remylion
-
Posts
172 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Blogs
Events
Articles
Downloads
Gallery
Posts posted by remylion
-
-
1 hour ago, Ramahar said:
Now we know you are either a Troll or a character some Dev created to be a cheerleader about their BS QT tax. The only way you'd have 6 billion after seven weeks is if you were buying them with cash or botting 24/7 for months to have harvested enough to make 6 billion.
Weren't you the same one who claimed to have made hundreds of thousands of credits just doing the starter planet on a new character?I admit it, I am a SWTOR developer who has figured out the secret to making credits in this game.
Farm resources with your companions, sell the mats, buy whole sets off the auction house, break them open and resell the individual pieces at a gain of 2-4 times what I paid.
Shhh, don't tell people the super complicated super secret way to make money in every MMO that ever existed. Find out what players want and sell it to them.
And definitely never visit the SWTOR discord trade to get advice on what certain things are worth or how to earn credits in niche areas.
Note: I am not a developer working for SWTOR running a secret alt account for subversive public relations.
-
I have joined matches where only 1 or 2 of us show up on my team but the enemy team is slowly filling up until they are at 4 people. The enemy team with 4 people are not a premade. Those players are pugging because I have been playing them all night long as both team mates and enemies. But the system seems to pre-organize the teams, then create the match, then if people miss their queue and there is no one to backfill they still go ahead with 2 vs 4 or a couple of times 1 vs 4.
-
15 hours ago, afwhoefuwov said:
I agree with most of what you said, specially the endzone thing in Huttball. Theres a thing in competitive sport called "Offside", it exists in football (soccer) and I guess hockey too. This is to make it fair so the opposite team doesnt have someone chilling right at the goal line and receive the ball (or puck). Endzone should be anti stealth, and you are not allowed to just chill behind the goal line.
For CC, the white bar does work but its duration is too short. A white bar that lasts longer should fix it, I think.
The season's token is way too few, there is not enough to buy multiple things, i.e. you either get the armor set or you get something else. With the way BW changes stuff all the time, what's to say that one day these rewards will not be available?
But soccer has goalies which is what the stealth player is.
Stealthed players on your end zone are useless if your team fights at the ball spawner and gets the ball first every time it spawns.
Most huttball matches however work like this.
Team A has 1-2 people camping the ball spawner and getting the ball every round. Team A also has a stealth at the end zone. Team A runs the ball every time it respawns because they have people waiting at the ball spawner to grab the ball.
Team B never challenges Team A at the ball spawner. Team B is constantly chasing the ball runner so is always fighting around their side of the field in the pit. Team B has a stealth waiting at Team A's goal just like Team A, but the issue is Team B never grabs the ball when it spawns so is always chasing the ball.
The stealth waiting at the goal isn't the problem. The problem is one team refuses to camp the ball spawner because all they can think of is "must chase large group of enemies". Most of the time team B is too busy trying to kill randoms that aren't even close to the ball carrier or half their team is fighting on the end zone looking for a stealth they won't find.
-
1
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:
That would be a disaster in this game. People already complain that new people don’t know what they’re doing in end game PvP & new people complain they have no safe place to learn.
Sure it might offer more bodies in the queue, but BioWare have fundamentally shown they can’t get the queue to match make. So any new players to the game would be thrown against veterans. This would be a bad experience for all involved.My suggestion is to make lowbies a place where people can learn PvP as they lvl up in the normal game against other new players, the way it used to be. Making it max lvl with all abilities is to make it more fair. So you don’t have new lvl 10 players against lvl 40’s or lvl 50’s against lvl 79’s.
Swtor needs a place for players to learn as they lvl & prepare for end game PvP. Lowbies used to be that place until BioWare removed PvP gear in 5.0.
Setting it up in a similar way to what I’ve suggested & making it the place to get your first pvp gear set as rewards for new players, is exactly what new players need to prepare for end game.
I don't think it will matter in the long run. Playing pvp at level 80 at the moment, I'm lucky to find more than 2 people on any pug team that has a clue what they are doing.
