I am all for them adding back in the name of the seller. But that isn't just what the OP said. They said they wanted protection from buying their own supply from the toon they're currently on. Sorry, that is just lazy. If you're too lazy to stop for a second and check your own listings before buying the same thing on the same toon, then that is on them. While pre7.4 helped to keep from buying from one of your alts, it wasn't exactly protection that they claimed, but it was helpful. So I find clamoring for the devs to put that in is what I find a silly waste of resources. Its asking for an elaborate fix to a simple problem. Again, just on the prevention part...not about adding back the name of the seller.

Lets say i am someone that only has one toon on either side...does that negate my criticism of someone asking the devs to fix something they can already fix themselves by paying attention? If I did what they claimed is a big problem, I'd take the credit loss as a learning experience. I'd say to myself "self, don't buy your own listings, cause you lose money". Its called the stupid tax for a reason...you do something stupid, and you pay for it. What the other poster is suggesting is the devs need to come up with a way for them not to do something stupid and it needs to be done fast because who knows when stupid may appear. I don't have an issue with the more general gripes of the GTN changes, I share many of them. I just don't see how buying your own listings from your own toon can become that big of an issue.

You're asking how do you pay attention to what YOU are selling and buying? I don't know, just do it. Maybe before making a large purchase, double check if you think it might be yours, or don't and live with the loss of the fees/taxes. We used to call that paying the stupid tax. The stacking, unit price and seller name are things I also wish they would address. But you asked them to come up with a way to prevent you from buying your own supply, listing the name of the seller might help, but it wouldn't be a prevention.

The specific problem you listed about nothing preventing you from buying your own listing on the same toon? No, I don't think that is an issue in need of fixing. The solution is simple...pay attention to what you're buying and selling.

I watched it, I'm not saying it isn't possible...I just don't understand why its an issue that needs a fix, let alone really fast. In prior GTNs, you couldn't purchase items from the same toon, but you could purchase them from other toons on the same account. So the only difference I see in this iteration is that you could potentially make the mistake on the same toon. I don't like that they removed the seller name, as i liked that because I could easily see if something sold on another toon, or if someone undercut me, how much time was remaining, etc. without having to swap toons. I do wish they'd bring that back which could also help with your issue. I guess where I differ is I see that as "would be nice if you could add that back" as opposed to "an issue that needs to be fixed really fast"

OK so you have 100 widgets, you list them for 1M credits. 6 days later you decide you need 100 widgets and you're willing to pay 1M credits, but you forgot you tried to sell 100 widgets so you buy your supply. You get the 1M on the sale, less your fees. And you spend 1M credits on the purchase, plus your fees. So the 1M cancel out, you get your 100 widgets and you're only out the fees/taxes. I just don't see why the devs should dedicate resources to keep someone from doing something easily avoided.

That is no really different than the old GTN. If I was selling something on one toon, I could buy it on another toon on the same account. You couldn't buy it on the same toon, that seems to be only difference. I just don't see it as something that the devs need to fix, because the solution is don't buy the same thing you're selling at the same price.

Forgive my ignorance as I don't play the GTN much...but why exactly is this an issue that needs a fix let alone a fast fix? How often do players list X for Y amount only to also look to buy X at Y amount on the same toon? Maybe I'm in the minority on this, but i will check going prices on an item I'm looking to sell. If I see some that I believe are under market value, I might buy them. But I do that before I list mine, I don't think I'd ever do the reverse. I don't play the GTN as much as others, but this seems to be more in the realm of personal responsibility than something that needs a failsafe.

Personally I don't think the first three need much attention, but I do think Lady Dom could be more newbie friendly Instead of reducing recursive to 2, what if it stayed at 4 but had different colors and spots on the floor to mark where they go? similar to CM. One of my teams struggles at times with "wait i was 2? i thought I was 3!!". so having a way to more easily identify which one you have could go a long way. It would be easy enough to type out for pugs as well. The number of ads could be reduced or just remove the stun and/or reduce the damage from the monstrosities. Either way I think would get people over the hump.

So just to make sure I understand the gearing... If I have purple 336 gear today, I will be able to upgrade that gear to 344 with OP1s and whatever else? If I have purple 340 gear today, I will have to convert it using R4HM tokens, then I can upgrade it to 344 with OP1s and whatever else?

