Credit Economy Initiative beginning with 7.2.1

[bncsmom]

On 2/9/2023 at 7:29 AM, JackieKo said:

 

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. 

 

 

Quick Travel and travel TO Strongholds? NO. We already sunk millions into our SHs, and in some cases REAL MONEY into our Quick Travel, if we used Cartel Coins to pay for the ability to move around fast. IDC about the Priority Transport Terminals costing, but I do think that since we earned use of those travel terminals through gameplay, there should be some sort of reward for it. Making it the original travel cost makes zero sense and will cause people to stop using them.

It would make more sense to put original travel costs to the planets on the auto travel to planet when you accept the weekly Heroic mission for that planet from the solo tab, or any other auto travel upon accepting a mission that takes you to the planet. It would also make more sense to charge people original travel costs to travel to SOMEONE ELSE'S Stronghold, and I wouldn't have any issue with that.

Another thought, increase the cost of being smuggled into the other faction SH. Instead of 1000, make it 5000 or 10000 credits. It makes it more likely for players to purchase two SHs versus just the one on their first faction's home planet. Also, make having at least one home planet SH a requirement to open up access to all of the other SHs. Some skip the DK and Coruscant SHs and go straight to the Nar Shaddaa SH because it costs nothing for both sides to travel to it - no smuggling costs there. 

 

Repair cost formulas and durability of equipment changes make sense, except for durability being lost at a lower rate on death? Why? That reduces repair cost. Defeat should be something we're actively trying to avoid. Making it more expensive to repair on death can be one way to push players to learn their skills better, and it creates more of a credit sink for the game. 

 

[yastruyastru]

If you want this game to die, please make these changes. As a sub player and cartel market purchaser, tells me everything where your priorities are. 

How the heck do you even get an idea for this im wondering unless its to intentionally make it worse? 

And why do you pretend you want feedback, when you already implemented these changes without even mentioning them beforehand and will roll them out? 

[EricMusco]

25 minutes ago, go_rogue said:

Eric, a quick question on this. Is it for exiting to it's destination location, e.g. Alderaan stronghold exiting to Alderaan? What about Return to location from stronghold since one technically isn't travelling to a new location? E.g. I'm on Alderaan, I go to my Nar Shaddaa stronghold, then return to Alderaan?

Fair question, let me clarify within your example:

• You are on Alderaan. You go to your Nar SH and then use return to Alderaan. NO COST (you never actually traveled to another planet beyond the SH)
• You are on Alderaan. You go to your Nar SH and then exit area onto Nar Shaddaa. COST (you traveled to another location)

Generally speaking, Exit Area would have a travel cost and Return to Area would not.

-eric

[ceryxp]

2 minutes ago, EricMusco said:

Fair question, let me clarify within your example:

• You are on Alderaan. You go to your Nar SH and then use return to Alderaan. NO COST (you never actually traveled to another planet beyond the SH)
• You are on Alderaan. You go to your Nar SH and then exit area onto Nar Shaddaa. COST (you traveled to another location)

Generally speaking, Exit Area would have a travel cost and Return to Area would not.

-eric

Just something to keep in mind since you mentioned using the stronghold exit to bypass the travel costs.  One reason to do that is not to bypass the travel cost, which is negligible, but to bypass the no-quick travel from hangers issue.  If we could quick travel from the hanger then there would be less of a need to travel to a stronghold and then exit to the planet because two loading screens are faster than having to travel outside of the hanger to an area where we can QT.  So, maybe that is a change that could be implemented.

[fire-breath]

2 hours ago, EricMusco said:

You're Not Hurting the Rich!
Well, we aren't trying to, not specifically. Inflation in its simplest form is about the amount of credits entering the economy against the amount coming out of it. Over time we have shot ourselves in the foot a bit as we have removed or minimized most regular credit sinks (removing training costs, etc).

The goal of these changes is to introduce passive, small credit removal to the game. This way we have credit removal a bit more in line with our credit generation. Removing singular batches of credits from a subset of players would not lower credit inflation (although it is an important component of it), and could not replace this type of passive removal.