Half the people on most teams treat every pvp game like a team death match, some may focus on a ball carrier or defense but that is rare. I've seen whole teams run to capture pylons then the whole team leaves to fight randoms around mid without leaving guards or actually entering mid to stop their opponents from grabbing energy.
I watch people get tossed the huttball and either refuse to run with it or immediately toss it to an enemy because they don't want it.
There is very little difference between max level pvp and lower levels. In all brackets there are (for pugs) maybe 2-3 people max who know what they are doing or care about winning. These are probably all veteran players who happen to be leveling up in those brackets.
At level 80 it is extremely rare that a pug has more than half their team playing objectives.
Yes, there will be players who are given all their skills and gear that have no clue what they are doing, but is that really any different than level 80 pvp now?
-
Just now, TrixxieTriss said:
I’m assuming you’re meaning my idea about lowbies?
If so, then yes. Boosting them to max lvl, boosting gear stats to max & giving them max lvl abilities is what I’m suggesting.But I don’t think they need tacticals in lowbies. And they should just have a cookie cutter set bonus applied for each spec type.
I also don’t think they need seperate queues for the lowbie bracket. Just mix WZ & Arena together. And during low population times of the day, it reverts to Arena pops or 6v6 WZ’s. But it should only allow a maximum size of 2man premades.
This way people get to try all different types of maps to get them ready for end game PvP. And allowing small premades allows others to help train up friends or Guildies.
Copy FFXIV's system. Everyone gets boosted to max level, set stats based on class, set gear options all given to players and all skills unlocked.
No more splitting queues based on three different level brackets.
-
26 minutes ago, DeannaVoyager said:
What they should do, make it possible to use only on for class the person has already leveled up normally. To make copies of what they already know how to play (hopefully). And they should revert the price back to 2000 CC. It's weird that the Commander's Token, which has a server slot too costs 2k CC, and Master's Datacron is 3k something. I would buy Master's Datacron's just to skip leveling if/when I reroll an alt, but I can't buy Commander Token because I don't have room for more server slots.
This argument is weird. Sure, let a player pick if they want to be 70 or 80, but not for the reason of "a noob 80 doesn't know how to play"
Too many "veteran 80s" don't know how to play. People who started the game 10 years ago and leveled up a character in each expansion still do not know how to play and probably never will. This is normal in all MMOs. In every MMO there are players who refuse to learn how to play their class efficiently. They are happy just playing the game and enjoying themselves.
Limiting the level boost so "people can learn" isn't going to matter if they refuse to read up on the skills or watch tutorials.
-
3 hours ago, septru said:
Obviously you didn't read, because those were not any of my 3 arguments.
for you I was posting queue not que. You were not making the population argument, Bioware is.
2 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:Not properly. It’s a half baked system that doesn’t accommodate either play style properly. But its even more heavily tilted towards always giving pre-made players an advantage now than at any time in the game’s history.
Bioware can & should make the system better so it doesn’t alienate solo players or premades. The only solution is splitting the queue AND at the same time build up PvP player numbers so that pops aren’t affected (which they are already trying to do with these new seasons).
The one thing we both agree on is 8 man premades in a pug queue is too much. And as much as I’d like to see premades have their own seperate queue, the compromise is to reduce the pre-made size limit back to 4 man 🤷🏻♀️
Unless BioWare does that & adjusts the times premades have to wait till they are put against solo players, then seasons won’t work to bring in enough pvpers to build a healthy community & possibly allow for a split in the queues.
This is the main problem as I see it. BioWare are trying to increase pvper player numbers with seasons ✅. But at the same time making it a miserable experience for many of those players ❌. They are literally sabotaging their own plan by adding 5-8 man premades to the pug queue ❌.
