Shae Vizla Launch Updates

[TrixxieTriss]

48 minutes ago, emperorruby said:

the first and second tier get merge in to one and keep the third 

Or forget having gates for what dates you played the game & base it on much simpler principles for Broadsword to track. 

A minimum of 6 or 12 months subscription time on your account for the first requirement.

The second requirement is you are Geolocated in the western APAC region.

And for each paid unlocked character server slot, you get 1 extra free transfer. 

Then if they implement my idea that every subscriber moving forward (regardless of location) gets one free transfer per month as part of their monthly subscription, that would be more than enough for subscribers to eventually move over their whole collection of characters. It would also incentivise people to keep subscribing &  visiting other server communities. 

Edited December 23, 2023 by TrixxieTriss

[MishraArtificer]

...ten pages worth of bizarre ranting about economics, and all I'm looking to do is transfer a bunch of refugee characters from the last round of Server Merges over to a server where they won't be superfluous, with just enough credits to unlock rooms in my Strongholds.

I'd even settle for not being allowed to bring un-Bound items. It would be unfortunate, as I have a bunch in my Item Stashes thanks to Galactic Seasons boxes that I could certainly use on characters over there, but...I'd live with it.

[emperorruby]

29 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Or forget having gates for what dates you played the game & base it on much simpler principles for Broadsword to track. 

A minimum of 6 or 12 months subscription time on your account for the first requirement.

The second requirement is you are Geolocated in the western APAC region.

And for each paid unlocked character server slot, you get 1 extra free transfer. 

Then if they implement my idea that every subscriber moving forward (regardless of location) gets one free transfer per month as part of their monthly subscription, that would be more than enough for subscribers to eventually move over their whole collection of characters. It would also incentivise people to keep subscribing &  visiting other server communities. 

if they do that the previous subscription time that go over that more free transfer should be given to apac players that qualified

Edited December 23, 2023 by emperorruby

[Nommaz]

4 hours ago, Jarcen said:

Thank you for stating this. I think Nommaz finally got my point. I'm always amused when someone with comprehension issues try to make a discussion...

Hahaha no

[DWho]

14 minutes ago, MishraArtificer said:

...ten pages worth of bizarre ranting about economics, and all I'm looking to do is transfer a bunch of refugee characters from the last round of Server Merges over to a server where they won't be superfluous, with just enough credits to unlock rooms in my Strongholds.

I'd even settle for not being allowed to bring un-Bound items. It would be unfortunate, as I have a bunch in my Item Stashes thanks to Galactic Seasons boxes that I could certainly use on characters over there, but...I'd live with it.

I think this covers what the vast majority of players would be happy with (limited credit/item transfers). The discussion seems to be revolving now around how to implement transfers and how many "free" transfers are appropriate. Trixie's idea of limiting by "earning" them through subscribing is a good one. That would slow the rate of transfers yet still allow APAC  players to eventually transfer all of their characters to the new server. Though, until the economies of all 6 servers come into balance, there should be no transfers off SV to prevent "profiteering"

The heaviest discussion outside of that seems to be around un-bound items and whether or not they would negatively impact the economy on the server pushing it toward where the other 5 servers are (a broken economy requiring draconian measures to fix). A good way to deal with the potential impact would be to limit the initial transfer of items saleable on the GTN (you could choose to have them bound and bring over as many as you want or choose to have them unbound but limited in the number you could bring). If the initial influx of items didn't cause problems, they could allow additional transfers of items (or increase the limit). This approach would blend well with the "earning free transfers" approach.

Perhaps something like  being able to bring 10 "saleable" items with each character initially and then if that doesn't damage the economy, allow bringing an additional 10 items per month subbed after the transfers start.

Ideally, whatever transfer requirements/restrictions decided upon would be applied to all servers, not just Shae Vizla

[Nommaz]

I am in agreeance with some form of (not to drastic) credit transfer limits.
However, I don't agree with item limits, and I have yet to see a good argument for doing this in any form.
supply V demand dictates that even if the market is suddenly flooded with things, the GTN is structured so the lowest price is the ones going to sell, and with a limit on the number of credits coming in it will only drive down prices not up.
So, an influx of a lot of items will actually improve things IF the credits incoming is limited, we need one or the other not both.

Lets say oh yeah but what about all XXX item where XXX item sells for very high prices on other realms, well they don't have limited credits so it's just not going to sell thereby also driving the prices down.
Unless someone can tell me how having more is going to go against the very basic principle of supply v demand that is the basis of all retail around the world, I just do not see how it will adversely affect pricing.
Over supply is great for pricing, just look at what happened with the cheap overseas sellers on eBay, and how it drove prices down to levels at nearly cost prices.

