Shae Vizla Launch Updates

[TrixxieTriss]

42 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

What about those of us who had multiple accounts & closed the ones we had on the original APAC server? 

At the end of the day, the only restrictions that are required will be credits. All the other restrictions people are arguing for will make little to no difference to fresh start players or the economy. But those restrictions would make a big difference to APAC players who want to transfer all their stuff. 

I recognise that flooding the server with credits will be detrimental for both fresh starts players, returning APAC players & any new players. It’s why I’ve suggested it from day one of discussing transfers. But I’m against totally stoping credit transfers. I think some amount of credits should be allowed & that should be legacy capped. I think this discussion would be more healthy & helpful for the community & Broadsword if we all started to discuss the cap instead of arguing extremes. 

The non negotiable points that need to happen for both player types

1. The APAC players need to be able to transfer all of their items with zero restrictions. This is the number 1 priority for 99.99% of APAC players. 

2. The fresh start players & returning APAC players need the credit transfers to be legacy limited once transfers happen. That is the number 1 priority for those players. 

Both these things can happen at the same time & not negatively affect either type of player or the server. 

What we need to help Broadsword figure out is what the credit cap should be. Because everyone will have a different amount they’ll be happy with. As long as that number isn’t zero, we have room for negotiations as to what the amount should be. 

And we really need to stop this other extreme talk of restricting APAC players transferring their actual stuff. Wether it’s cartel market items, crafted items, grinded gear or stacks of mats. Arguing for restrictions on that isn’t helping & will ultimately lose more players if any restrictions to those items are implemented. 

Edited December 29, 2023 by TrixxieTriss

[DWho]

7 minutes ago, Toraak said:

All APAC players regardless of when they made the characters should have special consideration on getting characters over to the new server.

So should I get special consideration for moving my characters from the EU servers to the US servers. My ping to the EU went through the roof after the AWS upgrade (almost double the ping and lots more unstable) so I'm disadvantaged there now with lots of characters "trapped" there. Where exactly do you draw the line at giving special considerations to "disadvantaged" players?

[TrixxieTriss]

16 minutes ago, DWho said:

I am happy to help out the former but very suspicious of the motivations of the later.

Sadly, most of the ones I’ve seen wanting to profit from it are people outside of the region. I think I’ve seen 1 actual APAC player wanting to profit from it. But that also goes both ways. There are fresh start players who want to protect their growing fiefdoms too.

[DWho]

3 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

At the end of the day, the only restrictions that are required will be credits. All the other restrictions people are arguing for will make little to no difference to fresh start players or the economy. But those restrictions would make a big difference to APAC players who want to transfer all their stuff. 

I recognise that flooding the server with credits will be detrimental for both fresh starts players, returning APAC players & any new players. It’s why I’ve suggested it from day one of discussing transfers. But I’m against totally stoping credit transfers. I think some amount of credits should be allowed & that should be legacy capped. I think this discussion would be more healthy & helpful for the community & Broadsword if we all started to discuss the cap instead of arguing extremes. 

The non negotiable points that need to happen for both player types

1. The APAC players need to be able to transfer all of their items with zero restrictions. This is the number 1 priority for 99.99% of APAC players. 

2. The fresh start players & returning APAC players need the credit transfers to be legacy limited once transfers happen. That is the number 1 priority for 99.99% of those players. 

Both these things can happen at the same time & not negatively affect either type of player or the server. 

What we need to help Broadsword figure out is what the credit cap should be. Because everyone will have a different amount they’ll be happy with. As long as that number isn’t zero, we have room for negotiations as to what the amount should be. 

And we really need to stop this other extreme talk of restricting APAC players transferring their actual stuff. Wether it’s cartel market items, crafted items, grinded gear or stacks of mats. Arguing for restrictions on that isn’t helping & will ultimately lose more players if any restrictions to those items are implemented. 