Eric ... mate ... While I partially agree with you there. There are MANY players who don't partake in GTN-PvP. I myself are rarely posting something. I can't be bothered with it.

The problem that I have with your current line of thought is that you are punishing poor and rich people equally.
In any normal working democratic country, the government is trying to tax the rich people/players the most. While attempting to hurt the poor people less.

Compare it to certain oil companies who are making big time profits atm because the oil price is high. Normal people are footing the bill, atm. I'm having a hard time finding a loaf of bread that costs less than 2 euros per loaf.

Extend this principle to SWTOR, and please please please be careful with credit sinks. The amplifier debacle was very harsh on the low income crowds. Do NOT make this mistake again, please. Also, try to avoid adding costs to the normal every day activities. While spending a few 100 credits on quick travel isn't much, it does create a little bit of a sour taste.

 

[fire-breath]

2 hours ago, EricMusco said:

Could You Bring Back Amplifiers?
In short order, no. Our items are not built to have Amplifiers on them since we removed the system. However, the sentiment of this question is solid and is in alignment with what I said earlier, this is another example where we have removed some credit sinks.

Fun fact. I still have working amplifiers on my (older) gear. The underlying system is apparently still somewhat active.

Regarding the credit sink on this one. Good riddance ... this was a very bad application of sinking credits. There was NO WAY to keep up with the credit demands for the normal player. Rich people had no issues sinking their credits. But around the end, I think I lost about 95% of all my credits in an attempt to get the amplifiers needed.

If you ever fully reintroduce amplifiers, please make sure that low earning people can also use this system. Thank you

 

PS: The amplifier system was incredibly fun for tanks. Not so much for dps and healers though. While they had many options, there really was only 1 amplifier for them to pick. Selecting another amplifier would always be loss in dps or healing. Keep that in mind when you lot are secretly plotting the return of the amp 😛

[bockchow]

2 hours ago, EricMusco said:

This way we have credit removal a bit more in line with our credit generation.

Credits are a reward for completing tasks. Why is that reward being removed in unfun unrewarding ways. The game needs credit sinks, but those credit sinks should feel rewarding, not punishing or annoying. I should feel happy that I have gotten or unlocked X thing when I spend credits. Not like I am being taxed just for playing the game. 

[Twelfthdoctor]

I am seeing some positive signs from the discussion around potential changes to how stronghold fees work, as well as some of the changes planned for later updates, and a repeated theme I hear from the development side is a need for  credit generation to be offset by ongoing costs rather than one-time purchases that will end up buried.

I also remember a time when I had to choose whether to increase my speeder speed, pay for a trainer to give my character a defensive skill, a general class skill, or improve one tied to my spec. Mind you, at *that* time, I could buy an account-wide Artifact Equipment Authorization for 345k credits. I don't think we'll ever get back to that, but ideally the rate of inflation can stabilize enough for costs and in-game caps, fees, etc. to be relatively in line with the overall economy.

So, recurring credit cost options that I see tossed around and approve of:

1. Purchase  additional decoration copies for personal stronghold: With a lot of decorations just not available due to loot table drop changes to flashpoints over the years and the elimination of specific packs form the Cartel Market, there's an incentive to form a guild for one character just to unlock copies of decorations that (if they're even available on the GTN at all) cost more than fully unlocking a stronghold of any size. I'd love to pay a million credits a pop to buy a retired chair ten or twenty times to fill out a room with a certain theme or style.

2. Appearance Designer changes for credits: I know players who like to change their hairstyle weekly (or more often), and opening up those alterations from default or kits they've previously bought to credits (NOT buying new styles through the designer for credits) would be a good way to trim back excess credits.

3. Galactic Starfighter cosmetics: These stopped being sold in the Cartel Market, so I presume they weren't selling well at their Cartel Market cost rates, given that they were per-character. That might make them a prime opportunity to pull out at least a few credits.

I am hesitant to bring back general skill trainer costs, given the game has edged away from skill trainers entirely.

Adjusting loot tables to generate more items (with little/no vendor value) and fewer credits may also help; generate more things to sell and tax the sale of, slow down the accumulation.