On the other hand, limiting item will 100% drive up the price, due to the same principle, less supply with a greater demand brought on with some credits flowing in will definitely send prices up thereby giving you the inflation you are so desperately trying to avoid.

I also do not believe there should be any "incentives" for even us beta/founder players over a new APAC player, I think that's unfair and will only cause rifts in the player base, APAC players should all be treated the same regardless of if how long we have been here, we have been unfairly treated for long enough.
Having said that I do believe we should be prioritised against players in other regions, if they want a fresh start server they can go and petition for one.

Additionally, to prevent buying here and selling elsewhere a lock on transfers off for 6 months, as suggested by Trixxie or 60 days as I said earlier should also be implemented, if you are transferring here to play that shouldn't bother anyone.
People can always start a new toon to test the server prior to transfer.

Lastly, I want to apologise for my role in the pages and pages of pointless arguments and de-railing the thread, I should have recognised much earlier that you can't argue with ... some people and left it alone.
Very sorry all!


 

[DWho]

7 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

I am in agreeance with some form of (not to drastic) credit transfer limits.
However, I don't agree with item limits, and I have yet to see a good argument for doing this in any form.
supply V demand dictates that even if the market is suddenly flooded with things, the GTN is structured so the lowest price is the ones going to sell, and with a limit on the number of credits coming in it will only drive down prices not up.
So, an influx of a lot of items will actually improve things IF the credits incoming is limited, we need one or the other not both.

Here's your explanation of how a large number of items transferred can negatively impact GTN prices:

Player A has been on SV since it opened and has gotten to a point where they can farm enough materials to produce several dyes per day (we'll use dyes as an example but the same holds true for any crafted item). They are selling them at 200K each. Player B transfers several hundred pre-crafted dyes to the server and decides to drive Player A out of the market by consistently listing large numbers of dyes for less than 200K. Eventually Player A gives up on crafting those items and dumps all his mats. Now Player B is free to charge whatever he wants for the the dye so he sets the price at 800K. Since he still has a large stockpile of essentially "free" dyes to sell he can drive anyone else out of the market at any time he wishes. This results in an increase in the price of the dye (a monopoly).

Supply vs Demand only works if there is not a monopoly in play and a monopoly is very easy to achieve with large numbers of essentially free items to sell. I have driven numerous players out of the market on the low side (personally driving prices down) because I have a near infinite supply of materials and the time needed to craft those items is insignificant (essentially the same as having them pre-crafted). I could, if I wanted jack prices up to whatever level I wanted and as soon as anyone new tried to get into the market, I could undercut them out of the market at virtually no cost to me.

That's how large numbers of saleable items can undermine the economy. With jacked up prices, people turn to credit sellers more often and credit seller activity will increase boosting the number of credits in the game which will result in inflation.

[AFadedMemory]

32 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

I also do not believe there should be any "incentives" for even us beta/founder players over a new APAC player, I think that's unfair and will only cause rifts in the player base, APAC players should all be treated the same regardless of if how long we have been here, we have been unfairly treated for long enough.
Having said that I do believe we should be prioritised against players in other regions, if they want a fresh start server they can go and petition for one.

I agree with pretty much everything you said except the underlined portion. (I mean the entire post not just the portion I'm quoting.) If APAC players contributed the most to the metrics that justified keeping a server in their area then hell yeah they should be prioritized, but if APAC players did not contributed the most to the numbers that justify keeping the server in their area then the group who did should be prioritized or at least treated equally as the players in the region. the latter being the most justifiable and realistic. 

32 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

I should have recognised much earlier that you can't argue with ... some people and left it alone.

just because an argument is ignored does not mean it should not have been had. Other people need to see different perspective to learn an grow. Those "some people" aren't the only ones reading these.  I agree that you have said pretty much all you need to now though.

Edited December 24, 2023 by AFadedMemory

[emperorruby]

21 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

I am in agreeance with some form of (not to drastic) credit transfer limits.
However, I don't agree with item limits, and I have yet to see a good argument for doing this in any form.
supply V demand dictates that even if the market is suddenly flooded with things, the GTN is structured so the lowest price is the ones going to sell, and with a limit on the number of credits coming in it will only drive down prices not up.
So, an influx of a lot of items will actually improve things IF the credits incoming is limited, we need one or the other not both.