Same as others. Last night before maintenance I only showed 2 of my 7 legacy bay slots, so I didn't mess with it. Log in today and bay 3-7 are completely empty, no mail or anything with recovered items, so I'm missing a ton of stuff

another quick one is imp side Alderan Spring Thaw. Click the thing, mount up and run away, click the dead body, run away from the champion

Hey Jackie, I'll send you $20 if you respond with "thank you for your cartel market purchase"

Well, RNG in the game isn't technically gambling. They get away with it the CM because you're not buying a chance to win a box, you're buying a box that contains X number of items. The items inside vary, but you're not buying a chance to win, you get a set thing in return, the box with X number of items, for a set price. The Nightlife Event is pretty on point, because the outcome is uncertain every time you pull the lever. But it is limited to the player vs. the game (aka the house). And you can earn tokens other than buying them and the prizes are fixed and generally can't be sold to others (although some of the new stuff this year could be sold) so its softened a little. Those type of games COULD be expanded, but I think they'd still be limited to player vs the game with the same push button, then RNG. But I don't think we'd see any player vs player or games where the odds change during the course of a game, such as card games and craps or anything where you can win more than what you wagered. Sure, we can place bets amongst ourselves. But that is far different from BW creating a system that allows you to bet on the outcome of events with them taking a cut. I just think it would create more problems and headaches. Plus this is a 10 year old game that is pretty much a cash cow for them now, I don't think they want to make waves or draw attention with anything that would be viewed as controversial. And adding the equivalent of a sports book in game would likely qualify.

How did I conflate your quotes? "i mention how the BASIC guts of the code is already in the game" was your reply to when i said it seemed like a good amount of coding and testing would need to be involved. Then you said "And anything worthwhile takes "work" , so i don't consider that to be a valid reason to avoid doing something". You implied it wouldn't be too much work to make it happen only to follow up with the work is worth it. Pointing out the change in your reasoning isn't semantics. Reminds me of Moneyball when they're trying to convince the guy to swap from playing catcher to first base...."playing first base is easy, tell him Wash" "its incredibly hard". "hey anything worth doing is hard". Funny scene, but they're different rationale....just like yours. Nothing is wrong with it, I just don't think they'll work to combat inflation I think your assumptions are just too optimistic. For starters, I don't think BW would set the minimum bounty at 1B. I think at most it would be closer to 1M with a 10% tax/loss. Adding cheevos would certainly bring people in to participate, but only to get the cheevos. Lets say you have to collect 5 bounties and have 5 bounties collected off you. You know people would just swap bounties, you kill me and I kill you. So it will cost me 5M to post the bounties, and I collect 4.5M back on yours. So you've taken out 500k per participant. Even if you have 1M people that do it, you're taking out 500B. and thats mostly one timers only. Lets say you have 10k PVPers that just love it and do it every time it comes around, and they put up 20 bounties each. thats another 20B every 6 weeks or so? In the grand scheme, it just seems paltry compared to how many credits are in the game and come in on a daily basis. Sure you can increase the amount of the bounty itself, and you can make it more grindy to get the cheevos, BW could take out a bigger cut...but doing those things would also reduce the number of people that participate. I wouldn't say fear, but dislike for sure. Do you think i'm in the minority in disliking PVP in SWTOR? But as I've said before, I'm not against the suggestion because its PVP, I'm not even against the suggestion. I'm just saying I don't think it will be an effective way to combat inflation. So far your counterpoints have been "trust me, it should work". Extending Nighlife, maybe. It should be easy enough for BW to extend it, but how much are people actually spending credits wise? Honestly, I don't know. originally it was a really good credit sink but over time they make it easier to get tokens so I haven't spent a single credit since it first came out. But I'm sure there a late comers chasing the prizes and cheevos. But really I don't know if they'd drop enough credits to really have an impact or not. The Bounty idea, no I don't think it will Gambling on PVP, yes in theory. Assuming they could introduce a gambling system, I think you'd see more casino type games against the house than sports betting. I would imagine there are legal restrictions with it being a game rated T though. If they can't give us Sabacc, I don't see them giving us PVP wagering.