The devs should have a fair amount of data by now: - activity of chars transferred to SV by APACs using free transfers (how many chars used regularly, occasionally, only once) - number of 500 and 1000cc paid transfers to SV bought by APACs (taking note the sub discount's still running) - activity of chars transferred to SV by APACs using paid transfers - % of lapsed APACs that opened SV emails - % of lapsed APACs that logged into the game again I've suggested many variants for APAC-specific transfers in the past - most recent one was 1-4 extra transfers based on spending history, similar to Gabriaye's suggestion of looking at sub history - but the first three points might suggest different numbers or qualifications to the devs. Assuming other criteria previously discussed, like pre-SV APAC accounts that didn't get 16, I'd welcome any movement in this area. May the 4th would be an excellent date to kick it off, taking advantage of other SW marketing. Speaking of marketing, the last two points would show how effective the emails have been, so far, at getting lapsed APACs back. I wouldn't be surprised if many people didn't even open them, while only a small percentage logged into the game again. That's par for the course with emails. Could try one which includes a few free transfers (emphasized in the subject line, to get more people to open it in the first place), and see what happens. If it gets a lapsed APAC to login again, when previous emails didn't, the only cost is the possible lost sale of a few transfers. (Second point suggests how likely that sale might have been.) That seems like cost-effective marketing to me. If a lapsed APAC still doesn't login after getting an email with free transfers, and lets them expire, then the attempt cost nothing.

Going to medals would bring some benefits - for one, people who do nothing but ram asteroids ten times would get no rewards, whether or not they get any winning-team medal multipliers. But yeah, for wider benefits, and so new players get proper rewards, medals would have to be changed. We could see how last week's GSF medals objective, as currently implemented, played out on satellite maps. Pretty much as described. If you have many afkers on your only sat, people pushing for a second sat have a lower chance of success, and can end up with less medals than the afkers. On points quoted: - Add medals for contesting any point: right now, if you solo block an entire team from capping a neutral sat, playing pure survival, all you get is an afk warning. - Overall PvP dmg/heals, or dmg/heals related to objectives, seem like better things to reward than a single boosted supercrit. - Extra medal categories with low thresholds to achieve would help new players. (People struggling to hit GSF targets can still contribute a lot with well-placed bomber nests.) Another thought was having a final score predictor, similar to the Gree pylons PvP one, to make the current situation clearer to everyone, and possibly tying extra incentives to that. E.g., if you're 'ahead' 800-700 on GSF sats (first to 1000 wins), but you have one sat, while the enemy has two, you're actually losing. Expected final score if nothing changes is you 950, enemy 1000. So point that out, then offer extra incentive to take a risk and go for a second sat. If your team's winning, that extra incentive isn't necessary. I think they'd be willing to do something, as long as it's not too time-consuming, and it promises a clear benefit which justifies the time spent. Reworking medals would require less time than reworking matchmaker, and it would be effective at reducing afk issues. That, and/or nerfing reward amounts, as they've previously done for both PvP and GSF. Either choice would require even less time than reworking medals. Hopefully, this time around, they can be convinced that a medal rework would be better for both game modes than alternatives like those.

Re: insider information - AFadedMemory posted some wage and staffing assumptions, with qualifiers like "supposed" and "if". People should be allowed to post assumptions for the sake of argument, without being accused of having insider info, or of making things up. Are those assumptions accurate? I don't know. If someone thinks they have better ones, they can post them too. But the point about expenses, revenue, and the likely fate of games with profits below expectations is valid. One big unknown is microtransactions. We shouldn't downplay their significance - they just might have saved the game from going under years ago. (Supposition, not insider information.) EA's public financials don't split between sub and MTX revenue, or split revenue by game. I did notice EA's "marketing and sales" expenses hover at around 40-50% of their R&D ones. That would be focused on new games, but it would be nice if Broadsword could push for a taste of that, especially if doing something like launching a server in a region that hasn't had one for over a decade. Back on topic. What rewards should afkers get? As little as possible. Instead of having PvP & GSF missions count matches played, they could count medals earned that day/week. Have conquest objectives like "earn X medals", or for GSF, "earn X medals as bomber". Maybe a medal cap per match, but doubling medals after a win. Make sure new players who do something get decent progress. "Earn X medals this week" is better for them than "earn X medals this match". Regarding premades: balanced matches should be the main goal, to encourage people to queue again. So large premades should go. If matchmaker gets reworked, and if it can be shown to provably, and consistently, generate balanced matches with small premade groups in the mix, keeping them could be an option. But at this point, I agree with TrixxieTriss - I think just switching to solo queues is the cleanest solution going forward. What daily rewards should people get for logging in? Suggestions there should focus on login rewards calendars, as that's their purpose. Seasons rep did end up being usable as a daily login reward (or "one click wonder", if you prefer): use rep token -> get conquest points -> complete conquest seasons objective -> get seasons currency -> buy cheap rep tokens. Probably why it got removed. What counts as "enough" daily activity to meet a target like 25k? I like the idea of taking the focus from rep missions to general ones, simply so people who've maxed out rep tracks don't feel disadvantaged for doing so. Since we're talking about reaching a daily 25k target, not heavy-duty conquest farming, once-a-day conquest objectives can be used. If a few heroics are good enough, assuming max stronghold bonus, any fp or op should also count. So should any non-repeatable main plot mission, since those missions are often longer than a bunch of heroics. Beyond the daily target, what rewards should activities offer? In general, group content, whether PvP or PvE, should offer more than soloing. Group content has wait times, varying by activity, time of day, server, etc., while soloing can be done at will. (Wait times shouldn't just be ignored. Assumptions about wait times should be based on expected cases, not theoretical scenarios which don't occur in reality. Besides, the devs have access to real activity data to base their work on.) Joining any group, even heroics, helps everyone get their desired rewards faster. Ops can offer more rewards, as another sub incentive. Beyond those points, rewards should be based on factors like difficulty, plus average time required to complete that specific activity (not all fps and ops are equal).