Lets say oh yeah but what about all XXX item where XXX item sells for very high prices on other realms, well they don't have limited credits so it's just not going to sell thereby also driving the prices down.
Unless someone can tell me how having more is going to go against the very basic principle of supply v demand that is the basis of all retail around the world, I just do not see how it will adversely affect pricing.
Over supply is great for pricing, just look at what happened with the cheap overseas sellers on eBay, and how it drove prices down to levels at nearly cost prices.

On the other hand, limiting item will 100% drive up the price, due to the same principle, less supply with a greater demand brought on with some credits flowing in will definitely send prices up thereby giving you the inflation you are so desperately trying to avoid.

I also do not believe there should be any "incentives" for even us beta/founder players over a new APAC player, I think that's unfair and will only cause rifts in the player base, APAC players should all be treated the same regardless of if how long we have been here, we have been unfairly treated for long enough.
Having said that I do believe we should be prioritised against players in other regions, if they want a fresh start server they can go and petition for one.

Additionally, to prevent buying here and selling elsewhere a lock on transfers off for 6 months, as suggested by Trixxie or 60 days as I said earlier should also be implemented, if you are transferring here to play that shouldn't bother anyone.
People can always start a new toon to test the server prior to transfer.

Lastly, I want to apologise for my role in the pages and pages of pointless arguments and de-railing the thread, I should have recognised much earlier that you can't argue with ... some people and left it alone.
Very sorry all!


 

my concerned is if broadsword aim too low you risk upsetting the older apac players and damage shae vizla server long term player count     

[Nommaz]

7 minutes ago, DWho said:

Here's your explanation of how a large number of items transferred can negatively impact GTN prices:

Player A has been on SV since it opened and has gotten to a point where they can farm enough materials to produce several dyes per day (we'll use dyes as an example but the same holds true for any crafted item). They are selling them at 200K each. Player B transfers several hundred pre-crafted dyes to the server and decides to drive Player A out of the market by consistently listing large numbers of dyes for less than 200K. Eventually Player A gives up on crafting those items and dumps all his mats. Now Player B is free to charge whatever he wants for the the dye so he sets the price at 800K. Since he still has a large stockpile of essentially "free" dyes to sell he can drive anyone else out of the market at any time he wishes. This results in an increase in the price of the dye (a monopoly).

Supply vs Demand only works if there is not a monopoly in play and a monopoly is very easy to achieve with large numbers of essentially free items to sell. I have driven numerous players out of the market on the low side (personally driving prices down) because I have a near infinite supply of materials and the time needed to craft those items is insignificant (essentially the same as having them pre-crafted). I could, if I wanted jack prices up to whatever level I wanted and as soon as anyone new tried to get into the market, I could undercut them out of the market at virtually no cost to me.

That's how large numbers of saleable items can undermine the economy. With jacked up prices, people turn to credit sellers more often and credit seller activity will increase boosting the number of credits in the game which will result in inflation.

Thats great, and even in the real world hardly ever works, the amount of money you require to hold a monopoly doesn't make it feasible, you are assuming there is only two sellers in this instance and in MMO's there is always going to be some competition, two powerhouse money makers do not control a AH, its it not as simple as you have said. 
the second people see prices go up they jump on it, and as I said the way the GTN is structured now it stops a lot of what is required. The theory behind it is semi sound, the practise not so much. 

I have been friends with some savage pretty AH players and one in particular tried what you are talking about, but it never did quite work for them, too many variables and other sellers. 

[DWho]

3 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

the second people see prices go up they jump on it, and as I said the way the GTN is structured now it stops a lot of what is required.

Which is true but they are likely not sitting on piles of mats to make the item or pre-crafted items (and with credit limits they would need to be, so it's much easier to establish a monopoly on a small server like SV). Someone who has either of those (and only players transferring in would have that, those who started with the opening of the server get put right out of business) can easily re-establish their monopoly at virtually no cost ,while someone trying to get into the market has a significant cost of materials. If I am sitting on a large stockpile and someone new starts posting I just drop the price below what they are selling at until they go away (mine sell, they lose credits every time they post).

[Nommaz]

Yup the theory is good, but as I said it's just not that easy even on a small sever.
Too many variables. 

Edit:
Either I beleive way the benefit far outweighs what very small risk of this there is.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Nommaz

[TrixxieTriss]

54 minutes ago, DWho said:

Here's your explanation of how a large number of items transferred can negatively impact GTN prices:

Player A has been on SV since it opened and has gotten to a point where they can farm enough materials to produce several dyes per day (we'll use dyes as an example but the same holds true for any crafted item). They are selling them at 200K each. Player B transfers several hundred pre-crafted dyes to the server and decides to drive Player A out of the market by consistently listing large numbers of dyes for less than 200K. Eventually Player A gives up on crafting those items and dumps all his mats. Now Player B is free to charge whatever he wants for the the dye so he sets the price at 800K. Since he still has a large stockpile of essentially "free" dyes to sell he can drive anyone else out of the market at any time he wishes. This results in an increase in the price of the dye (a monopoly).

