Good to have this confirmed. As for how to get it, it's random. You either get it from an open world mob drop or lockboxes that drop items, or you get it from 1 random box dropped from 1 login calendar. They're not bound immediately, so they can be sold on the GTN as well, but anybody selling it got it in the same way, and, anecdotally, I've been checking for this and another piece (that has several different pieces with the same look) since Wednesday on 2 different servers and haven't seen any of them at all, let alone at a reasonable price. Most of the weapons I've seen listed have been in the hundreds of millions, price wise. From the dev team's own words, there's 2000+ pieces of armor and hundreds of weapons that could drop in this way. Super rare is almost an understatement when discussing 1 item, especially when compared with the guaranteed acquisition method the Scoped Assassinator had before. This wasn't a thing for 10 years, I can tell you that. I don't know when this became a problem, but HK's sniper rifle was historically locked to level 50 (and player equippable) for most of its existence, including well after Master Ranos and Darth Hexid were added with their CM weapons. It was still locked to level 50 as recently as 2020 based on posts I've dug up. That did cause an issue where if you claimed HK before level 50, HK couldn't equip the Scoped Assassinator, because HK wasn't level 50. I can definitely see them having "fixed" that problem by removing the level requirement, which then caused the issue with players equipping it early and exploiting it. The issue with that is the initial fix, removing the level requirement blindly, was lazy, and removing the ability for players to equip it to fix the obvious problem that initial fix then caused is even lazier. As you mention, the Scoped Assassinator has mods. Mods that HK no longer needs, because companions don't get stats from their equipment anymore. So instead of making a change so a moddable weapon could ignore the level requirements of the mods inside of it, which is a bad idea that they shouldn't be comfortable doing for any moddable equipment in the game at all, just remove the mods entirely. If it needs to be done for compatibility's sake, add the level 50 requirement back onto the original, so anybody that already claimed HK and are possibly exploiting this can no longer do so, and then create a new version that's granted when people claim HK after the change that has no mods and no base level requirement. This is harder than slapping "Requires HK-51, HK-51" on it, for sure, but I trust they're smart enough to figure it out. We shouldn't have to deal with the consequences for repeated laziness from the devs, it's ridiculous. I'm sorry to come off so harshly, I don't like to, but this isn't the first time they've done something like this. It's a player-hostile change that they could have done differently, but chose not to because it was slightly harder to make that work. If they had made this new sniper rifle purchasable with credits on a vendor, or just more accessible period, I wouldn't be complaining either. I'd still argue the other changes were lazy, but they'd have at least made up for it so we're not the ones feeling the consequences of it. But it's in a random pool of 2000+ other items, the difference in accessibility is absurd compared to the original rifle. They just tossed it into that pile and called it a day, they barely even tried to make up for the impact of this change. That's why I'm frustrated. I know they won't answer to this and will simply move on, they always do, but changes like this are why I'm becoming increasingly cynical about the direction of the dev team. This is a minor issue in the grand scheme of things, I get that, but how they handled it is so telling to me. They could have put more work into this to make sure the fix didn't hurt the players that had been using this rifle as intended for years, as simply as just putting the replacement rifle on a vendor and letting us know it's there, and they actively chose not to. That's a dev team that isn't putting the players first.

Just found this today because my sniper was apparently using this, and I think I know why they did it. The new "Fitted Sleheyron Factory-Pressed Snipe" looks to be the same model, it has the exact same icon (can't be found on the GTN on either of the servers I have characters on, so I don't know if it's the same texture or a different one, but the icon matches the Scoped Assassinator and not the similarly modeled Custom-Built Sniper Rifle). So, my current guess, is they made a new sniper rifle not tied to HK to replace this... that you can only get from random drops (or on the GTN from somebody that got it in a random drop), in a pool so large they couldn't list them out in the patch notes. Fun times. @EricMusco @JackieKo Any chance somebody can chime in here and at least confirm that the Scoped Assassinator and "Fitted Sleheyron Factory-Pressed Snipe" share the same texture? With the RNG on obtaining these weapons, they're not really easy to find when you're looking for something specific. It'd be nice to have a yes or no on if it's even worth looking for. It's frustrating that this was changed at all, since the Scoped Assassinator has been equippable by players for at least 10 years. I get that most companion weapons aren't equippable, but HK's sniper rifle was a unique look that, again, has been equippable by players for at least 10 years.