People want to transfer as many characters and credits as possible, while spending as little money as possible. Different motivations for some APACs, sure, and more worthy justifications, but the overall desire isn't APAC-specific. At this point, I'm more interested in specific, targeted suggestions, for limited numbers of free transfers, like 1-4, for some APACs who didn't get the 16. The more focused the suggestion is (we agree on criteria like limiting it to pre-SV APAC accounts), and the more likely it is that each transfer brings an active character to boost SV's population, the more likely it is to get dev approval, which should be the point of the exercise. Not bad. "Backdated requirements rewarding subs over the history of the game" would have been better than "backdated requirements rewarding subs from the start of January". More graduated than "16 or nothing". No consecutive sub issues. Still think there's little chance of anything extra in the 8 to 16 range, for reasons previously stated. But if the devs decide to offer a couple extra transfers, the principle here could work. I'd prefer using dollars spent over sub time, though. First, I still like the idea of pre-SV APACs who've spent any money in the past getting one transfer. Second, basing it on dollars ($60 historical spend = 2 transfers?) would treat spending on subs, cartel coins, and mixed-content bundles equally. Well, there's some evidence that the people saying "we want credits for every possible reason except GTN shopping" turned out to be unrepresentative of the wider player base. The devs should remember that. Previous comments like "there won't be much inflation - we might end up with deflation when people bring items to sell" are looking similarly unreliable. I don't recall pro-credit posters using arguments like "the economy will blow up anyway" when they argued why the 2m limit should be raised. I do remember people saying that concerns about inflation from transfers were exaggerated. In any case, I disagree with the premise. Different credit limits, along with different policies on free and discount transfers, would have resulted in different economic impacts. NA servers still have price fluctuations, even with large numbers of buyers and sellers to stabilize things, and no obvious triggers. SV's just had an inflation shock, with a smaller population to stabilize it. I think a week is too short a time frame to expect self-correction across the board, even if several items might be overvalued due to "irrational exuberance". As for the future - there's still one month of limited free transfers plus unlimited 500cc ones, then two months of just 500cc ones, then 1000cc ones. I think dedicated traders will have used their free transfers already to grab the early deals. They might buy more transfers if they see enough cross-server profit to justify the cc spend. Eventually, it should reach a point where there's still cross-server profit available, but not enough to justify the transfer cost of an inbound 15m transfer. That would be a point with a lot of inflation, but not as much as the other broken economies. That depends on how many credits end up being brought with free transfers, as well as any future dev decisions.

Thanks for the dev post on this - it's nice to hear something about the intent behind these changes. Drop rate issues aside, looks like they're serving as replacements for existing drops, not as additional ones. That's the case for treasure hunting lockboxes, at least. (Opened 8 sub-11 TH boxes, got 1 item each time, total 7 fitted, 1 non-fitted. Opened 4 grade 11 TH boxes, got "2-4 grade 11 mats + 1 fitted item" each time.) Making them replacement items with vendor+scrap value would simplify inventory management. Additional items with no vendor+scrap value (ideally, 1 credit value) would be okay too, just more of a hassle, depending on drop rate. Replacement items with no vendor+scrap value turns this into a nerf to credit+scrap fountains, along with being more of a hassle. I agree with previous comments about adding to collections, if possible, so people can retain easy access, while freeing up inventory space. Same for comments about greatly reducing the drop rate. GTN sellers aren't guaranteed to get a sale, but are guaranteed to lose their deposit fee. If the market value of these is very low, due to huge drop rates, there's not a lot of incentive to even try selling them on the GTN. Being able to list that armor pack on the GTN would be nice. Maybe even turn down the drop rate of armor pieces much further than intended, but add armor packs as a very rare drop. Could have a range of different scenarios from that, depending where prices of individual pieces and armor packs end up: - Looters ignore everything. - Looters ignore pieces, but take the time to sell packs. - Armor collectors or middlemen with time buy packs, open them, get random sets, keep the sets they want, and sell remaining sets piece by piece. (This opens the possibility of a second credit sink in the loop, looter -> middleman -> piece buyer, similar to gatherer -> crafter -> craft item buyer.) - Looters sell everything.