Not only that, but having premades vs solo pugs in arena is 100% stupid. We know for a fact that if they’d tried that with ranked it would have died as a format within a few seasons. We already saw that group ranked wasn’t popular. So why did they thing that premades vs solo’s was every going to work 🤦♀️
BioWare is chasing its own tail as usual instead of building a system that works properly 😞
What would increase the numbers is splitting the queues into pug and premade. Boosting all players to max level with set stats based on class. Players are given all their skills, then given access to all implants and tacticals for pvp only.
This would put everyone in two queues instead of splitting them into 3 (?) level brackets for PvP which at the moment aren't even close to being fair for the lowest level players in two of the brackets.
This however would take a complete rewrite of pvp which probably isn't possible.
-
2 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:
Not properly. It’s a half baked system that doesn’t accommodate either play style properly. But its even more heavily tilted towards always giving pre-made players an advantage now than at any time in the game’s history.
Bioware can & should make the system better so it doesn’t alienate solo players or premades. The only solution is splitting the queue AND at the same time build up PvP player numbers so that pops aren’t affected (which they are already trying to do with these new seasons).
The one thing we both agree on is 8 man premades in a pug queue is too much. And as much as I’d like to see premades have their own seperate queue, the compromise is to reduce the pre-made size limit back to 4 man 🤷🏻♀️
Unless BioWare does that & adjusts the times premades have to wait till they are put against solo players, then seasons won’t work to bring in enough pvpers to build a healthy community & possibly allow for a split in the queues.
This is the main problem as I see it. BioWare are trying to increase pvper player numbers with seasons ✅. But at the same time making it a miserable experience for many of those players ❌. They are literally sabotaging their own plan by adding 5-8 man premades to the pug queue ❌.
Not only that, but having premades vs solo pugs in arena is 100% stupid. We know for a fact that if they’d tried that with ranked it would have died as a format within a few seasons. We already saw that group ranked wasn’t popular. So why did they thing that premades vs solo’s was every going to work 🤦♀️
BioWare is chasing its own tail as usual instead of building a system that works properly 😞
What would increase the numbers is splitting the queues into group and premade. Then boosting all players to max level and give all players their skills. Then give all players the ability to pick and choose any combination of implants and tacticals.
This would put everyone in two queues instead of splitting them into 3 (?) level brackets for PvP which at the moment aren't even close to being fair for the lower level players in two of the brackets.
-
On 4/11/2023 at 9:39 AM, septru said:
Just because you say it twice, does not make it any less dumb.
A separate que is a
terriblegreate idea.queue
Having at least three people on your team that know how to play objectives can greatly increase a teams chance to win pug vs pug. Having six to eight players that know what to do, can communicate over voice, synchronize their builds, and work together in every match sharing the same goal not only guarantees a win but the premade will slaughter the pug team which probably can't even figure out how to throw a ball to a team mate.
People defending their need to group against pugs is about protecting their fun above giving pugs a fair game.
I have read a few things in this argument.
- "There aren't many premades anyway so it isn't a big deal"
- "If you separate us premades your queue times will increase drastically because we make up the majority of players!!"
so... which is it? Are premades such a minority it isn't a really an issue or are premades so numerous it will have a negative impact on PUG queues if they are separated?
It's a bit sad players are defending premade teams against pugs because they are afraid of losing an overwhelming advantage in PvP.
-
2 hours ago, Ardrossan said:
Yes. It's also frustrating because the previous GS comps were generally in the same easy-to-locate spot, you didn't really have to hunt around for them, aside from PH4LNX on Agent ships.
Amity is mediating, maybe the devs can throw on a gold glow to make him easier to spot. I still have not found him on my Bounty Hunter ship.
-
1
-
-
I played around with it, the bug could be tied to when you unlocked Amity on a character. On a character I just unlocked Amity on he will not show up on my ship.
On older characters I unlocked him on the first week of the season I have him available on the ship.
-
I just wish there was a "I'm done talking to you, let me exit this conversation immediately" option for each dialogue option.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, FlatTax said:
I'm not sure you understand what a monetized system is.
It's any system influenceable by cash microtransactions.