[-Garmonbozia]

While I agree with the general need to force an economy adjustment, especially for new players, this is absolutely ridiculous. You already sold us quick travel perks, priority transport perks, and strongholds. To then turn around and decide we need to continue to pay to use them is a bit infuriating. 

If you're going to go this route anyway, since the team already has a bit of a record of just doing what they want and disregarding the community much of the time, I'd like to at least see severe reductions on use when those legacy purchases have been made. 

While the above post is incorrect regarding gold augments being the start of the problem, many of us know the origin was actually an item exploit years ago, they still make a very good point. Scarcity of certain items like gold augments does drive up inflation. It also funnels the bulk of credits into the pockets of a few players on the servers, acting just like the out of game economy, making the wealthy even more so, and leaving behind new players.

[Starcloud]

38 minutes ago, EricMusco said:

Fair question, let me clarify within your example:

• You are on Alderaan. You go to your Nar SH and then use return to Alderaan. NO COST (you never actually traveled to another planet beyond the SH)
• You are on Alderaan. You go to your Nar SH and then exit area onto Nar Shaddaa. COST (you traveled to another location)

Generally speaking, Exit Area would have a travel cost and Return to Area would not.

-eric

Given this, what about stronghold to stronghold travel? And what about exiting to ship from a stronghold? There's already a legacy power that takes you to your ship, would traveling to your ship from your stronghold carry a cost?

Please note that you have to take the time to really think through your changes and ask for feedback before implementing them; given everything that's happening in the world right now, there is a lot less willingness to trust or take things on faith, particularly when it comes to things people have spent or have the potential to spend *real money* on. Just look at what happened to Wizards of the Coast and the OGL1.1 situation.

Edited February 10, 2023 by Starcloud

[bockchow]

Ideas for credit sinks. 

• Let players buy other classes ships for exorbitant amounts of credits. Every character I have wants to be flying the Agent ship please. 
• Have high credit cost options for more of the CC only unlocks. Like I get a CM mount, let me unlock that to account for credits. Same with appearance changes. 
• Have a credit option for converting bound to character items into bound to legacy. 
• Reduce the credit cap for player to player trades to 1bil or less, increase the GTN cap to unlimited. There will still be ways around, but it becomes far more inconvenient, time consuming, or risky so most people will not choose to use them. 

[Starcloud]

3 hours ago, EricMusco said:

We Need Credit Sinks

We hear you that it would also be great to have some more "spend a LOT of credits to get something specific" but one consideration is that many of the suggestions being made are one time purchases which do not continually reduce credits. As we have many systems that continually introduce credits, we need more things that reduce credits often and not on a one time basis. 

 

Here's an idea for you that would also help the crafters in game, and it comes from a little company known as Digital Extremes. You may have heard of them.

In their multiplayer looter-shooter, they have a lot of crafting resources that can be picked up. One of the things to help players along is something they can buy called "resource boosters" which double the number of resources picked up, and "resource chance boosters" which increase the chances of picking up rare resources. These boosters can be purchased in several different durations, each timed in terms of calendar days. 3 day, 7 day, and 30 days.

Why not implement something like this, where players can choose to purchase similar boosters for credits, and only credits? It would improve the resource situation for crafters.

The other side of that, though, is that you have to actually allow crafters to make relevant items for sale at all levels. Right now, you shifted to a 'you get all your important items from loot and NPC vendors' type economy, and crafters are left out in the cold because no one wants their stuff unless it's at the very top end, or is cosmetics like dyes.

 

[YTTHYTTH]

3 hours ago, RikuvonDrake said:

the best part, thanks. hopefully people read this, seems most posters missed how inflation actually works

Edit: speaking of currencies, outside of just regular credits and cartel coins we have a couple more, 33 (or more) additional currencies in fact, could we look into handling the "inflation" of those as well?