I think there'd be a fair bit of demand for cross-server queuing. Might even get people using group finder for SM ops. Just depends if the benefit of faster queue pops is worth the implementation cost - it's not a small request. On your letter points: a) The system should help people do what they want to do. I don't like a policy that effectively says, "we have a way to make your queue pop faster, but we won't implement it, since you should be on standby to fill a possible missing spot in a guild run." b) Add checkboxes for which servers to get matched to. The whole thing should be opt-in. If someone only wants low-ping content, and they're willing to wait for that, fine. Maybe home server only, maybe willing to queue within their region (like a NA player queueing SS+SF). But while ticking the box to more remote servers includes the risk of being matched to high-ping content there, it also brings the benefit of getting a faster low-ping pop on their own server, where some of that pop is filled by other cross-server queuers with high ping. c) The current choices for someone wanting group content during their server's off-peak time are "stay queued on home server, but wait very long time for pop" or "setup char + gear on remote server, get faster pop, but can't bring rewards to home server without a transfer". Being able to queue on remote servers, and claim the rewards on their home server - while still queued on their home one, in case they get lucky with a local pop - seems like a win/win. They might want some data on transfer usage first. Not only in general (so all the talk about needing credits for strongholds, guild ships, and NiM repairs, but not GTN shopping, can be assessed), but also comparing use by APAC players vs rest-of-world players. If it shows that APAC players are more likely to use transfers to bring actively played chars, as intended by the devs, that would provide evidence for the devs to consider extra transfers for that specific group. Seeing how the results differ by transfer number (1st, 2nd, 16th) might also suggest where they draw the line. I'm not expecting 16 free transfers to show up again. Possibilities from here: - 4 for pre-existing (acct. created before SV launch) APACs who missed the 16, but are subbed, or start a sub before free transfers expire in 30 days? - Nothing for pre-existing APAC f2ps - the devs could point them at the previous line, and say if they've never paid a cent in the game's history, they'll probably never get a better deal to start paying for than that one. - 1-2 for pre-existing APAC prefs? (Plus pre-existing APAC subs who missed the 16, if no 4-transfer sub? Brought up to 4 total, if 4-transfer sub happens? Additional? Depends on dev target.) Current players could at least transfer legacy for free, or bring imp + pub. Former players would benefit even more: they'll want to try the game before committing any new money. Since they have spending history (pref), the devs would want their trial to go especially well. A free transfer would let them try the game using a familiar char, with a decent mix of abilities, plus access to some group content, all on a low-ping server.

Thanks for announcing a date. Couple things mentioned in this thread I'd like to see with this update - they should still be feasible, if not done already: - Check handling of previously mentioned cases like attempting to transfer a f2p/pref char with 4b in escrow. After all the effort to improve the situation on other servers, where exploits played a part in causing hyper-inflation, it would be less than ideal if a new exploit allowed people to easily bring billions to SV, using that method or any other. (Does resale timer get wiped during transfers? People shouldn't be able to buy vendor stuff, transfer, then resell vendor stuff at full price either.) - Disable transfers off SV, at least for now, so people transferring to buy cheap stuff can't immediately bring things back to their home servers to sell and go again. - Remove current listings on SV GTN when the update happens, so sellers don't get hit by overnight inflation, and buyers plus sellers both deal with the post-update environment on an equal level.

Agreed. Of course, in this specific case, if APAC prefs and f2ps could post here, while I'm sure they'd love to transfer characters + legacies, and they'd appreciate some free transfers, I suspect quite a few of them would like SV to stay low-inflation, so things on the GTN stayed more affordable for them. If we count them as part of the APAC community (we should), their views on proposals like 'unrestricted credit transfers from all regions' should be taken into account. SV's population wasn't caused by transfers with credit restrictions, since they never happened. What we have on SV is the result of over 100 days of no transfers of any sort, plus a month of no galactic or PvP season. (I wonder if there'll be any uptick in SV PvP with the PvP season starting tomorrow. Is the PvP season, in and of itself, sufficient to promote more PvP matches? How many people will only do it if there's also a galactic season PvP objective that week?) Some sort of patch-free enabling of standard, unrestricted transfers to SV would also mean no free transfers, and no discount transfers - I assume the patch includes qualification rules for those, along with a "transfers only valid to SV" restriction. Any bonuses specifically for APAC-located players, which we both agree should appear in some form, would also be out. The main concern that really unites the APAC community (subs, prefs, and f2ps) is the delay in transfers. I assume DWho was talking on similar lines when they said: I don't believe they were arguing "BS need to forget about the credit limits", as you implied. (Happy to be proven wrong.) As stated, it's been over 100 days. Based on the old "no transfers for 90 days" rule, we could have expected something by now - either live transfers, or a firm date when transfers would be available. I absolutely agree we could use more communication on that point, and the sooner the transfer package is rolled out, the better. But "date of transfers" and "credit limit of transfers" are two distinct issues. (Just to be clear, I'm in favour of bringing the transfer package forward as much as possible, plus adding some other ways for APAC-located players to get transfers, but against increasing the amount of credits transferred per character.)