Crafting is, in fact, hideously monetized.Again, a monetized system has one purpose: drive cash sales. Any 'free' path in a monetized system shares that purpose: frustrate players into cash sales.
That frustration-by-design reduces the existence of a 'free' path to a mere technicality. The deliberately awful grind functions, as intended, like a paywall.That monetization is what makes endgame Augs pay-to-win, and subject to inflation.
you know you can buy 336 armor mods from a vendor using credits.
you can also learn speeder training by paying credits from a trainer.
you can also quick travel and fly to different planets with credits.
Your definition fits anything that deals with credits. Do you sit on fleet refusing to do anything because it costs credits?
-
7 hours ago, Asheris said:
What player economy? You mean those people who can afford 100 hypercrates for $$$ and then resell them for credits? No, I'm one of the bottom scrapers who does dailies, helps newbies on starter planets, gathers jawa junk and does an occasional flashpoint in hopes to buy a piece of furniture for my SH.
Maybe it's fine if you play this game for 10 years without pauses longer than a month, but new and returning players have nothing to really get into that economy.
The prices ain't pretty if you play 1-2h a day. Take a look on another MMO, Black Desert, with set maximum and minimum prices for everything. It works. You don't have people buying in-game currency for real money and disrupting the game economy. You have to play, any way you like, and you'll get anything.
Here? Not really, you need to work in a game. That's not what games are for.
any time you buy or sell an item or service from a player, you are taking part in the player economy.
You trade a person crafting components to make you an item, you just took part in the player economy.
You pay someone to ERP with you, you just took part in the player economy (yes I am from Star Forge).
You sell resources on the GTN, you just took part in the player economy.
It's really that simple.
-
6 minutes ago, FlatTax said:
Endgame Augments.
The Crafting system that creates them is hideously monetized, and so are the Credits that buy them.
Endgame gearing is pay-to-win.you know you can gather all the materials and craft them yourself right?
-
2 hours ago, DWho said:
It took a bit more than that and you know it so I'll assume that is sarcasm, the missions rewarded a lot less than they do now and there were more players in the game so the credits were spread around much more (fewer people had enough credits to buy out the entire supply of anything much less CM items). Bioware made a couple of mistakes that put the economy in the position it is in now and all the credit sinks in the world won't change that. The only really effective credit sink was the GTN tax (which at the time really did pull out almost as many credits as went into the economy). It was once off GTN trades took off that the economy went wild. Each off-GTN trade avoided the best credit removal tool in the game.
1) Too many credit rewards for Conquest Objectives. This dumped a ton of credits into the economy at a time when there was really nothing to spend it on except CM items on the GTN (which drove their prices through the roof)
2) Allowing max level players to get max level rewards regardless of the planet they were on. You got basically the same rewards for doing a mission on Coruscant as you did on Corellia if you were max level. Again pumped massive amounts of credits into the game.
3) Allowing off-GTN trades for credits. This bypassed the best credit removal tool in the game (and it still is even though it is much less effective with all the off-GTN trades going on).
4) Allowing credit sellers to operate freely for so long. Over time people leave the game and their "credits" go with them but with credit sellers, they could sell those credits and get real world money and the credits didn't leave the game (during the greatest efflux of players from the game, the economy was more or less stable even though rewards were increasing because credits were passively leaving the game). Credit sellers are becoming a new problem because some people (and guilds) have accumulated enough credits to hit the in game caps and instead of losing them, they are selling them to credit sellers that pump them back into the game further increasing the supply of credits.
People talk all the time about the credit sinks Bioware removed (like training, etc) but these were all small potatoes compared to the GTN tax. Much like the QT tax, they made no real difference in keeping the economy under control.
I don't know what the game was like 5 years ago, I've only been playing about 6 weeks.
so are we talking 4-5 weeks of dailies to buy a hypercrate 5 years ago?
-
6 minutes ago, DWho said:
The economy is broken because 5 years ago, you could afford just about anything from the CM (in credits) just by gathering credits while playing the game (no need to flip items, sell high grade mats, or anything like that just completing missions was enough). Now you are "forced" to "participate" in the credit seller economy to get even something minor. Your example of the raiders dropping you isn't even remotely the same.