I don't think so, actually. I got back in game and checked on a level 63, the objectives look the same in the 50-70 bracket from what I can see. Missions: Heroic is still available, as are the [Planet]: Heroic Missions objectives. Again, there isn't an objective for the weekly, so you should have gotten 10k for the first heroic, then 5k for each after that, and then the enemies defeated and bonus mission objectives would add up to just over 15k. So that totals just over 40k, and then you'd have lower XP to CQP conversions for a lower level character I'm pretty sure, so I don't see that getting you more than maybe 3-4k ish. So I wouldn't expect it to hit over 50k if all was working properly unless you did another bigger objective. You mentioned a companion objective. There's 2 in the 50-70 bracket. Influencer is 16k, Benefactor is less than 2k. If you got benefactor (for giving a single gift) that also wouldn't push you over 50k and I'd assume everything's working properly. If you got Influencer (going up an influence level), then something may have gone wrong, but I'm not sure what that would have been. The objectives all look correct.

Ah, good call. I was on a level 80, let me see if I have a character in the 51-70 bracket. I could see this being an issue where they just forgot to make Missions: Heroic available for 51-70. Pretty sure it was 1-50 only before.

I'll reserve judgment in case they have more info, but I'm guessing they're mistaken. I just tested it myself, ran Enemies of the Republic and Republic's Most Wanted. Coruscant: Heroic Missions - 5000 Coruscant: Defeat Enemies - 4125 Missions: Heroic x2 - 10000 Missions: Bonus - 2750 Total from the objectives is 21875, 650x3 from each mission completion adds up to an extra 1950, totaling out to 23,825. My total in the Conquest screen was 24,265. So I got 440 from enemy kills. It doesn't seem to me like the 5k infinitely repeatable is bugged. I saw it pop both times and it's still in my chat log.

Yeah. This is kind of an important point that people keep overlooking when discussing content and how "popular" it is. Most group content in the game is rewarding in other areas, solo content just isn't. Its entire reward structure depends on Conquest in a way that most other content in the game doesn't. This was done by design when 7.0 launched, accompanied by several significant nerfs to solo content in Conquest. It was my biggest issue with the rep objective nerf. They've slowly made solo content more reliant on Conquest while also making it less viable for Conquest. That's not gonna feel good for players that primarily play solo and don't want to engage with the group activities. You're not gonna force them into other game modes they don't want to play, you're gonna push them out of the game entirely. The heroic weeklies don't have Conquest objectives so that 10k wasn't for the weekly. I'd expect it to be around 45k for all of the heroics on Coruscant. Point wise you'd get 25k from the heroics themselves, ~12.5k from the defeat enemies objectives, probably a ~3k bonus mission ding for Face Merchants or Enemies of the Republic, and then odds and ends from XP to CQP conversions. If you're saying you got the Companion Influencer objective as well (which is 16k) and weren't over 50k in the end, then something went wrong.

Ossus is actually available. I don't know if maybe it just always was, or if they left it out of the patch notes, but I have a character that's fresh level 80 and hasn't completed anything past the class story and they have access to Ossus dailies. I also have a level 70 that's just past Rishi and they also have access to Ossus (along with Onderon, Runuk, and Kessan's Landing, no Manaan though, the level 80 did have access to Manaan). Ziost makes sense because of story stuff, Rishi I would guess just got forgotten. It doesn't have a Conquest objective and its weekly was added long after the fact, so I'm guessing they just forgot it existed.