Agreed. I'm sure Amazon has a lot of ping data for their shiny cloud servers they can give the devs. Figure out which regions are likely to have better gameplay on SV than NA/EU servers, give people there incentives to move to, or at least try, SV. Doesn't really make sense to give people incentives to move to servers with worse ping than they've currently got. I'm fine with prefs getting stuff, with similar caveats: "spending history" qualifies them on my list. That point aside, the suggestion wasn't about who gets transfers, but how, specifically, transfers involving escrow are handled. A sub trying to transfer 4b gets told "sorry, 15m limit", they dump the excess into their legacy bank, try again with 15m, transfer goes through. No problem. On the other hand, what happens if a f2p/pref tries to transfer a char who has 1m active and 4b escrow? That transfer can't be allowed - otherwise, someone can just sub after that transfer, and they've successfully brought 4b to SV, bypassing the credit cap. So it has to be blocked. But the f2p/pref can't put those creds in their legacy bank either, to get below the 15m limit, because of their 1m active credit limit. They'd either need to sub, to transfer that specific character (dumping excess in legacy), or transfer another character whose total credits (active + escrow) is below the credit cap.

And now for something completely different. Glad you liked it! We have Forest Tauntaun, Survivalist Tauntaun - I checked. Desert Tauntaun is the final evolution. Nice red coat. Maybe a Skippy clicking noise when mounting. Run animation? We have spacebars. Once hordes of desert tauntauns are hopping around fleet, the devs will never forget APAC's existence again. Let the APACalypse commence. (Thanks to you and TrixxieTriss for the pictures, btw.)