How much of your 5 billion (or is that off by a factor of 10 like your "I left the starter planet with 90,000 credits post") was gained by completing missions and playing the game versus the amount gained from selling things in an out of control economy (my guess would be <5%). If the economy wasn't broken, you wouldn't have acquired anywhere near that many credits. You benefited from a broken economy and are using that to justify why its okay to have to "participate" in a broken economy in order to get something from it.
I wish I was around 5 years ago when everyone could afford hypercrates off the auction house by completing daily Heroics and not participating in the player economy by selling gathered resources to players or selling gear they find to players.
That sounds great, play Heroics for a week, maybe two and buy a hypercrate off the GTN.
-
4 hours ago, Asheris said:
That's billionaire talk right there. 'Everyone can have money, but they choose not to because they are lazy.' 🙄 As it happens, it's a game. You know, something you play to have fun. It's not second work, I don't have to grind 8h/day to have a chance at fun because the devs chose to ignore problems with their product we already pay for.
Oh, so only in-game rich people can have fun? And accidentally it comes at the cost of poorer in-game people? Funny how fiction mimics life.
I went on a raid and told everyone to kill the boss and let me have the loot while I sat at the entrance. They kicked me out!! They said I needed to "participate" in the boss kill to earn the gear! Greedy geared players have more gear than they need not wanting to share the loot!
It's not second work, I don't have to grind 8h/day to have a chance at fun because the devs chose to ignore problems with their product we already pay for.
Oh, so only in-game geared people can have fun? And accidentally it comes at the cost of lesser geared in-game people? Funny how fiction mimics life.
You have to participate in the player economy to afford anything in the player economy.
Do you gather resources and sell them to players? Do you check out the auction house and find items you can resell for more? Do you play end game and sell your RPMs and OEMs for credits? Or do you sit on fleet begging people to give you platinum sets because "it's not fair I have to grind to afford things in an MMO!"
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Ramahar said:
I know you work really hard to be a Dev Cheerleader but even you should see the fallacy of your claim. A claim that seems to ignore that most of those who use the QT system can't afford to make the furthest QT trip, hell they can't afford a mid-range trip, and so are now walking or riding a mount to the nearest FP instead.
Hell. Even if it was pulling your fantasy of billions out of the economy it is pulling it from the pockets of those hurt by the inflation because those with the Billions to spend are still earning heavy credits, not using QT, and both paying and demanding the same prices as before the QT tax.
Makes me wonder if the folks cheering on the QT tax are the folks with billions because it means only they will ever be able to afford the end-game items.I am sitting on over 6 billion credits and I have only been playing for 7 weeks now. Inflation in this game is so bad that people are paying 350,000 credits for a single purple crafting mat that I was gathering while leveling.
Starter planets could use a cap on quick travel for new legacies only; not new characters but new characters on new legacies. After the starter worlds there are crafting trainers on the capital worlds along with auction houses. If you can not afford 100 credits to 5,000 credits for quick travel there is the option of speeders and walking. Players are not stuck in an unsolvable maze until they find enough credits to quick travel no matter how oddly some of the worlds are designed.
My math is not flawed. It was a simple breakdown of how many quick travels it would take to remove 1 billion at 2,500 credits and 5,000 credits each as a rebuttal to what you said.
19 hours ago, Ramahar said:You need to do some math because in order for $billions a day to be removed they'd need a couple hundred million playing each day. Especially when you consider the fact that those with billions in their banks hardly ever use quick travel.
If it took "a couple hundred million playing each day" to remove 2 billion (which is the minimum of billions) credits from the economy, either each person is using quick travel once at 10 credits each, which is impossible because the lowest cost is 100 credits, or only 10% of those "a couple hundred million playing each day" are using quick travel and only paying 100 credits.
Do you really think that only 10% of every "a couple hundred million playing each day" are using quick travel once and only paying 100 credits?
