Shae Vizla Launch Updates

[AFadedMemory]

2 minutes ago, DeannaVoyager said:

The only thing that is getting crippled here is the future of Shae Vizla, if raiders can't afford to raid there. 

I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. I can see it taking longer to grow, but I think it will still have healthy growth.
 

i do agree that raiders are impacted by high repair cost more than other players. I’m just expressing that a good number of players that are using the server will have their reason to use it damaged by the proposed solution (low charges or increase allowed credit transferred)

I believe the high cost should be addressed, but that it can be addressed  in a better/different way.

[Kingvedetta]

3 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

I don’t think that’s entirely accurate. I can see it taking longer to grow, but I think it will still have healthy growth.
 

i do agree that raiders are impacted by high repair cost more than other players. I’m just expressing that a good number of players that are using the server will have their reason to use it damaged by the proposed solution (low charges or increase allowed credit transferred)

I believe the high cost should be addressed, but that it can be addressed  in a better/different way.

Again only showing you've been back since SV began, a very large endgame community now inhabits SV from SF and SS that have been around longer sending over just enough credits for operational survival is needed, it's not 2012 and we don't need a "build up"

[Jodstaimpslayer]

Exactly, what's the point of raiding if we can't sustain the high repair bill and don't have the time or patience to grind for credits. Guilds can't even bear the cost so the players are forced to cover the costs themselves. What about those who want to build up their flagships to aid their members? Many are coming from fully established guilds on SS and SF.

Edited January 21 by Jodstaimpslayer

[AFadedMemory]

26 minutes ago, Kingvedetta said:

This pretty much confirms you've only been back a short time, these repair costs were part of inflation reduction tactics on SS and SF, SV has been collateral of that. Higher than average gearing costs compared to vanilla and no great way to generate credits those of us that have been around since the start know what transferring these credits will mean for our play style (keeping us in business) none of which leads to inflation. The initial talk of credits was 1b not 5-10 or 20.

There is literally ten thousand 100,000s in a billion. I don’t think you need that much to recover from a raid.

Edited January 21 by AFadedMemory

[Nommaz]

30 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

They were cheap once but became expensive because there was too much credit. The fact that these sinks are crippling people and their efforts to a mass wealth is kinda the point. 

As it has been explained many many times in this thread alone, the current pricing for this one other "incentives" were designed for a system that had trillions of credits in it and extreme inflation, it was never designed for a new server with no or hardly no credits in it, And what's worse is that it will only encourage credit sellers. it is not healthy for SV to have this system in pace without the additional credit influx, you cant have it both ways, either continue with a better system designed for a low credit population, or allow credit transfers the same as other realms. 
Yes I know you consistently argue this is what the system was for, but in this case you are wrong.
As it was a new server it should have followed the rules set way back when there was no money in the economy and have "Fresh server prices", You all want that fresh server feeling right hahahah.
 

[AFadedMemory]

12 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

As it has been explained many many times in this thread alone, the current pricing for this one other "incentives" were designed for a system that had trillions of credits in it and extreme inflation, it was never designed for a new server with no or hardly no credits in it, And what's worse is that it will only encourage credit sellers. it is not healthy for SV to have this system in pace without the additional credit influx, you cant have it both ways, either continue with a better system designed for a low credit population, or allow credit transfers the same as other realms. 
Yes I know you consistently argue this is what the system was for, but in this case you are wrong.
As it was a new server it should have followed the rules set way back when there was no money in the economy and have "Fresh server prices", You all want that fresh server feeling right hahahah.
 

If these sink were implemented at the beginning of the game would inflation have been as bad? If so would it have gotten bad faster or slower then it did?

you also have to understand lv 80s generate more credits then original lv 50 and those credits do not leave the game except through sinks.

Edited January 21 by AFadedMemory

[Nommaz]

9 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

f these sink were implemented at the beginning of the game would inflation have been as bad? If so would it have gotten bad faster or slower then it did?

If they were the game would have lost far more players far more quickly than it did, this wasn't even a discussion back in the beginning, well before the inflation effected things, common sense really.. 

[Nommaz]

Nobody is saying there is no need for some credit sinks to stave off the inevitable inflation for longer, they are saying they are too severe for this server, and they are right. especially where repairs are involved.

[AFadedMemory]

11 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

If they were the game would have lost far more players far more quickly than it did, this wasn't even a discussion back in the beginning, well before the inflation effected things, common sense really.. 

At the beginning most people were not focused on endgame. ( one could argue that is probably a significant number of people who still aren’t) Also correct me if I’m wrong but a lv 50’s repair cost would be cheaper then a lv 80’s. 
 

Now I’m not saying high repair cost are not damaging, but I am saying they should be addressed in a way that does not promote inflation.

Edited January 21 by AFadedMemory

[ufion]

1 hour ago, AFadedMemory said:

I strongly disagree.

high repair cost do impact end game operation players. however, the suggested fixes in this post would damage the economy or make credit farming more potent.

 

How does reducing the cost of repairs damage the economy ? The repair costs are an anti-inflation measure designed for the hyperinflated US servers. They need to be reduced for Shae Vizla. (You can't just say something 'damages' the economy without explaining the actual economic impact).

 

Shae Vizla endgame community can't survive unless we either get enough credits to support endgame Operations content, or if repair bills are heavily reduced to a fraction of what they are. 