Delaying transfers makes it slower to cash in and come back for another round- the initial profit's still there. Item restrictions for transfers off SV, though... that's brilliant. Coupled with credit restrictions for transfers on, it's almost poetic. It doesn't do anything about people buying cheap stuff to profit from SV-localized inflation, or simply for personal use - like someone going from "I can afford one 200m gold aug" to "Hey I've got a full set now", thanks to transfer magic - but it would be great for dealing with back and forth transfers. I'm gonna steal that. Out of all the people in this thread arguing for bulk credit transfers, I can't recall one saying "I want credits to buy stuff on the GTN." Every other reason conceivable, but not that. I suspect that discord thread will end up being a better predictor of where the majority of credits wind up than this one. I hated the idea of devs hanging out on discord instead of the official forums in the past, but if it turns out they'd get more accurate information on player intentions there, maybe that's the place for them to be. Assuming 15m cap, if a f2p/pref got a free or paid transfer, and transferred a char with 1m active, 14m escrow, they could still access the 14m with a future sub. That's fair enough. Hope the devs haven't forgotten about escrow, though. "Transfer f2p/pref char with 1m active, 4b escrow -> sub -> access 4b on SV" is not intended behaviour. Quote or assumption? The devpost outlined "transfer requirements to Shae Vizla" (their emphasis), and a sub discount on "transfers to the Shae Vizla server". Could be interpreted as "no requirements or discounts for transfers off". I've listed some SV prices in the past. JohnnyGatt posted some today. If you visit SV, compare the prices there to other servers, and still can't see any opportunity for profit, I don't know what else to tell you. People already on SV can do a few things to reduce the impact of inbound inflation, or even profit from it. People who join later, like the future players in the region we should be trying to attract, will have no choice in the matter. "Bulk imported credits will cause inflation" isn't FUD, it's just truth. Only the amount of inflation is in question. You can say that's not true, if you like, then we can wait and see who was right. Or you can say you don't care - as you've said about the GTN - but that doesn't make the statement any less true. Assume people transferring creds for profit will use whichever method provides the lowest cost per transfer. "Fresh start" means no transfers. "Low-inflation" allows for restricted ones. Unless you're referring to someone who says "no transfers to SV", "fresh start" is a strawman argument at this point. So is the "fresh start vs APAC players" one I see thrown around. There are four main groups on the subject of credit restrictions: 1) People in APAC who want credit restrictions 2) People outside APAC who want credit restrictions 3) People in APAC who want large credit transfers allowed 4) People outside APAC who want large credit transfers allowed "Fresh start vs APAC players" uses the same "fresh start / low-inflation" mislabeling, and also tries to hide the fact that groups 1 and 4 exist. I'm in group 1, because I don't feel the need to bring my wealth as credits. If bringing it as items means I end up playing on a low-ping server, with a healthier economy, that's better at growing the game within the region, I'd be delighted with that. I also want as many players on SV as possible. Players, not one-time visitors. NA/EU residents aren't coming here for the ping. I don't think they'll be spending a great deal on NiM repair costs. Some people might have come here to play on a low-inflation server, but bulk credit transfers will degrade the very feature that attracted them. Seasons chasers would've already got their CC-farming chars setup last season, and don't need 16 in any case. Profit is the most obvious motive - "bring 240m, jack the GTN" - but you say it's not about that. Fine. Question: Besides profit, what is the value of 16 transfers to SV for a player with better ping on a current NA/EU server? I think it was a mistake to make those transfers global in the first place. They should have been region-locked. APAC players are more likely to use them as intended, for 16 played chars, not 16 disposable wallets. Even after the devs were pushed to increase their intended 2m cap to 15m, the credit inflow still would have been relatively limited, since only a small proportion of active players are from APAC. Now, we've got a situation where the majority of people qualifying for 16 transfers will be from outside APAC, and the vast majority of them have nothing to do with 16 transfers and 240m creds except raid the GTN. Suggestions: - Block transfer of f2p/pref char if "active balance + escrow balance > credit cap". - Disable transfers off SV. - If transfers off SV enabled in future, include item restrictions for transfers off. (No items? Items with total SV GTN value < 2m? <15m?) (credit to JohnnyGatt) - Announce now that off-SV transfers, if/when enabled, will have such item restrictions, to deter cross-server trading. - Define "pre-existing APAC account" as one created before SV launch date, with any spending / location history in APAC before SV launch. - Maintain "90-day sub -> 16 transfers" system, usable by all regions. (Only because that was published much earlier than the credit cap.) - Maintain 50% discount on SV transfers for subs from all regions. - Any positive transfer changes from here - 1 free transfer upfront, extended date to qualify for 16 transfers, free transfer per sub month, whatever - only apply for pre-existing APAC accounts. - Revert credit cap back to 2m per char for all accounts besides pre-existing APAC ones. IIRC, everyone in this thread asking for bulk credit transfers has said they're from APAC, so none of them would be affected by the 2m cap, and they'd all qualify to benefit from any "positive transfer changes" in the future. If the devs knew the changes would only affect a small group of players - that is, APAC players, the target population for the server - they might be more generous than they would be for changes that applied worldwide.