I fully agree with #2 and partially agree with #1. There can be short term restrictions on items that are not detrimental to APAC players and yet don't allow the server to be flooded with items to the point people can start creating monopolies there (I know you don't agree but I think this is a real possibility that can cause far more damage than you believe and is almost impossible to reverse once it happens). CM items, gear, and other things that people don't have hundreds of are of no consequence and should be transferred normally. I'd even go so far as to say you could transfer legacy currencies at a level consistent with the number of characters you have (if you had 1000 of the currency and 100 characters you could move 10 with each character). Also all resell cooldowns should terminate on transfer to keep people from trying to refund items on the new server.

[TrixxieTriss]

7 minutes ago, DWho said:

So should I get special consideration for moving my characters from the EU servers to the US servers. My ping to the EU went through the roof after the AWS upgrade (almost double the ping and lots more unstable) so I'm disadvantaged there now with lots of characters "trapped" there. Where exactly do you draw the line at giving special considerations to "disadvantaged" players?

If they were to move forward with my idea of 1 free transfer per month, per subscription, this would go a long way to alleviating that issue. 

[DWho]

1 minute ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Sadly, most of the ones I’ve seen wanting to profit from it are people outside of the region. I think I’ve seen 1 actual APAC player wanting to profit from it. But that also goes both ways. There are fresh start players who want to protect their growing fiefdoms too.

I'm sure its not a regional issue and is why some restrictions are needed.

[TrixxieTriss]

2 minutes ago, DWho said:

Also all resell cooldowns should terminate on transfer to keep people from trying to refund items on the new server.

This should be something that automatically happens with any transfer. It’s been a while since I’ve done any. Are you sure this isn’t already a feature? 
 

3 minutes ago, DWho said:

I'd even go so far as to say you could transfer legacy currencies at a level consistent with the number of characters you have.

I would also like to see this happen. But because it’s not part of the current transfer system, I can’t see them doing this anytime soon. 

5 minutes ago, DWho said:

point people can start creating monopolies

People are already creating monopolies. Why should those people be protected too? Opening it up will create more competition.

Remember, we aren’t talking about them opening transfers next week (which would be awesome btw). Realistically, they won’t get back to work till mid January. Then take 2-3 weeks dithering with their decision process. Then 3-4 weeks to technically get it ready & implement. So really, their time frame will be mid February at the earliest & more likely the beginning of March. 

By then, most fresh start traders or monopolies will be fully established & be able to absorb the impact of APAC players transferring their stuff. It will have little affect beyond offering more competition on the server. 

[TrixxieTriss]

12 minutes ago, DWho said:

I'm sure its not a regional issue and is why some restrictions are needed.

Consider this, people transferring credits could make a profit if there are no credit caps. But those transferring items to sell on SV will actually be selling them for much less than any other server if they impose a credit cap. It would be totally illogical to cap items coming to the server. But I could see a reason to cap items leaving the server. I could even see a reason to only allow 1 way transfers to the server for 6 months. 

[DWho]

8 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Consider this, people transferring credits could make a profit if there are no credit caps. But those transferring items to sell on SV will actually be selling them for much less than any other server if they impose a credit cap. It would be totally illogical to cap items coming to the server. But I could see a reason to cap items leaving the server. I could even see a reason to only allow 1 way transfers to the server for 6 months. 

My bigger concern on transferring effectively unlimited stacks of items is that it is used to get around the credit restrictions. Mats that are gathered have no player cost, so selling them to a vendor is pure profit even though the payout per item has been reduced. It would be easier to code restrictions for all stacks than to pick and choose which stacks to apply it to.

Some crafted items could be a problem if they are made from items that are much easier to obtain on the source server (such as PVP and Operations mats where server population plays a significant role in how easily they are obtained). Stuff made from grade 10 mats and below will never sell for significant amounts of credits anyway (the mats themselves are actually more valuable), but special materials can be quite difficult to obtain on a low population server (and the APAC server likely will always be relatively low population - what is and is not a viable population is open to quite a bit of debate).