It's really weird to take people complaining about a nerf as them hating the entire system in question. Conquest is one of the main driving factors for me when playing the game. The content I like to play doesn't have great rewards, so Conquest basically is the reward for that content, and since the objectives for that content were nerfed into the ground several years ago, the rep objective was what helped make up the difference. It allows me to do what I want with the time that I have, and then use the rep objective to finish off. That's no longer possible, so I'll get through what I have time for, realize I'm still 30-40k short, and now I have to go do something else to make up the rest when I wanted to either be done entirely or switch to another character. To imply that means I dislike the entire system is completely disingenuous (or you've given zero thought to why people might have an issue with it). You're not the first person I've seen make that argument and it's incredibly silly in my opinion. If you don't have a problem with it, that's totally fine, but that doesn't mean that other people can't have a legitimate issue with it without hating the entire system. Also good to point out, because I feel like the way you word it here is intentionally misleading, simply clicking a token is the end of the process for the rep advancement, it's not the whole process. There's very few rep lines in the game that you can just get a rep token from "nothing", and longtime players probably have those lines at max rep (which means you get the objective from them, if you weren't aware, you have to actually use the token and you can't use rep tokens for lines you have maxed out). Outside of the limited exceptions, you did content at some point in time to get that rep token. You can argue whether or not that content is "enough" for the points, but I feel like there's a lot of objectives right now that you could make that argument for, especially with how rewarding the content is otherwise. The fact is it's not simply logging in and clicking a button. If you're doing that, it's more than likely that you did content at some point in time to get the token to click on.

Not sure if this is affecting any other companions that got a Date Night mission, but if Lana is wearing covert energy gloves or doesn't have any gloves equipped, she reverts to having her default gloves equipped when she shows up on Odessen. This shows both outside the cutscene when she's displayed as an NPC and then also in the cutscene itself. This isn't an issue with her elsewhere as far as I'm aware, I've had her placed in my Stronghold and she's never showed with her default gloves there, or in other cutscenes. Just here. It also seems like when you first zone in, it removes the dye on her chestpiece and puts her saber back to default as well. I was able to summon her and dismiss her to make those appear correctly again, but the gloves weren't fixed by this. Using gloves other than covert energy also display fine, but any style of covert energy glove gets replaced by her defaults. Some screenshots to demonstrate what I'm talking about: EDIT: Having now done the scene, it seems like she has some issues with her hands in this scene if you force gloves that show them (such as Bastila's gloves shown in my screenshots there). It looks like her skin is much darker, almost as if she's wearing brown gloves. I'll attach an additional screenshot to show that, would be nice to have these bugs fixed. Kinda disappointing to have to tinker with her outfit just to get this scene to look right.

If the only thing you care about is the name, I'm pretty sure you can rename your legacy. I don't think it's free, but it shouldn't be crazy expensive either. Would save you from losing any progress you've made on any of the various legacy-related things (achievements, unlocks, reputations, etc).

Just a quick stat here. A player wanting to transfer a character and their stronghold(s) over to Shae Vizla would have to transfer at least 2 characters to reactivate with credits any of the following strongholds: Tatooine (2.5m), Yavin 4 (2.5m), Manaan (2.5m), Rishi (3m), and Alderaan (4m). If you have all of these strongholds and want to reactivate all of them with credits, you'd need 14.5m credits, or over 7 characters transferred with 2m credits each. That's just Strongholds alone. It should have been stated clearly, from the start, that this server was a fresh start server first and foremost. Dangling the carrot that this was an APAC server for APAC players and then doing this is genuinely awful, but I suppose that's why it was announced at the end of business on a Friday.

If that's what you took away from my post, you didn't even read it.

I'm not? I'm sorry, but bringing trades and COD into this shows, once again, you don't understand the difference between the numbers you're talking about here. The buyout price in both systems is the same number. It's what the seller receives + the tax. That's true in both systems. So if your argument here is that you can't get the tax in 7.4 (which I agree with, you can't, never said you could), the same is true for the current system, so your argument that there's a difference between the two is wrong. You keep trying to compare different numbers and different systems because when you compare the GTN numbers directly where they're actually comparable, your point is repeatedly proven wrong.