When we first got tacticals with variants like single-target and AoE, I found it useful to put them on a quickbar, to swap before some fights. One click while running around, zero loading time. Other gear like legendary implants (left-hand side ones, at least) can be swapped the same way. Ability tree choices can be changed between fights, but it takes more time and clicks. Loadout changes require more loading time, and an extra click, since there's a shortcut bind for combat styles ("Toggle Skill Pane"), but not for loadouts. The combat style and loadout windows also block visibility, which can be a problem if you're swapping on the run, or someone starts a fight while you're swapping. I'd like to swap ability choices and loadouts as easily as we can swap specific gear pieces. Suggestions: 1) Allow individual ability tree choices (e.g., two level 23 choices that modify an existing active ability) from "Combat Style" page to be dragged to quickbars. Use the same mouseover popups from "Combat Style" when mouseovering the icons on the quickbar. 2) If tree choice disables a previous ability, like Juggernaut's Mad Dash vs Saber Reflect, remember last position of removed ability on current loadout. If ability re-activated, and slot free, place ability in previous position. "Jugg's using reflect now. Last time they used dash, dash was on bar 2, slot 8. If they switch back to dash, put it there again." 3) Allow loadout icons from "Loadouts" page to be dragged to quickbars. Display player-defined loadout name as large yellow mouseover text. Add more small text, like the current auto-generated style/discipline/item-rating line, plus a list of ability tree selections: Player-defined loadout name Operative | Lethality 342 73: Evasive Imperative 68: Holotraverse ... 4) Include custom loadout icons to make them visually distinct from each other, beyond the current three Tank/Heal/Dps ones. Guild heraldry already includes a huge collection of icons, including digits and Aurebesh (alphabet) characters - that whole icon set could be brought over to serve as loadout icons, with the three current ones added as defaults. Optional extra: some choices for colour customization of loadout icons. Choose to keep them grey, or choose to have colours assigned by T/H/D role (purple / green / red), or have a reduced or full customization suite from guild heraldry. Different shapes would already make them distinct from each other, though, and the current loadout scheme of simple grey icon + empty background is somewhat distinct to most other icons we have. Intended use cases: - Regular swaps between one or two ability tree choices, e.g. Mad Dash <-> Saber Reflect: Drag choices to quickbar, swap between them manually. No need to spend time maintaining gear list on two loadouts, no unintended equipment changes. - Regular swaps between several pre-defined ability tree choices and / or equipment pieces: Setup loadout variants, e.g. "Single-target" and "AoE", drag loadouts to quickbar. - Fine-grained ability / equipment tweaking before specific fights: use current combat style and gear windows. I was thinking of using a mouseclick, but once these are on a quickbar, keyboard shortcuts could also be used to swap. A visual indicator to confirm at a glance which tree choice, loadout, or equipment swap for that matter is active would be helpful. Could change a bit about how equipment displays on quickbars while we're here: - No outline, standard brightness icon: This is an ability tree choice or loadout you haven't got selected, but you can swap to it now. Also, an ability you can activate now. - White / green / dark blue / purple / yellow outline, standard brightness icon: This is an equipment item you can click to equip/use (current behaviour). - Light blue outline, standard brightness icon: This is an ability tree choice / loadout / equipment piece you've got selected / equipped (similar to current combat styles). You can swap it out at this time. If equipment is currently worn, the light blue overrides the item's standard outline. - Faded out icon, same outline as previous: You can't use or swap this thing right now for some reason. Can't shoot without a target, can't use out-of-combat regen in combat, can't change abilities in combat, and can't swap to a focus guardian loadout while queued as vigilance guardian, but can swap to a 2nd vigilance loadout. Equipment use already works like this: consumables go dark if inventory runs out, or you're in the wrong place to use them (warzone adrenal outside PvP), while keeping their colour outlines. Equipment swaps don't work like this (they should): tacticals on a quickbar stay bright during combat, but generate a "can't change equipment during combat" message if clicked. Fading and outlines also help address the issue that "choose reflect from combat tree" and "start reflecting now" share the same icon. It's assumed people using this will arrange their pre-fight prep icons far away from their in-combat ones. Keyboard shortcuts for combat abilities also helps. Further, if "choose reflect" has a light blue outline, and that icon fades out in combat (keeping its blue outline), while "reflect now" remains bright, with no outline, it's clearer which one to press to start reflecting via mouse-click.

Not with the new 15m limit. Even ignoring credit sellers and free/discount transfers, there's too much easy profit in bringing creds to SV to buy cheap stuff, just using 1000cc transfers. That easy profit only disappears once the price gap between SV and other servers shrinks. It won't match other servers, since there's still a credit limit, plus a cost for some transfers. But I think GTN prices going up 500% by the end of the free/discount transfer period is more likely than any deflation. Maybe more, if there's a lot of free/discount transfer use. Disappointing, but I suppose that gives the devs a third data point, to see how new player behaviour and retention is affected by a new set of prices, after hyper-inflation servers plus original SV. (Just so we have some data to work off, cartel packs, OEM, and RPM were 5-600k each before the 15m announcement - let's see where they go.) Assuming the 1m/wk estimate of repair costs for a couple nights of NiM raiding a week was roughly accurate, the original cap of 32m (16x2m) would have covered over 7 months of repairs. The devs could have looked at how SV played out with those credits, and adjusted NiM repair costs based on that. The new cap, 240m (16x15m), covers over 4 1/2 years' worth. Unless a raider can say why they'd need 400m or more, for raiding, all on day 1, I'd say "raider's needs" are more than covered at this point. Never for f2p, credit sellers would love that. Time gates for everything else too, actually, just like the 90-day one, so there's no extra incentive for them to mass-create accounts. Maybe only accts created before SV launch date, with spending history before then. Maybe APAC-located on that date as well, if they have that data, to prevent people faking their location just for this. Aside from that - yeah, I argued for more free/discount transfer options for APAC-located players myself. We got a discount, but so did everyone. Even if the devs want people to spend coins for bulk transfers, I think it'd be good business to offer a free SV transfer to APAC-located players with spending history (so subs or prefs), especially with regard to lapsed players. - An email with "free _ (expires soon)" gets more interest than "discount on _ if you sub". - "1 free transfer" wouldn't be significantly less effective than "2/4/8/16 free transfers" at getting lapsed players to try the game again, but doesn't cost the devs as much, in terms of potential lost cc sales. - Even if they can't go straight to endgame, if they're giving SV a trial run, they'd hopefully have a better experience with their transferred 75/70/whatever than they would with a level 1. More abilities, more group activities to join. Getting access to the transfer discount then counts as their extra incentive to sub.