Supply vs Demand only works if there is not a monopoly in play and a monopoly is very easy to achieve with large numbers of essentially free items to sell. I have driven numerous players out of the market on the low side (personally driving prices down) because I have a near infinite supply of materials and the time needed to craft those items is insignificant (essentially the same as having them pre-crafted). I could, if I wanted jack prices up to whatever level I wanted and as soon as anyone new tried to get into the market, I could undercut them out of the market at virtually no cost to me.

That's how large numbers of saleable items can undermine the economy. With jacked up prices, people turn to credit sellers more often and credit seller activity will increase boosting the number of credits in the game which will result in inflation.

Without derailing the thread anymore let me just reply to this about dyes or crafted items disadvantaging current crafters if others transfer stuff.

Under the current GTN changes, this explanation is incorrect because all it takes is a couple of existing crafters on any server to undercut by 1 credit to ruin every other sellers listing of that item. Because only the cheapest can be purchased. Maybe if these GTN changes hadn’t been applied, this argument could be partially justified, but not now, not under the current GTN conditions.

I also think there are 2-3 different versions of this conversation going on here. Because I’m not concerned about bringing my crafted items over as I can always make more of those. I’m concerned about bringing my Cartel Market & other unbound items I’ve collected over the years for my family & guild. Many of these cost real money or time to acquire. Losing these or making them bound to character or legacy is a financial loss & a deal breaker for me. As I’m sure it is for many others.

The problem is everyone has a special interest in different versions of this argument regarding transferring items. And the more complicated we make the solution for Broadsword, the more work is involved. Which means they’re most likely to pick the easiest & cheapest path to a solution. And sadly, we all know that means that no one will be happy with it & it may cause people to quit again.

Honestly, if you step back & look at this from a business & customer perspective, what is going to keep the most customers subscribed & what is going to drive the most customers from the game. 

Players like me will draw a line at losing real world dollars in a transfer. Others may draw a line at not being able to bring billions of credits. But I can’t see anyone unsubbing because players were allowed transfer their CM & other items to the server unbound. No one is going to quit the game over that. Where as plenty will quit the game or stay on their current servers if they aren’t allowed to bring their stuff unbound & at least with some credits. 

Really the only restrictions the devs should be looking at for transfers is credits. The over supply of credits is what causes inflation or hyperinflation. If you control the flow of credits going into the server, everything else will sort itself out. 

[emperorruby]

7 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Players like me will draw a line at losing real world dollars in a transfer.

same if you have to spend 1000cc per character as a apac player in my case its 8000cc for 8 characters to transfer to shae vizla especially the older apac players who have much more to lose 

[DWho]

8 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Under the current GTN changes, this explanation is incorrect because all it takes is a couple of existing crafters on any server to undercut by 1 credit to ruin every other sellers listing of that item.

This is precisely why it is easy to produce a monopoly. You can easily shut out any seller by undercutting them by 1 credit (you have yourself complained about this possibility in another thread). For the record, I don't particularly agree with the change that shows only the lowest price but it is what it is now.

As far as CM items are concerned, it is very unlikely there are sufficient supplies of them in anyone's inventory to make much of a difference. Unless you have a large number of items (or the ability to produce them quickly) you will never be able create a monopoly. Crafted items can be produced in large numbers and as such have a much more significant impact.

As far as transfers go, I mostly agree with your posts:

1) limited credit transfers

2) a couple "free" transfers to APAC players to get the process started. Other players can transfer but pay the normal transfer fee (as can APAC players unwilling to "earn" additional transfers)

3) Earn a transfer program (though I think it should start with the opening of the server and not be applied retroactively)

4) the above situation applie only to APAC geo-located players (though there should be some sort of sunset on it)

5) no transfers off SV until the economies of all 6 servers balance (whether that be 6 months, a year, or more)

Where we disagree is with the impact of large stacks of items (whether that be crafted items, mats, or other non-bound items that can be acquired/produced in large quantities). I feel they are most certainly a cause for concern in the overall health of the GTN for the reasons I have stated. I am however, not against some sort of gradated system that allows a player to bring more over to the new server over time, perhaps in a way similar to the "earn a transfer" idea.