You can't really compare this to a real life sales tax since it's not actually shown in the same way. In a real life store, you don't see prices on the shelf including the tax. They show the price the store is selling it for, and then the tax is added on when you check out. The "buyer's fee" in SWTOR doesn't work that way. It's applied beforehand such that the buyout price is the only thing the buyer ever sees, and that's true in both systems. As a result, when using existing market data to set a price, sellers have to include the tax because they can only see buyout prices too, which include the tax. It's not the same. Similarly, again, to make it clear again, the unit price in 7.4 is not the same as a buyout price in the current system, so you cannot compare them. They represent different things. If your example only works when you compare numbers that represent different things, your example is wrong.

You still seem to not understand the difference between a buyout price and a unit price. To clear this up for you: A buyout price, both in the current system and 7.4's system, is what the buyer sees when they make the purchase. In both systems, this price includes the tax. A unit price, in 7.4, is what the seller puts in on the listing screen and is what they receive when the sale goes through. This doesn't include the tax in 7.4. A buyout price of 3 billion in 7.4 has a unit price below 3 billion. So in that poster's example, having a buyout price of 3 billion in both systems gets the seller less credits in 7.4. That's a fact. It's just how the systems work, the tax rate is higher for a 3 billion credit buyout price in 7.4, and the buyout price includes the tax.

Except it does work, because I'm applying it where buyout prices are equivalent, and it works in all circumstances there. Your example falls apart when go to a buyout price that can be matched in both systems, so your point here applies to your own example.

But then the example only works for 3 billion. If you're only considering 3 billion, then yes, 7.4 gets you more credits, but that's not a matter of the tax not being applied, it's because the buyout price cap is effectively raised in 7.4 by 400+ million credits due to the change in what's being capped. Once you drop to lower prices where you can have an equivalent buyout price in both systems, your example falls apart.

You completely missed the point. You're not selling the item for 3 billion in 7.4, you're selling it for 3.4 billion. You can't compare a unit price in 7.4 to a buyout price in the current system, it's not the same number. Read the post.

This shows, once again, a severe misunderstanding of what the new system actually is. If you sell an item for 3 billion in 7.4, you're not listing it for 3 billion, you're listing it for 3.4 billion. These numbers aren't the same, you can't compare them. The 3 billion in the current system is a buyout price, the 3 billion in 7.4 is a unit price. They're not the same. Again, if you're talking about a low population item where you're the only one listing it, in the current system you can inflate your price by 8% to account for the tax, which would be the same as listing by unit price alone in 7.4 (go back to my 380,000 credit example again for your 350,000 credit example). But if the item is competitive and you're going by existing sales data or listings and not just coming up with a price off the top of your head, the price you use as a reference will be a buyout price, which means it has the tax included, which means your unit price will be derived from a buyout price with the tax accounted for. The same as it is now. To be clear, if you sell an item such that the buyer pays 3 billion in 7.4, you won't get 3 billion back. Your whole point here relies on an item where you have free reign on price and even then there's an equivalent example in the current system.

Okay? So you're showing the prices fluctuate up and down for an item in today's system. We've established this, yes. I never said prices were set. Your idea that there's always a buyer out there willing to pay more is dependent on demand for the item, but that's also part of the market, supply and demand. That's going to happen in both systems, though, and it doesn't impact the functionality of the tax, or anything else I said. Prices fluctuating doesn't mean sellers will be able to unilaterally increase prices across the board. If the item is competitive, somebody will undercut you, and somebody will undercut them, etc. Unless the demand is outweighing the supply to the point where you can get to low population on the item like that and set a price, you still have to pay attention to the buyout price other people have set, which means you're taking the tax into account. And again, in the current system, you can also change your price to be what you want to receive if the item is low population like that. Take what you want (your "unit price" in 7.4 terms), divide it by 0.92, and put the result as your buyout price. Done. If you hit an item like the above, that's certainly possible right now, in the current system. So this isn't the smoking gun difference you think it is, it's the same, it's just easier in 7.4 due to how the listing price is set up (you don't have to divide anything), in exchange for listing prices for competitive items being more complicated (see the whole spiel I explained about the current buyout price being the only data you see).