Currencies: [Tech Fragments][Conquest Commendations][Daily Resource Matrix][FP-1 Stabilizer][OP-1 Catalyst][WZ-1 Accelerant][Underworld Syndicate Plans][Underworld Syndicate Plans][G.A.M.E. Analysis Module][Prosperity Token][Smuggler's Casino Chip][Kingpin's Casino Chip][Emperor's Casino Chip][Golden Certificate][Cartel Market Certificate][Snow-Covered Parcel][Max Bet Emperor's Casino Chip][Max Bet Kingpin's Casino Chip][Max Bet Smuggler's Casino Chip][Dantooine Surveyor's Notes][Completed Bounty Contract][Gray Helix Components][Rakghoul DNA Canister][Relics of Ossus][Masterwork Data Crystal][Monumental Data Crystal][Iokath Power Shards][Eternal Championship Trophy][Ziost Memory Holograph][Fleet Commendation][Dark Side Token][LIght Side Token][Ranked PvP Reward Token]

Incorrect, people understand how it works.  People also understand that the problem is so massive that you need a way to get people to dump credits.  What it seems you are seeing is Eric approach it from one vantage point while players approach it from two.

 

[OlBuzzard]

8 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

You can increase the GTN sales cap to 7 billion & actually decrease the prices on the GTN in the long term if BioWare also do the following.

1. Limit CM trades/sales outside of the GTN so people can’t circumvent the GTN tax.

2. Add a wealth tax to the current 8% GTN tax for items sold over 1 Billion credits. Starting at 2% for every Billion over 1 Billion & capping it at 20%

Of course at first there would likely be a price spike upwards. But with limited credits now being added to the game, eventually prices would start to fall because the majority of people wouldn’t have the credits to keep buying stuff over 1 Billion & sellers wouldn’t want to lose too many credits to the tax.

This one change would remove more credits from the game in one month than BioWares QT, SH travel & repair costs idea would remove on 2 years. 

1 Billion credits at 8% tax is 80 million 

2 Billion credits at 10% tax is 200 million

3 Billion credits at 12% tax is 360 million 

etc etc etc 

It would take 1 person QT (Quick traveling) 1600 times to take 80 million credits out of the game. Anyone wanna guess how many months/years that would take in normal game play? 

This is a part of the solution, but NOT in its entirety.  
** Yes there needs to be credit sinks ... but NOT at the bleeding expense of those that are just loging in to play and enjoy the game.  IF I were taking the same position of some who berate others for their lack of skill ... I suggest that those who are focused on just playing the game and have no desire to earn credits ... YOU need to git good and figure it out!!  But, that's not where this is going.  Anybody who has been around these sorts of games at any length of time understands what GOOD credit sinks are.  The current proposal isn't one of them.  
** And yes .. there is the blue whale sized elephant in the room that is still being ignored.  Sales / trades outside of the GTN and the TONS of credits that's being passed over each day!  (Multiple times each day ...  LIKE ALL the time each day).  BTW... would anybody like to take a guess as to what is being offered in those "WTT" or "WTS" all of the time in chat.  
* BiS "GOLD" items???  ... on occasion ... BUT ONLY on an occasion.
* Crafting Mats?? On occasion ...  BUT ONLY on an occasion!!!
* Decoration items???  Perhaps ... on an occasion.  BUT ONLY on an occasion! 
* Armor items (AKA Space Barbie) / Weapons ...  Hypercrates anyone!  I hope you have the credits.  These items are all found on the CM.  
OH WAIT ... I can dig out my wallet for that!  RIGHT???  Perhaps ...Perhaps not.

That being said ... at this point we are only discussing exchanging credits (that came from somewhere) for goods being sold from another source that is NOT found in playing the game. Cash ... Cash for credits anyone??

What is the source of the credits?

Lastly ... Items needed for the game:
** Gear ... a HUGE topic.  Some of it gated!  BUT ALL of it still available for subscription players.
** Augments???  (Not green cra...  um green stuff) Where exactly do we get those?  Are they fairly priced?  Will this new taxation help anyone to get them?
** Weapons ... same question(s).

What is being done to actually strike at the heart of the flow of excess credits?  Attacking the average player by slapping them with more restrictions?

I'm quite certain that by touching the sacred cash cow of the CM (so-to-speak) I am running the risk of alienating myself from a number of folks.  But in all honesty this is something that really needs to be looked at from more than just one angle!