I am also not singling out the APAC server for this treatment. I think all servers should have the same rules (or at least the same rules when it comes to moving across regions)

[Nommaz]

5 minutes ago, emperorruby said:

same if you have to spend 1000cc per character as a apac player in my case its 8000cc for 8 characters to transfer to shae vizla especially the older apac players who have much more to lose 

you only have 8? O.o
lol seriously though I doubt very much I'll transfer 30 odd characters in fact probably not even 8, I play 3 regularly and a couple for their professions so at most 5, once my legacy is here, I can easily roll another.

[TrixxieTriss]

32 minutes ago, emperorruby said:

same if you have to spend 1000cc per character as a apac player in my case its 8000cc for 8 characters to transfer to shae vizla especially the older apac players who have much more to lose 

Completely agree. That’s why giving APAC players free transfers is essential if the dev team want to give something back to the APAC community. I think my other suggestion is more than fair. I’m an original APAC player, but on my other 2 accounts I don’t play anymore since the first merge & then the second. There are quite a few of us who dropped other accounts or started new ones in the 12 years since the original APAC servers. 

Edited December 24, 2023 by TrixxieTriss

[emperorruby]

10 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

you only have 8? O.o
lol seriously though I doubt very much I'll transfer 30 odd characters in fact probably not even 8, I play 3 regularly and a couple for their professions so at most 5, once my legacy is here, I can easily roll another.

i have more than that its just i cant afford to at full price and i don't know how many free free transfers you get at this time i like to plan around known facts   

Edited December 24, 2023 by emperorruby

[TrixxieTriss]

6 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

you only have 8? O.o
lol seriously though I doubt very much I'll transfer 30 odd characters in fact probably not even 8, I play 3 regularly and a couple for their professions so at most 5, once my legacy is here, I can easily roll another.

I’ve got more than 100 characters across the 2 US servers & another 20 spread across the EU servers. Obviously I can’t transfer them all because it would exceed the server character cap. But I would like to transfer about 50. Especially those I paid extra character slots for. I think I’m up to 57 max characters per server. I’m not sure what the current free character slot limits are for subscribers now. But I’m pretty sure I’ve roughly paid to open around 20-30 extra slots. And as long as Broadsword do the right thing with free transfers & our stuff, I’ll probably end up paying to open another 43 more so I can bring as many characters with me before I hit the server character limit.

[TrixxieTriss]

6 minutes ago, emperorruby said:

i have more than that its just i cant afford to at full price and i don't know how many free free transfers you get at this time i like to plan around known facts   

If they add the free transfer per month for all Subscribers, as I’ve suggest, then eventually you’d be able to transfer them all as long as you stay subscribed each month. If they decide not to do that, which is probable, then I do hope they permanently reduce the price of transfers down to something like 90cc.

[TrixxieTriss]

24 minutes ago, DWho said:

Earn a transfer program (though I think it should start with the opening of the server and not be applied retroactively)

Yes, this is my suggestion for every subscriber moving forward. 1 month subscription time = 1 Free transfer on your account. 

But I do think it’s fair to offer 8 free transfers for APAC players that have accumulated at least 6-12 months subscription time on their account over the years. 

I’d also go like to see that applied to character expansion slots. So APAC players get an extra free transfer for each extra character slot they’ve paid to open. 

Edited December 24, 2023 by TrixxieTriss

[emperorruby]

6 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

If they add the free transfer per month for all Subscribers, as I’ve suggest, then eventually you’d be able to transfer them all as long as you stay subscribed each month. If they decide not to do that, which is probable, then I do hope they permanently reduce the price of transfers down to something like 90cc.

more likely they do 90cc as a limited time offer for APAC players    

[TrixxieTriss]

Just now, emperorruby said:

more likely they do 90cc as a limited time offer for APAC players    

I’m only suggesting that if they decide not to implement my one free transfer for subscribers each month. If they do that, there is no reason to discount them. 

[DWho]

3 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Yes, this is my suggestion for every subscriber moving forward. 1 month subscription time = 1 Free transfer on your account. 

That's probably too many, though it's not a bad place to start that discussion. Honestly I don't know what the right number would be. Broadsword would probably have to look at what they gain from subs vs what they lose from transfers (I don't know of any good source of info on the number of transfers that are currently occurring per month)

[emperorruby]

23 minutes ago, DWho said:

That's probably too many, though it's not a bad place to start that discussion. Honestly I don't know what the right number would be. Broadsword would probably have to look at what they gain from subs vs what they lose from transfers (I don't know of any good source of info on the number of transfers that are currently occurring per month)

likely 3 too 12 month = 1 Free transfer on your account.     

Edited December 24, 2023 by emperorruby