If they're the only ones listing it and can choose any price they want, sure, they can make more credits that way. Again, though, if you're the only one listing an item, then in the current system, you could price it at around 380,000 and receive 350k. You can account for the tax in the current system. There's nothing stopping you from doing that right now. The fact that the market fluctuates, like you pointed out, is what makes this not work, because you're probably not gonna be the only person selling this. Again, in 7.4, you cannot buy items that aren't the lowest buyout price, so somebody else lists that same item. They're going to list a buyout price below yours. Then maybe somebody else, then somebody else, then somebody else. The price is 350,000 buyout for the item now after all of that. That doesn't go away in 7.4, and in 7.4, as some people have already complained about, when an item is already listed and you want to list for lower, you have to work backwards from the buyout price, because that's all the buyer (and you, as a seller looking up the item to see the current prices) sees. So you don't list it for 350,000. You list it for whatever unit price reaches 350,000 as a buyout price. I sure have used it, and this really makes me think you don't fundamentally understand what they've changed. As I mentioned above, you're correct, there is no option for a seller to input a price that already includes taxes, but any price data you use to set your price will include it. If you search for an item on the GTN? It shows you the buyout price (ie, including the tax). The historical data it shows and recent sales? Buyout price, includes the tax. Everything that you see to guide your price includes the tax, because as far as the buyer is concerned, that tax doesn't exist, there's only ever the buyout price, in the current system and 7.4. So yes, if the seller posts the dye for 350,000 credits, they'll see the price as 371,000. If the current lowest buyout price was 350,000, though, their listing isn't the lowest buyout price and it won't sell (at least not until all of the lower priced listings sell first, that's how 7.4 works). In order to be lowest and actually sell, they have to lower their unit price until the buyout price becomes lower than 350,000. So instead of setting a buyout price and finding out what the tax is after the fact, you're listing a unit price and the GTN shows what the tax is right there, adds to it, and creates the buyout price. That's what I meant by "after tax". The tax was in reference to the current system's tax. Your unit price in 7.4 is what you would have gotten in the current system "after tax". In both systems, the seller almost always still has to care what the buyout price is first and foremost, because like I explained, that's what all of the data comes back to. You're not listing based on a unit price alone unless you're the only seller for an item and you're listing blind, at which point you could mentally divide your desired price by .92 in the current system and get the same effect as listing by "unit price" in 7.4 (see my 380,000 credit example above). If you're not, then you're working backwards from a buyout price. You can't set it directly, that's correct, you just have to play around with the unit price until you get it close enough. You're still aiming for a specific buyout price in the end. With that in mind, I ask again, how is the new system different as far as the tax is concerned? In both systems, you're setting a buyout price. At what point does the tax become the buyer's burden in a way that it wasn't before?

First off: "Sure, sellers can factor it into their pricing, but they can do that in today's system by increasing their prices by 8%." Already addressed this. What's to stop prices from jumping now to account for the current tax? Why would that have not happened before now and suddenly happen in 7.4? What is new? I literally never said this, and in fact said, quite clearly, that the market will decide the price, which inherently means I know it fluctuates. That fluctuation, by design, means that sellers can't unilaterally increase prices to account for a new tax. If the price drives lower, because people undercut you, you're listing lower or, under 7.4's system, you will not sell. People literally can't buy items that aren't the lowest buyout price anymore. And this is the heart of it. This is where your misunderstanding is coming from. In order for your premise to work, this has to be true, and what I'm telling you is that it's not. In the current system, the buyer sees a buyout price for an item, they pay it. The GTN takes the tax out in the middle and the seller receives the buyout price minus the tax. In the new system, the buyer sees a buyout price for an item, they pay it. The GTN takes the tax out in the middle and the seller receives the buyout price minus the tax. The difference is that the seller is specifying the after tax part as their "unit price" now instead of specifying the buyout price the buyer sees, which was almost necessary due to the change to a progressive tax rate. The place where the tax comes out from hasn't changed. It's fine if you want to say the buyer pays it, but like I said before, if that's the case, then the buyer always paid it. Because the tax is in the same place. Nothing has changed functionally. If you want to argue that the sellers paid it before and don't pay it now, then explain how it's different and how sellers were paying the tax in the old system, and aren't now. Back up what you're saying.