It's not only about the GTN; many systems in the game were designed for a low-inflation environment. Still, as for the GTN: With credit caps, new people - or to be more specific, people earning credits on SV - will continue to get more value on the GTN from their gameplay, including stuff they couldn't afford on a hyper-inflated server. Without credit caps, people with free transfers plus outside credits show up, grab all the bargains - including stuff they couldn't afford on their current server - and leave SV with the same hyper-inflation. If the devs want to use SV to grow the player base, the first scenario would be much more attractive to the target market. Can't recall if anyone on the other side actually argued the opposite case, though. Question: What benefits would hyper-inflation bring to SV? Either generally, or for new players specifically.

Put me in that camp too - as I've said before, restricted day 1 transfers would have been fine with me. I'm not sure how a "fresh start" server based on levelling new low-legacy characters, and being around similar characters, would be sustainable. Server wipes? A new server every so often, with the "old fresh start" one still running? On the other hand, if "fresh start" refers to a server with an economy like the game had in the past, before a decade of hyper-inflation and occasional exploits, I think that's possible. "Low inflation" would be a better descriptor for that, though. If it turns out that genuine new players have a better (cough) fresh start experience on a low-inflation server, so much the better. Hopefully the devs are getting some data on that point. Possible. If we're going to assumption mode though, I can think of a few myself. I'll be just as interested to see them proved right or wrong: - Amazon cloud funding costs are more flexible, per user, than old server costs, making a new regional server viable in the first place. Reaching new players was a stated benefit of moving to the cloud. - The two key features of SV are low APAC ping (to attract current / lapsed / new APAC players) and low inflation (to study the economy for game-wide improvements, attract players who want to play on a low-inflation server, and attract new players in general.). Allowing bulk credit transfers wrecks the second point. - The devs stuck to the "server open 90 days before transfers" rule to assess population before committing. They assessed it, and felt there were enough current players, plus potential future ones, to justify SV. If not, it'd be closing, and we'd be talking about transfers off instead. (Again, I think restricted day 1 transfers should have been allowed, just trying to assume / guess why they weren't.) - There's less activity since galactic + PvP seasons ended, and since people know transfers are happening: a dev post back in December left that in doubt. Less incentive to grind gear: just wait, then bring your stuff. - Once transfers are allowed, with legacy, cheevos, gear, and everything but bulk credit piles ("bring extra wealth as items"), a lot of people will take up that offer. - Something will happen by mid February: that'd be around 90 days from server opening, and 3 weeks from season 5's end date. The devs will invent extra APAC-specific criteria for free/discounted transfers, time transfers to start with season 6, and have a big media / email blitz once transfers and s6 are up and running. (Um, this one might have veered from assumption to hope. I'll just echo this comment:) The sooner the better, please. If they have some details like transfer date and min char level, great. If some things are undecided, or they'd prefer to save it all for the livestream, even a comment like "We'll publish details about _ by _ date" would be welcome. Subject to change, and all the usual disclaimers.

I quietly hoped the Life Day hat might have been a test or preview for future hats with hair, like how we got a shiny Life Day jacket at the same time those new metallic dyes were released. I'd love it if someone had a look at the whole hair-hat-hood situation sometime. For now, though, I'd like to have my one and only hair hat back, please, regardless of clipping.

I liked the detail in your post, but that could be achieved more easily with small limits for early/free transfers, and larger limits for later ones - if the devs feel it's warranted at that time. "Credit limit was too small" is easy to fix. "Credit limit was too large and now we have hyper-inflation" isn't. I think "APAC regional server that just happens to have low inflation" is a perfectly viable model, btw. The devs already said they're learning things from SV - I'd like them to keep having that opportunity, and use it to make improvements across the game. Your post reminded me about the escrow tokens we already have. 240 cartel coin cost, temporary 600k f2p/pref credit cap increase, so allows one 1.6m credit purchase. Impractical for GTN shopping on most servers, as the fair market value of 240 coins is far above 1.6m, and also above the 1m credit cap - so f2p/pref can't buy the item on GTN that lets them buy an item on GTN. (They could in the past.) That token could have a use on SV. Similarly, the commander's compendium cartel item (levels comp to 50) is much more expensive than the vendor gift path on other servers, but on SV the GTN price is comparable. Using the devs' language of character limits, that would require 10m per char. Different without 50 transfers, but I don't think 'single-handedly get two guild ships+banks to max on day 1' is the use case the credit cap should be aimed at. Bearing in mind I agree NiM repair costs should be significantly lowered, 2-5m per char would be enough for things like some (but not all) outfit setups, some contribution to guild upgrade credit costs (people can bring frameworks), and/or some GTN shopping. Legacy / char unlocks import automatically. Gear and other personal-use items importable by choice. People who want early credits for other purchases can: a) Bring credits up to the per-character limit b) Bring extra items to sell for early credits The trick is finding that credit limit sweet spot, where we get more credits hitting GTN (from people more interested in early shopping than anything else), but also more items hitting GTN (from people with high early credit demands, who are prepared to fund them by selling items early). [edit: also depends on how many free transfers are offered: many free transfers should lead to lower per-char limits, and vice versa] On qualifying for free transfers: "players who have been a Subscriber for at least 90 consecutive days" wasn't what I expected. The devs should honour what they said, but I'd like some additional region-based criteria for free or discount transfers. APAC players are the target market, and it's a good reason to contact lapsed players. "Hey, local server's up, transfers are live, we gave you _ free transfers for [reasons], check it out. (Transfers expire [end date])". Random spitballing: - 1 free for APAC-located ppl with spending history (prefs) - 2 for APACs with sub history, to try imp + pubside - _ for APAC players from orig APAC servers - Discount to transfer chars from orig APAC servers (if data readily available) - APAC subs get 1 free SV transfer per 30 days subbed between transfer day and [end date] - Regional-themed bundle, timed to promote transfer day: "_ USD for 30 days sub, _ cartel coins, exclusive Shae Vizla's Tauntaun Space Kangaroo mount, and _ free SV transfers". (Bundle available to all, possible further discount for APAC players. The space kangaroo is negotiable. [edit: Desert Tauntaun would also be acceptable.])