I'd rather see transfers opened up sooner with stronger restrictions than later with less restrictions and you could really do both. Start with more restrictive transfers then open them up more as you see what the influx of items/materials does to the server economy. Again, I think whatever restrictions are decided on should be applied to all server transfers not just specifically to the APAC server.

It's pretty clear that the controls added to the other 5 servers are having a negative impact on new players (based on the number of complaints I've seen in the forums about the cost of just leveling on SV). Which was something many of us were concerned about when they implemented the quick travel fees and increased repair costs (but were told how "easy" it was to accumulate credits). That's a valuable piece of information that was gained from the "fresh start" aspect of the server.

Like I said before, a "transfer" that moves all legacy unlocks and progress to the new server is something that can be done without any risk of destabilizing the server.

[DWho]

37 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

This should be something that automatically happens with any transfer. It’s been a while since I’ve done any. Are you sure this isn’t already a feature? 

It's been a while for me as well, but at one point it was possible to buy an item on one server then refund it on another. I don't know if that was changed or not. If it hasn't it should be.

 

38 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Opening it up will create more competition.

I'm not convinced of this. One would expect that a highly populated server like SF would have enough supply to prevent monopolies, but they exist there as well. It depends more on how easy it is to get into the "business". Crafting low end gear that uses low level mats is a lot easier to jump in and out of than crafting high end items that take large numbers of fairly expensive mats. It comes down to whether someone thinks there is enough reward to put in the effort to break a monopoly (which can be a lot of effort).

[TrixxieTriss]

2 minutes ago, DWho said:

Mats that are gathered have no player cost, so selling them to a vendor is pure profit even though the payout per item has been reduced

How much are we really talking in credit returns? I’m assuming there would have to be some very extreme numbers to make that much of a difference. Honestly, what’s the return for selling mats at the vendors? I’ve never done it & it would be a massive waste of my time gathering all of those to do that. 

 

6 minutes ago, DWho said:

but special materials can be quite difficult to obtain on a low population server (and the APAC server likely will always be relatively low population

This is why they should be allowed to be transferred or there is little to no supply at all. People would still get more credits selling them on their US servers because you’ll still have limited credits on SV for the foreseeable future (hopefully). 

 

8 minutes ago, DWho said:

I'd rather see transfers opened up sooner

I would have liked that to happen too with the 7.4 release. They could have even made it so only 1-2 characters could be transferred & no credits. And then they could have done the less restrictive transfers they are discussing in February/March. But they didn’t do that & by the time they do, the restrictions your proposing on items will mean very little by March. All it will do is make it less likely that APAC players will transfer. 

You won’t change my mind on player or legacy items transfers. I firmly believe they should not be restricted in a transfer that is still 6-8 weeks away. So can we stop doing the back & forth on that & discuss credit caps instead? Because I think that’s the most important thing for transfers to be successful on SV. 

[DWho]

6 minutes ago, TrixxieTriss said:

So can we stop doing the back & forth on that & discuss credit caps instead? Because I think that’s the most important thing for transfers to be successful on SV. 

Alright since we won't agree on item restrictions, I'd start with no more than it takes to open up 1 stronghold fully (about 2.5 million per room times 9 rooms = about 25 million) with any single character with a legacy max of 250 million (~10 strongholds).

[TrixxieTriss]

26 minutes ago, DWho said:

It's pretty clear that the controls added to the other 5 servers are having a negative impact on new players (based on the number of complaints I've seen in the forums about the cost of just leveling on SV). Which was something many of us were concerned about when they implemented the quick travel fees and increased repair costs (but were told how "easy" it was to accumulate credits). That's a valuable piece of information that was gained from the "fresh start" aspect of the server.

The biggest drain on my credits on SV is repair costs. These are unreasonably priced in a fresh start scenario. Travel costs I can deal with because I can choose not to use QT, but repair costs need to be reduced or it will kill any raiding on SV. 