Again, to be clear, the tax is coming out in the same place in both systems. You can keep repeating this math all you want, make the calculation for 50 years, whatever, it doesn't apply here. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of one of the two systems if you think it does. The tax is still there, taken out in the same way, and sellers are the only ones that have to pay attention to it. Sure, sellers can factor it into their pricing, but they can do that in today's system by increasing their prices by 8%. That doesn't happen for most items, though, because the market will determine the prices. That, as it's already been pointed out, will then force sellers to account for the current lowest buyout price when listing. So your unit price becomes the post-GTN commission credits in the 7.0 system. It's the same.

It doesn't actually work this way, so, from the buyer's perspective, nothing changes in terms of the tax. In both the current system and 7.4's system, the tax comes out in the middle, after you pay and before the seller gets the credits. As a buyer, the price you see is the price you pay in both systems. So from the perspective of who pays the tax, that hasn't changed. If the buyer pays it now, then they always paid it. That's why there's been pushback in this thread on the "buyer pays the tax" comments. If you look at the thread the developers posted for the GTN changes, they didn't even mention the "buyer's fee" in the "Buying" section at all, it's listed in the "Selling" section with the other changes for sellers, because sellers are the ones that actually have to care about it and account for it when pricing.

You completely missed my point, as evidenced by repeating the exact same mistake here: The tax. Is. Still. There. The buyer does not see a tax, they see a buyout price, that's it. You can go on the PTS and look at this. The seller is the only one that sees the tax, regardless of who "pays" it. When you look up an item to list it, the prices you'll see will be including the tax, meaning you'll be pricing with the buyer's tax in mind. That means you're not pocketing the difference between the two systems, you're just changing what you put as your unit price to reflect the amount you receive instead of the amount before the tax. The effect is still the same. "Smart" players listing 8% above whatever the current going rate is will get undercut, their items won't sell, they'll eat the nonrefundable fee, and then they'll lower their price to match the going rate. You can't look at the buyers in this situation as a non factor that'll buy the item at whatever the cost is, because while sure, 350,000 to 371,000 isn't that big of a jump (but it's still a jump on an item like this, a jump I don't see actually happening across the board), your 3 billion credit example exposes where this becomes a bigger issue: an item on the GTN that gives 3 billion credits to the seller would actually cost the buyer over 3.4 billion credits in the new system. That's over 400 million credits more due to the tax, which will absolutely play a part in the buyer's decision to buy that item. That's the price the buyer sees. They don't see that you only listed it for 3 billion and the rest is a tax on them, they see the 3.4 billion buyout price. The only place the tax ever gets shown to anybody is when the seller makes the listing, they see what the final buyout price will be based on their unit price + the tax (encouraging them to price accordingly, like I've said). So, if you were to list an item so that you would receive 3 billion credits if it sold in the new system, you couldn't compare it to a situation in today's system because the buyout price ends up higher than the current system allows. If you price it lower to account for the tax, you lose credits immediately, because the tax is actually higher on this kind of item than in the current system and you end up with a fee every time you list it that isn't there in the current system. You still have to account for the tax, especially if you're not the only one listing the item. There is no functional difference between taxing the seller and taxing the buyer if the buyer never sees the untaxed price. In the current system, you can price items 8% higher to account for the seller tax. There's nothing stopping you from doing that, the game just doesn't give you the numbers in the UI to make it easy. Nobody would do that, though, because people will list the item at what it's worth and undercut you, and then you'd never sell it. Why do you think this is going to change in the new system and buyers are going to be okay with paying 8%+ higher prices across board?