decision and that is why they are silent on transfers.

Still not seeing this as a major issue requiring immediate Dev intervention. It affects a vanishingly small portion of the game population. We're not talking about normal mats here, it's the high end ones. Quite honestly if you can't remember you listed something worth millions or even tens of millions in the last seven days, that's more on you than Broadsword.

I only see this as a problem if you are buying items to flip. Why would you otherwise be even looking to buy items you have listed?

I have not played any of the 7.x content since the patch and have not had any issues with the other content Edit: Servers used, Star Forge and Shae Vizla Edit 2: Also using same graphics setting as before the update (7.4)