-
25 minutes ago, Ramahar said:
You need to do some math because in order for $billions a day to be removed they'd need a couple hundred million playing each day. Especially when you consider the fact that those with billions in their banks hardly ever use quick travel.
it only takes 200,000 quick travels at 5,000 each to remove 1 billion credits.
400,000 at 2,500 to remove one billion credits.
So you believe it will takes a 200,000,000 players to remove at minimum 2 billion credits from the game?
That's 10 credits per quick travel if those 200,000,000 players each use quick travel once. The range for quick travel cost is 100 credits to 5,000 credits.
I need to do some math?
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, DWho said:
You are having difficulty understanding the difference between reduction and reducing the increase. These are two different things. reducing the increase does not remove any credits from the game (at the end of the day, you have more credits in the game not less). Reduction removes credits from the game. The two sinks implemented (QT and Repair costs) do not reduce the credits already in the game at all. Unless credits are actually removed from the game, prices will continue to climb.
On the other hand, the GTN tax does remove credits from the game. This should have been what they were looking at as it is far more effective and impacts the people generating the credits the most (since they are mostly selling what they get from the repeatable missions with their level 80 characters)
As to the "adjust inflow in certain repeatable content". It doesn't do that at all. The only content impacted is the non-repeatable RPG content (leveling). The repeatable heroics, FPs, and Operations (as well as PVP) do not use QT. People running FP get a free transport to the FP location as do PVPers and Raiders. Those running heroics simply use the heroic transports (which don't have a travel cost either)
As to do the devs having only this credit sink planned, the answer is most likely. Why would you implement only 1 credit sink if you planned on implementing more, especially when it is so similar to the other "transport" mechanics which didn't get a "tax" and are used much more often.
is the quick travel fee not reducing the amount of credits in the economy?
is the possible reduction of credit rewards not what you were asking about earlier?
1 hour ago, DWho said:A much more effective way to do the same thing would have been to reduce credit awards for all play styles by 1% (which would "remove" more credits from the game than this misguided credit sink)
-
6 minutes ago, DWho said:
It's not an effective credit sink if it doesn't actually remove credits from the game. It would take dozens of credit sinks like this to even slow down the influx of credits in the game. Implementing one very minor sink does nothing but annoy players (and it also is directed specifically at the group of players generating the least credits).
It doesn't remove any credits from the game at all, it only marginally slows the increase and is easily bypassed by the players generating the vast majority of the credits each day (billions more credits have been added to the game since this was implemented - billions removed per day is a massive exaggeration). So while it reduced (it does not remove) credits from the total generated each day it did not reduce the credits in game at all. A much more effective way to do the same thing would have been to reduce credit awards for all play styles by 1% (which would "remove" more credits from the game than this misguided credit sink)
You keep saying "... it doesn't actually remove credits from the game" and "It doesn't remove any credits from the game at all...". But then turn around and say "... it only marginally slows the increase..."
You keep contradicting yourself because you know what this credit sink does and you know why it is effective. The issue is you do not like it on an emotional level.
Do you believe the devs only have this single credit sink planned? That they aren't working to reduce credit rewards?
On 2/9/2023 at 10:29 AM, JackieKo said:Hi everyone,
This is a follow up to the information we released in the Game Update 7.2.1 PTS blog post. ICYMI, 7.2.1 will be introducing initiatives to combat the inflation that is present in the game. We’ve seen conversations surrounding this topic, and we share similar sentiment to the concerns about the game’s economy. This will be an ongoing initiative that will be rolled out over several updates as we want to slowly introduce these new changes and give players time to adjust and also provide opportunities to give us feedback.
We understand that there is demand to fix things now, but we are taking special care to introduce these measures over time as correcting the economy is not something that can be done overnight. Immediate implementation can have the opposite effect and potentially crash the economy instead.