This is part of the reason some people are arguing for unrestricted credit transfers. It’s not to corner the GTN market or build a monopoly, it’s so they can play the game unrestricted like they do on the US or EU servers. Which I totally understand & get. Even people who mostly play space Barbies are severely restricted on SV because outfitter multiplies the costs the higher your character level gets. 

Sure, there will be some credit whales who just want to be the richest, but the majority of current players just want to be able to play the game the same way they do on the other servers. That’s why capping credits is going to piss off a lot of people like this. And I totally understand their point of view & even support it. 

But I can also see what how much damage unrestricted credit transfers could do to the returning or new players. And if they want to grow the server with these players, then those needs also have to be considered. 

I’ve personally put it out there that I’d be happy to only bring 50-100 million credits for my whole legacy. I’d be leaving Billions of credits on the other servers. But I also know that people who raid & might be helping new or returning people raid, could blow through those credits pretty fast with repairs. So it’s not as simple as we’d like to think. If you restrict credits for one group, you hurt another & if you don’t restrict them at all, you hurt new & returning players. 

Broadsword could of course reduce repair costs for just SV & then a transfer cap of 100 million credits per legacy wouldn’t seem as restrictive for raiders. Or they could reduce them across every server (but I think that’s a different discussion). 

Honestly, this is why we should be focusing on credits above everything else. It’s more complex than people think & discussing other items diverts Broadswords attention from the most important issue of credits. 

[TrixxieTriss]

10 minutes ago, DWho said:

Alright since we won't agree on item restrictions, I'd start with no more than it takes to open up 1 stronghold fully (about 2.5 million per room times 9 rooms = about 25 million) with any single character with a legacy max of 250 million (~10 strongholds).

For me, that would be more than enough. But what about if you’re a full time raider trying to build up the SV raiding community again? 

Are there any raiders who’d like to chime in with their thoughts on how much it’s costing in repair costs? Would 250 million be enough for you as well? 

[RainEbon]

Well, I don't post on SWTOR forums because I really don't see the point (devs rarely listen) but since my subscription is running out soon I might as well use that remaining time to make a post here in regards to the whole Shae Vizsla server situation. 

I'm honestly surprised to see posters that have been on these forums for years not realize what's going to happen, as if they don't already know Biowares or BroadSwords as they are called now modus operandi.

Whether its class balancing, new content, PvP, combat styles etc. the story always ends up being the same.

BioWare introduces something new or old that people are interested in but instead of listening to the player base they release it with a twist. And why do they do it? Because they are developing and adding things with a mindset that they know better and that the players don't know what they want. Call it arrogance or whatever you want.

So what is going to happen with the APAC server? Same thing that always happens. 

They will do nothing while making statements on the forums about how they are listening. Only when both new and old players are gone will they introduce transfers/changes that people were asking for but by that point it will be too late and the cycle of 'players don't know what they want' will continue. Say hello to your new ghost town/server, the French server will finally have a friend.

As for the 'healthy economy' and the 'fresh start' people I have only this to say. LOL, LMAO even. One server isn't going to change anything and its already showing the same sings that other five servers had during their road to a mess that we have now. By the way there are credit sellers on SV already.

So, BioWare have to ask themselves this - Do they want a 'healthy economy' or a 'healthy playerbase/player numbers' on Shae Vizsla?

Or maybe they are going to shut down other servers and force everyone to play on SV for the new, better and improved economy. Because you are not fixing it outside of taking everyone's credits.

edit - Damn, I have 8 posts. So I did post on these forums. XD

Edited December 29, 2023 by RainEbon

[TrixxieTriss]

1 hour ago, RainEbon said:

Well, I don't post on SWTOR forums because I really don't see the point (devs rarely listen) but since my subscription is running out soon I might as well use that remaining time to make a post here in regards to the whole Shae Vizsla server situation. 

I'm honestly surprised to see posters that have been on these forums for years not realize what's going to happen, as if they don't already know Biowares or BroadSwords as they are called now modus operandi.