Credit sinks ... Yeah!  I think most of us get that!  BUT IMO there are two or three major topics that need to be looked at and dealt with long before we get to what has been proposed as a potential solution (both long term and short term).

[juanmf]

The only people getting hurt by these changes are players that don't actively engage in the economy and just play at their own leisure. It literally does nothing to the billionaire whales.

 

You want a hard credit sink? Let us buy Cartel Coins with Credits or let us buy CM items with Credits but make them Bound to Character if done so that way so you can't trade them.

 

Edit: Want two more? Like the Jawa said below allow us to change our appearance for credits and also allow us to change armor colors and appearance for credits as well. I know so many people that would literally spend millions on these two if they were an option, I know I would.

Edited February 11, 2023 by juanmf

[ChrisKazugal]

On 2/9/2023 at 3:54 PM, Traceguy said:

If you want to address inflation, here is 1 easy solution. Allow Subscribers to change their appearance using credits in stead of CCs. Want to change your hair color? 100,000,000 credits. BAM. That is how you do it.

This is singlehandedly the greatest idea put forth on this thread. 

On top of the fact allowing subscribers (Who most likely have the most credits anyway) to use those excess credits to customize their character, this incentivizes NEW subscribers because free-to-play or Preferred will look at this change and go "Oh. You mean I can increase my credit cap AND use those credits to customize myself? LETS GO."

Maybe the price not be quite so dramatic. Say, going down the list and customizing every slider would equal 500mil credits, with a race change being anywhere from 500mil -- 1bil. 

[TrixxieTriss]

9 hours ago, Toraak said:

You can't realistically stop players from trading 1 CM item for another, without hurting BW's CM profits.

Sure you can. If players want to trade CM stuff, they can sell it on the GTN. 
Stopping or limiting CM personal trades outside of the GTN will have zero effect on BioWares CM profits.
But BioWare could also increase the GTN sale cap above 1 billion credits to allow for the increased value some items now hold since inflation has been allowed to run away the last several years.

[KickersGT]

5 hours ago, EricMusco said:

Let me give you some specifics based on suggestions I am seeing in the thread. We know that players exchanging high value items will often trade outside of the GTN. Either because of its sale cap, or to avoid getting taxed at all on the transaction. This is likely the place you will see a number of changes coming after 7.2.1 to stop the loophole, and to start properly taxing high value trades. 
 

-eric
 

First off, thank you and the entire BW team for your efforts to combat the egregious GTN inflation.  Also, I admit to being a long-term subscriber who has billions and billions of credits, and thousands of cartel coins sitting on my account.  The ideas proposed by BW will have a negligible effect on my game-play and enjoyment of the game.

So, here's my concern.  Will the changes made to plug the player-to-player trade loophole also include mailing high-value CM items and credits to new f2p players?  I've been using this to attract (bribe) some of my friends into trying SWTOR.  With the current plethora of free-to-play/try mmos on the market, I've discovered that any advantage I can gain to bring them to SWTOR rather than all of us joining a different mmo is VERY helpful.  Once I get them here, the game takes care of the rest :). 

I created a new character on the PTS because I wanted to test the ramifications of the additional travel fees on a new player.  I forgot how little new players travel!  My experience in leveling strictly through the story line is that by the time they reach a point where significant travel fees start to apply, they can easily afford them.  Works for me :).

 

[Toraak]

38 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Sure you can. If players want to trade CM stuff, they can sell it on the GTN. 
Stopping or limiting CM personal trades outside of the GTN will have zero effect on BioWares CM profits.
But BioWare could also increase the GTN sale cap above 1 billion credits to allow for the increased value some items now hold since inflation has been allowed to run away the last several years.

this won't work, because the prices are already over the GTN cap. People won't purchase CC's, and buy items to sell that sell for over that cap. BW would have to raise the GTN cap for this to work. If cap stays at 1 billion BW loses $.

[bockchow]

Stronghold upkeep is a suggestion I saw elsewhere that seems like a good option. I have all strongholds, not because I use them, but because I want the conquest point bonus. Having to pay credits monthly to keep them unlocked and applying their bonus could be a large credit sink. Just exclude the tiny starter strongholds maybe for players that just want one cheap place. LOTRO does this and it works well. Scale credits based on size, or based on how many you have active, or both. 