Just checking in as another APAC player who's playing on Shae Vizla, likes the economy there, and wants to keep it that way. I'm all for transferring characters, achievements, legacy unlocks, and gear (that should have happened already, IMO) but credits should be restricted. I've read a lot in this thread about nightmare raiders - I want all gameplay activities to be feasible on SV, and buy one of the arguments, but not the other. 1) "Nightmare raiders need credits to gear up" If someone's a fully geared up NiM raider on another server, and they want to move to SV, why can't they just bring their existing bound-to-legacy gear? If they're moving, they don't need it anywhere else. If they want to raid on multiple servers, and can afford it, they can assemble a second set of gear to bring with them. The only case I see for raiders from other servers wanting credits to gear is to buy augs or OEM/RPM on SV at bargain basement prices - but that just leads to hyper-inflation, which is what people on SV don't want. I won't disregard raider's desires, but they shouldn't disregard the desires of current SV players either. Same logic for other untradeable items. Legacy and character unlocks transfer automatically. If someone can bring a character with modded gear, legendary implants, tacticals, and enough vendor gifts to level a comp army - but chooses not to bring them - why do they need to bring enough credits to buy them on SV? Since the latest dev post doesn't mention restrictions on unbound items (I would have liked that, so the devs can study craft mat drop rates further, but it's not a critical issue), let's throw them in too. There's a method for wealth transfer. People want credits to buy stuff, correct? If someone wants to buy a cartel pack and buy/craft 30 blue augs, and has enough credits to do that on their current server, they can get them, bring them to SV, and now they're the proud owner of a cartel pack and 30 blue augs. 2) "Nightmare raiders need credits for repair costs" Looking at the numbers here, I agree that raiding doesn't seem sustainable on SV. Assumption: a NiM raider who raids several nights a week, with a ton of deaths, gets a 1m repair bill. (I picked a number from the thread and went with it. Feel free to substitute your own.) Question: how is NiM raiding funded on other servers? The credit sinks and fountains are the same. My guess is that it's only feasible with hyper-inflation. If they're not funding repairs with fountains like heroics, they're funding them with traded credits. Selling or flipping deco drops, cartel items, craft items, craft mats, whatever. Since we're talking about NiM, throw in sale runs. Everything on that list is less effective without hyper-inflation. - A 30m ultimate cartel pack or OEM/RPM sale on another server funds repairs for 30 weeks. - A 300k pack/OEM/RPM sale on SV funds repairs for one night. The only solutions I see are either bring hyper-inflation to SV, or change the economics of NiM raiding. Bringing credits isn't a long-term solution, since those credits will run out, unless the solution is "bring enough credits to cause hyper-inflation". NiM raiding could fountain a lot more credits per boss kill, but that doesn't help a group that's just wiping, and could have unintended consequences, like more Nefra/Dash farming. So - Suggestion: Significantly reduce NiM repair costs on all servers. Changing all servers is easier for the devs, and consistent. Yes, that reduces a credit sink on inflated servers, but I think the actual sink there from NiM raiding is insignificant. After all, a single 1b trade on GTN (with a 127m tax) sinks, in one click, as many credits as a hundred and twenty-seven full-time raiders spend on repairs in a week. - How many active full-time NiM raiders are there in the entire game? - What's the total value of GTN transactions in any given day? I have some issues with the new GTN (like inability to choose which sell offer I buy, and losing deposit fees on unsold items), but as a credit sink, it's the one doing the heavy lifting. (Its progressive fee structure means that it's already toned itself down on SV.) So turning down NiM repair costs seems to be the most precise solution to the presented problem, with the least collateral damage.