Whether its class balancing, new content, PvP, combat styles etc. the story always ends up being the same.

BioWare introduces something new or old that people are interested in but instead of listening to the player base they release it with a twist. And why do they do it? Because they are developing and adding things with a mindset that they know better and that the players don't know what they want. Call it arrogance or whatever you want.

So what is going to happen with the APAC server? Same thing that always happens. 

They will do nothing while making statements on the forums about how they are listening. Only when both new and old players are gone will they introduce transfers/changes that people were asking for but by that point it will be too late and the cycle of 'players don't know what they want' will continue. Say hello to your new ghost town/server, the French server will finally have a friend.

As for the 'healthy economy' and the 'fresh start' people I have only this to say. LOL, LMAO even. One server isn't going to change anything and its already showing the same sings that other five servers had during their road to a mess that we have now. By the way there are credit sellers on SV already.

So, BioWare have to ask themselves this - Do they want a 'healthy economy' or a 'healthy playerbase/player numbers' on Shae Vizsla?

Or maybe they are going to shut down other servers and force everyone to play on SV for the new, better and improved economy. Because you are not fixing it outside of taking everyone's credits.

edit - Damn, I have 8 posts. So I did post on these forums. XD

This is & has been my concern all along.

[DanteYoda]

So i guess the server will die before we get transfers..

[Toraak]

7 hours ago, DWho said:

So should I get special consideration for moving my characters from the EU servers to the US servers. My ping to the EU went through the roof after the AWS upgrade (almost double the ping and lots more unstable) so I'm disadvantaged there now with lots of characters "trapped" there. Where exactly do you draw the line at giving special considerations to "disadvantaged" players?

The difference from you doing it and them is. They had no choice to be put on the NA servers in the 1st place. If you moved your characters intentionally to the NA servers, that was your choice.

 

The fact is they for the APAC players that joined later, they had no option but to play on EU or NA servers. You on the otherhand still had EU servers to play on. So if you put toons on the NA servers, you did it on purpose and knowing the lag issues you would have.

Edited December 30, 2023 by Toraak

[TrixxieTriss]

8 minutes ago, DanteYoda said:

So i guess the server will die before we get transfers..

It looks that way 😞
 

Still can’t get PvP to pop 2 days in a row. 

Edited December 30, 2023 by TrixxieTriss

[Nommaz]

16 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Why is that non APAC players are trying to dictate what the developers should do for the APAC server & APAC players when they don’t even live in the region. 

Exactly my point, I feel it was too succinct or the suggestion didn't come across.
Complain about it being unfair all the while actively proposing changes to suit a population not of this reason (predominately) , and then finding excuses, I am sorry "reasons" for those changes. 
BS clearly said they wanted to hear from predominately APAC players as we are the players the APAC regional server is aimed at.
The number of overseas players trying to make changes on the APAC regional server is ridiculous.

BTW Its listed as APAC regional server for anyone that wants to once again argue it's not or that BS didn't make their mind up, go look!

I do agree with a couple posts though, they SHOULD open a fresh start server, preferably sooner and in the US, but if people want to come over to play in our region, they are certainly welcome, but they should be respecting it, and us, not trying to change or make rules to suit themselves.

 

 

16 hours ago, Toraak said:

The non APAC players on SV should not be the main concern for that server, so those there for the fresh economy shouldn't be the main focus. The server's focus should ONLY be for getting the APAC players over to that server, and hopefully to get new players from that region playing the game.

^This couldn't have said it better myself, although I tried hahaha

 

 

18 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

BS definitely miscalculated when they opened the new server. They should have chosen to prioritized a single objective. study the economy of a fresh start server or please the APAC zone. Instead they thought they could do both. 

I do not believe that was the intent, but players have forced it to go this way and as above not all from APAC, As I said before people not in the APAC region should leave our server alone, and go and petition for a fresh start server in their own region if that's what they want, not see this as an opportunity to force wants on to a region they don't belong too.