[casirabit]

1 minute ago, bockchow said:

Stronghold upkeep is a suggestion I saw elsewhere that seems like a good option. I have all strongholds, not because I use them, but because I want the conquest point bonus. Having to pay credits monthly to keep them unlocked and applying their bonus could be a large credit sink. Just exclude the tiny starter strongholds maybe for players that just want one cheap place. LOTRO does this and it works well. Scale credits based on size, or based on how many you have active, or both. 

SWG did this as well and it was based on the size of the house.  FFXIV does this as well, though I haven't gotten to that part yet.

[TrixxieTriss]

1 minute ago, Toraak said:

this won't work, because the prices are already over the GTN cap. People won't purchase CC's, and buy items to sell that sell for over that cap. BW would have to raise the GTN cap for this to work. If cap stays at 1 billion BW loses $.

I’m assuming you haven’t read my other posts that describe how to go about doing this.

BioWare would need to raise the sale cap on the GTN above 1 billion (I did say that already).
My suggestion is 7 billion, based purely on my other suggestion of a wealth tax (go read my other posts if you want a better understanding). But it could be higher or less depending on what BioWare decide it needs to be.

So by increasing the GTN sale price cap & restricting player to player CM trades outside of the GTN, it would have zero affect on BioWares CM income.

I hope that explains it better. 

[Estelindis]

Eric, thanks for coming into this thread and giving us some details on your thoughts.  This, and every other effort to explain the intent behind your choices, is genuinely appreciated.  I really mean it.  I know it can be difficult, but more communication is always better.  There can't be any doubt that you understand the game from angles that we can't. 

I hope there's also no doubt that the reverse is true: players also understand the day-to-day life of the game from an angle that isn't always accessible to devs (though yes, I do acknowledge that plenty of ye play the game).  I feel like devs can be so focused on intended play as to sometimes lose sight of actual play.  I'll always remember giving feedback on 6.0 crafting during that PTS, explaining (for instance) that there aren't enough grade 11 gathering missions that give green-quality materials, and being told that running gathering missions as a main source of materials was not intended play.  I was stunned by that answer. 

Intended play may matter to you.  But I don't think it's helpful to imagine that it matters very much to us.  Gamers will game things.  It is fun for us to find ways to play the game that may not have been intended but are nonetheless enjoyable to some of us (e.g. finding areas of a map we're not supposed to be able to reach).  Trying to appeal to us on the grounds that you don't want a particular behaviour won't get anywhere.  If people can do something, and like doing it, they're going to do it.  And why not?

Of course, you don't have to appeal to us.  You can make the game however you deem fit.  I feel like that's largely the approach you're going for with these economic measures.  You know that gamers will act in their own personal interests, not with a lofty view of the overall good of the game and the wider playerbase.  You're prepared to impose credit costs, for what you believe is the good of the game's economy, so that people don't have a choice other than to pay them if they want to use a range of common functions.  However, while you can impose any measure you please, players are just as free to choose not to play.  The more irritating the measures are, the more players you're likely to drive away, or just make miserable (which may lead them to leave later rather than sooner, but still leave).  Because the increased credit costs you're suggesting will clearly, mathematically have an outsized impact on players with few credits - and because they're imposed on quality-of-life-improving features like quick travel - said costs will feel particularly unfair and annoying.  That may have enough of a QoL impact on new players that it could be bad for the game's health.

But why should it have to be a contest between players' self-interest and your intent to improve the game's economic health?  Surely the greatest chance of success lies in making allies of those two principles, not opposing them.  Don't make the costs you're imposing feel like punishments.  Make them feel like rewards.  Then you will have people actively pursuing them, rather than (entirely rationally) trying to avoid them.

You will never persuade people to stop avoiding things they don't like.  The more you try to close various loopholes, the more functionality you're likely to remove from players who weren't using those various functions for game-damaging exploits, just regular play.  Instead, offer us things that we do like!  