We have been identifying key areas where improvements and changes can be made, and weighing how these will impact both the player experience and the economy. Our general economic balancing goals are as follows:
- Reduce tax/credit cost avoidance
- Reintroduce credit sinks as some were removed in the past
- Adjust inflow in certain repeatable content
- Use these changes as opportunities to improve the experience while also reducing credits
- Monitor how these changes impact the economy over time and adjust accordingly if needed
With the 7.2.1 PTS opening soon, players will be able to see the following adjustments:
- Quick Travel now has a credit cost associated, with a minimum cost of 100 credits and a maximum cost of 5000. The cost to travel is dependent on the distance traveled.
- Priority Transport Terminal now costs the original planet travel costs to transfer between daily areas.
- Travel to Strongholds now costs the original planet travel costs to transfer between planets.
- Repair cost formulas have been adjusted across the entirety of the game so that repair costs increase in relation to item level.
- Durability of equipment should now be lost at a LOWER rate on death, but a slightly HIGHER rate in normal gameplay.
We ask that players submit their feedback here after they have have experienced these changes on the PTS. General discussion should be kept to this thread.
While we cannot give a definitive timeline on when the future changes will be deployed, you should expect to continue seeing more changes in future game updates. As always, we will communicate the finer details, the timeline in which these changes can be tested, and when they will go live.
Thanks all!
I highlighted some of your concerns. When the devs stated "Adjust inflow in certain repeatable content" maybe that could they are planning on lowering rewards after they see how the quick travel credit sink will impact the economy.
What have we always asked devs to do when balancing combat? Make giant sweeping changes to everything at once and hope it works or make small adjustments and test those changes. I know what devs in MMOs tend to do and why combat is never balanced. The economy is no different. If you want it done correctly you have to make small adjustments and see how that impacts the economy. You make massive sweeping changes to everything at once and the devs can crash the economy.
-
51 minutes ago, Aries_cz said:
Obviously sinks are needed, nobody says they are not, but having QT paid for is not it.
As people have proven, you can just sell a single CM item and be set for life, or run a heroic Weekly for a month of costs covered.
People have provided numerous other ideas on PTS forums that would be more effective and less annoying on the common player.
What numbers? People have metrics on how often quick travel is used by everyone on the regular servers and how much is being removed each day?
Please, show me the metrics on how many credits are being removed a day by quick travel for each server and tell me why removing billions a day is not an effective credit sink.
You seem to be under the assumption that a single credit sink should fix years of neglect and hyper-inflation. That is not how credit sinks work. Credit sinks do not work alone and they do not fix economies single-handedly.
-
24 minutes ago, DWho said:
I've got a better idea that a reset then. All player to player trades are taxed based on the value of items traded whether done through the GTN or through "private trades". bronze cartel items have a "value" of 50K, silver ones 100K, gold ones 1 million, platinum 10 million, and hypercrates 100 million. Then a 10% transaction fee is charged for any trade not done through the GTN. That will bring things under control, drain credits from the game, and bring down prices.
or just a flat tax like the GTN. Because you know what will happen if you tax based on armor quality? You are going to buy this bronze set from me for the price of this platinum set then I'm going to trade you the platinum set for 1 credit.
You do not need to create different tax brackets for higher trades. Percentages are amazing because 8% of 100 is 8% and 8% of 20 billion is still 8%.
if a system is overly complicated, people will find a way around it.
WHY IN THE GALAXY Do You Now Have To Pay For Quick Travel?!!
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by remylion
You know what a credit sinks is but you seem to misunderstand how they work. Your expectation is that they fix a broken economy instantly. That does not happen. There is no MMO I can think of that had years of neglect in an economy that was instantly fixed with a single credit sink added into the game.
Even if that were possible the developers would have to first fix what caused that inflation which I doubt has happened yet.
No one believes the quick travel fees are going to instantly fix the economy.
No one believes the quick travel fees were designed to single-handedly fix the economy.
No one believes that the quick travel fees are anything more than a micro-credit sink meant to be one of many that will, over years, level out the economy.
I say no one, but apparently you believe a single credit sink should do all of the above which is impossible.