[TrixxieTriss]

5 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

BS clearly said they wanted to hear from predominately APAC players as we are the players the APAC regional server is aimed at.
The number of overseas players trying to make changes on the APAC regional server is ridiculous.

I do hope they take this into account when reading the responses here & check where said posters originate from. 

[Nommaz]

12 hours ago, DWho said:

That only applies to the players that were forced to move. Very few of the current APAC players were even around back then. Ones that were should get some special attentions (though not through the transfers themselves). Just being in the region shouldn't be a benefit (outside the improved current ping).

They should have the same rules that are currently in place for ever other server transfer.
 

12 hours ago, Toraak said:

For all we know it may be whatever Broadsword does either brings back a lot of people or doesn't. I'd suspect putting limitations would bring less people in, but that's just my opinion.

 

The benefits outweigh a couple of $%^& hurt people from other regions, IMO.

9 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

Since your servers have been closed in the past it is not a stretch to assume they were not producing the results bioware wanted/needed

You were obviously not around or just ignorant of the fact that prior to shut down we had Dalborra had the population of the now SS and SF plus some, no one knows why they did it, but I suspect it had more to do with the costs, and they did not think the population would take a dive the way it did after the merge. 
We went from 3 servers to nothing and back to one which is 1/2 of the us servers, the us went from what 30 plus servers to 2? 

Dalborra was a very healthy server population wise, as I said much bigger than the current servers and they are still up.

 

8 hours ago, DWho said:

The last thing Broadsword should do

The last thing BS should do is listen to players from other regions trying to dictate what should happen on the APAC region server, yet here we are..

[FrontLineFodder]

11 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

The non negotiable points that need to happen for both player types

1. The APAC players need to be able to transfer all of their items with zero restrictions. This is the number 1 priority for 99.99% of APAC players. 

2. The fresh start players & returning APAC players need the credit transfers to be legacy limited once transfers happen. That is the number 1 priority for those players. 

Both these things can happen at the same time & not negatively affect either type of player or the server. 

1. You are spot on and no one from APAC disagrees with you
2. you are mistaken that players need restrictions on credit transfers (or any other transfers for that matter) for them to continue playing on SV as a fresh start
   • Any player can CHOOSE not to transfer any characters, thus preserving their ability to play on SV as a fresh start server
   • BS could open up options in the transfer process to allow players to CHOOSE what is transferred.

your comment that both can happen is puzzling, you can't not limit and also limit transfers.

BS have had (almost) a month to review the economy, they can choose to continue to monitor it of only so much longer. but some announcement on how they will handle this issue is needed.

From my perspective, I Will drop my subscription and stop playing if they introduce restrictions. playing on SV has been so much better than any of the other servers. I have at a minimum of 6 characters with all the crafting skills I want to transfer.

 

[Anhkriva]

3 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

On SV credit sellers are offering 1 million for $17. I haven’t seen an offer on a high inflation server for awhile but if it’s similar to the last one I remember it would probably look like 100 million credits for $17. 

A heroic gives a lv 80 character  about 25,000 credits for a reward.  I could get 1 million credits after about 40 heroics (that doesn’t include bonus or looting or the loot box item/credits so it would probably be less) 
 

In order to get 100 million credits I would have to complete 4000 heroics (again probably less but still in the thousands.) I’m pretty sure inflation would also cause people to buy credits(if skipping 4000 heroics were not incentive enough) especially since cartel items that are going for about 2.5 million in sv are going for about 500 million on other servers.

If I remember correctly, yesterday on Malgus I saw an offer of 100 million credits for $3.60

[DWho]

10 hours ago, Toraak said:

So if you put toons on the NA servers, you did it on purpose and knowing the lag issues you would have.

The lag issues are new. They started with the AWS update. When I placed them there, they had lag similar to the current lag on SV. Now SV is much better than EU.