Want to put costs on travelling in and out of strongholds?  Well here's an idea off the top of my head.  Make a series of achievements that track how much is spent on such travels across a legacy, and have those achievements give decorations as rewards.  The final level should be extremely high, so that this series of achievements continues to seem rewarding for a long period of continued travel payments.  Similarly, you could have quick travel achievements that track that spending, and give mounts (and other travel-themed items) as rewards.  Perhaps repair costs could have something similar (I don't spend enough on repairs to know what high-repair-cost people might like most).  Etc, etc, for a range of other possible costs!  Then, whenever people spend credits on one of these costs, they won't just feel like they're being nickel-and-dimed.  It'll have some aspect of investment in a savings account, with an eventual reward in view.  Yet credits will nonetheless be removed from the economy, just as you wanted.

My suggestion is just one idea.  The specifics aren't important.  The key is the principle: to work out how to get what you want while enabling and encouraging gameplay, not thwarting it.

6 hours ago, EricMusco said:

You're Not Hurting the Rich!
Well, we aren't trying to, not specifically. Inflation in its simplest form is about the amount of credits entering the economy against the amount coming out of it. Over time we have shot ourselves in the foot a bit as we have removed or minimized most regular credit sinks (removing training costs, etc).

The goal of these changes is to introduce passive, small credit removal to the game. This way we have credit removal a bit more in line with our credit generation. Removing singular batches of credits from a subset of players would not lower credit inflation (although it is an important component of it), and could not replace this type of passive removal.

I have to reply on the quoted point specifically, because I feel like you might not be getting the main thrust of our objection here.  We know that it's not about punishing the rich.  We know it's not about pointing at them and saying "this bloated economy is your fault, and we're going to take away your credits to punish you!"  Rather, what we are saying is that your proposed measures do not hurt the rich, but they hurt the poor. 

Not hurting the rich is chiefly mentioned to contrast with the hurt we expect to happen to the poor.  So it feels like you miss the point, in this case, because you comment about not wanting to hurt the rich, but you don't seem to have any comment about not wanting or trying to hurt the poor.

To avoid overly harming players with fewer credits and actively impeding their gameplay to the point where quality of life feels drastically lower for those just starting the game, repeated costs for low-to-mid-level characters should be extremely small or non-existent.  In higher levels, where it is easier to generate credits, costs should be higher.

One area I'm uncertain about is repair costs.  Endgame content will, of course, be played mostly by high-level characters.  Now, personally, I don't play content at the cutting edge of difficulty.  I play story content with a wide range of alts, and otherwise enjoy dressing up my characters and strongholds.  I don't witness the scenes mentioned by other posters here, where people spend hours wiping against tough content and lose a large amount of credits in repair fees, to the point where players with fewer credits can't afford to keep playing (even though they want to).  I feel bad for those players when I read about that.  Don't you?  Tons of dev effort goes into making that content.  You want people to play it, right?  It feels counter-productive to stop players with fewer credits.  Would it be possible, perhaps, to make single repair costs higher, but have a daily cap on total repair costs?  I don't mean something that would help people that wipe just a few times; I mean something to help people who spend a long session with many wipes.  That way, you could make the credit sink substantial, but beyond a certain point people wouldn't be punished for continuing to face the toughest challenges in the game.  Like I said, this isn't an area of play with which I have much experience, so I'll admit that my angle here may be off.  I just feel bad for players wanting to play the game and stopped by repair costs.

I admittedly don't know how well a daily repair cap would mesh with my system, proposed earlier, for rewarding various credit sinks via achievements.  Perhaps a consumable item for turning off the limit, if someone actively wants to drive it up?  (Like the consumable for lowering xp - the... acute white thingummy? - for people who want to level slower, for whatever reason.)

Anyway, I think I've said enough for now.  I hope something here is helpful.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Estelindis

[Rol_Khavos]

What I don't understand in these changes is the concept that the way to fix the economy is to penalize the players for playing the game as intended.  The use of Strongholds, the options to use them to travel to other planets rather than incur a loss of time and credits, the use of quicktravel rather than walking (which in some cases is simply not possible), all were put in as intended and have been used as intended.  Players have also always been able to gift items they themselves have expended effort and money to obtain.  To then seek to penalize the use of these intended mechanics really is dishonesty on the part of the Dev team.

 

Rather, the concept should be to offer new -beneficial- options to drain the economy, such as cosmetic changes and extra hook options to SHs, special access to a 'classic' section of the CC or GTN with items not currently available on the market, new SHs and Flagships which can offer additional services to offset the proposed upkeep costs while leaving all existing SHs and Flagships without upkeep or access costs.  Those are some suggestions that come to mind off the top of my head, the point being to offer something additional to current content that can serve as credit sinks rather than penalizing players for doing what they have been doing for some time now and was fully intended to be used as such by the Dev Team.

 

 

[TrixxieTriss]

6 hours ago, EricMusco said:

Hey folks,

First off, thank you all for the feedback here in the thread and especially for those who have jumped on PTS and played around with the changes. There are some great points of feedback and questions in the thread and I want to respond to some of the themes we are seeing.

These changes are not enough!
You are correct, and we know that, but it is a starting point. It is very important that we make these changes slowly and that we monitor their impacts closely. There are some excellent suggestions in this thread for further changes that are already in the works. As we said up front, you should expect to see changes that focus on the economy throughout the next few updates.

We want to start small and in targeted ways. More changes are coming in future updates.

Let me give you some specifics based on suggestions I am seeing in the thread. We know that players exchanging high value items will often trade outside of the GTN. Either because of its sale cap, or to avoid getting taxed at all on the transaction. This is likely the place you will see a number of changes coming after 7.2.1 to stop the loophole, and to start properly taxing high value trades. 

You're Not Hurting the Rich!
Well, we aren't trying to, not specifically. Inflation in its simplest form is about the amount of credits entering the economy against the amount coming out of it. Over time we have shot ourselves in the foot a bit as we have removed or minimized most regular credit sinks (removing training costs, etc).

The goal of these changes is to introduce passive, small credit removal to the game. This way we have credit removal a bit more in line with our credit generation. Removing singular batches of credits from a subset of players would not lower credit inflation (although it is an important component of it), and could not replace this type of passive removal.

We Need Credit Sinks

We hear you that it would also be great to have some more "spend a LOT of credits to get something specific" but one consideration is that many of the suggestions being made are one time purchases which do not continually reduce credits. As we have many systems that continually introduce credits, we need more things that reduce credits often and not on a one time basis. 

To help balance this, we have been steadily adding credit sinks over the past year or so. Most prominently would be the catch-up mechanic in both Galactic and PvP Seasons. The credit costs in those catch-ups can become quite substantial.

Could You Bring Back Amplifiers?
In short order, no. Our items are not built to have Amplifiers on them since we removed the system. However, the sentiment of this question is solid and is in alignment with what I said earlier, this is another example where we have removed some credit sinks.

The Stronghold Change Particularly Sucks
Yeah, let's talk about this one and our goal. As we are introducing a variety of passive costs to travel, players will inevitably look to find a way to subvert it, even if it is a small cost.

One way players could do this is to use the SH travel to a planet and then Exit Area. Our concern here isn't actually for traveling to the SH, it would be a player trying to use that as a stepping stone onto the planet itself.

With that said, we hear you on the sentiment of this one feeling especially punitive, paying to travel to something you paid for. So here is what we are going to try to change it to. We will not charge you to travel to a SH. Instead we would simply apply a travel cost to using Exit Area.

Note that this is not how it is implemented currently so it will require a bit of time to switch. If we can't make this change in time for launch we will likely do NO charges for SH travel in 7.2.1 and implement the proposed credit cost as noted above in the future.

Thanks all! Keep the feedback coming.

-eric
 

This is probably the best post I’ve ever seen you make Eric. I’m glad you are listening to the actual feedback & understand what’s happening & communicating that with us so eloquently 👍

In saying that, @EricMusco can we please get you to engage with us on the topic of Premade PVP teams being put against Solo players. This problem & also Biowares continued silence is causing people to unsub or quit the game if they are F2P/Preferred. 

Look forward to seeing the Economy changes you make & you engaging us in the PvP forums regarding premades 😉