[LEEscoundral]

 Agree the Majority of Raiders want open/unlimited characters and credit transfers.. There is a vocal minority here on the forums.. (I dont see them in the hundred odd discords i use) I mix with the raiding community and haven't heard one person who isn't irritated with the current restriction on transfers and resent the idea of the economy being strangled, (i assume for the sake of cartel market profits).. We have really paid our dues.. Having had our apac servers closed in the past and over the years building up what we have, on terrible ping mind you.. only to grind heroics again to pay for repairs.. then to suggest restrictions credits with tranfurs.. For crying out loud.. This is ridiculous..

Edited January 21 by LEEscoundral

[ufion]

1 hour ago, AFadedMemory said:

i do agree that raiders are impacted by high repair cost more than other players. I’m just expressing that a good number of players that are using the server will have their reason to use it damaged by the proposed solution (low charges or increase allowed credit transferred)

You keep saying that low repair bills will damage the economy without actually listing a single reason how. Please stop this.

 

At the moment; the PvE endgame community is being severely punished. It can cost 1M-2M doing high-end PvE content in repairs per week. Those sort of repair bills were designed with a hyperinflated economy, and trying to make that money per week is just unsustainable.

The repair bills are currently inappropriate for Shae Vizla. Reducing the repair bill cost on Shae Vizla ensures that PvE endgame community can actually run content without bankrupting themselves every week.

It does not cause harm to the economy; because the amount of people who are running high end (difficult Veteran, MM operations) are people in 1-2 guilds. It's literally only about 20 people that I am aware of that are running difficult content, and the ones getting the million dollar repair bills. They are the ones being unfairly punished if Shae Vizla's anti-inflation measures are not balanced to match the economy. The casual player base do SM stuff / solo / daily stuff and rarely ever get repair bills anyway. Reducing them benefits PvE Endgame community, and has minimal to no affect on the economy. Period. 

 

[frizzydude]

2 hours ago, AFadedMemory said:

I strongly disagree.

high repair cost do impact end game operation players. however, the suggested fixes in this post would damage the economy or make credit farming more potent.

I suggest an alternative currency that is bond to toons that can be used in tandem with actual credit. 1 token equals 1 complete repair. This token could be given as rewards for weekly missions that require an ops group to complete.

1 token for completing the weekly. Raids are on a rotation. So prog teams who focus on 1 raid at a time, won't ever get said token unless they PUG. PUG raids have a dramatically increased risk of wiping or not completing. Therefore you've wasted a whole heap of time trying to get said token only for it not eventuate, meanwhile your gear durability has decreased to 0 and you are essentially naked.

 

[frizzydude]

6 minutes ago, ufion said:

You keep saying that low repair bills will damage the economy without actually listing a single reason how. Please stop this.

 

At the moment; the PvE endgame community is being severely punished. It can cost 1M-2M doing high-end PvE content in repairs per week. Those sort of repair bills were designed with a hyperinflated economy, and trying to make that money per week is just unsustainable.

The repair bills are currently inappropriate for Shae Vizla. Reducing the repair bill cost on Shae Vizla ensures that PvE endgame community can actually run content without bankrupting themselves every week.

It does not cause harm to the economy; because the amount of people who are running high end (difficult Veteran, MM operations) are people in 1-2 guilds. It's literally only about 20 people that I am aware of that are running difficult content, and the ones getting the million dollar repair bills. They are the ones being unfairly punished if Shae Vizla's anti-inflation measures are not balanced to match the economy. The casual player base do SM stuff / solo / daily stuff and rarely ever get repair bills anyway. Reducing them benefits PvE Endgame community, and has minimal to no affect on the economy. Period. 

 

To be fair, it's much more than 1-2M per week depending on how often you raid. 1 PUG run earlier got me a 300k repair. I PUG daily. This adds up

[AFadedMemory]

31 minutes ago, ufion said:

You keep saying that low repair bills will damage the economy without actually listing a single reason how. Please stop this.

People farm credit, Some players in vast amounts. Causing inflation. The reward credit amount and the missions/objectives that give them is higher then at launch. couple that by increased lv caps that also increase credit give per mission. Sinks are designed to take credits out of a system to limit the rate of inflation. If we went back to the original sinks they would be less efficient then they were at launch. This means SV’s economy would/could get inflation at a rate faster then any other server.

Edited January 21 by AFadedMemory

[FrontLineFodder]

3 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

People farm credit, Some players in vast amounts. Causing inflation. The reward credit amount and the missions/objectives that give them is higher then at launch. couple that by increased lv caps that also increase credit give per mission. Sink are designed to take credits out of a system to limit the rate of inflation. If we went back to the original sinks they would be less efficient then they were at launch. This means SV’s economy would/could get inflation at a faster then any other server.

wait, I need to understand this, if you couple please elaborate further.

If some players farm credits by ... playing the game... as it was intended... causes inflation.

what does that mean for players who do not farm credits and only do maybe a couple of heroics or a planet a day (and even then, not every day)

do we really need to penalise players who have the time or inclination to farm credits 24/7 because other players can not play as much or as often ?

or to this point, players who have played for years, wanting to enjoy the better experience of the regional server have to forfeit their work in order to play on said server

[ufion]

1 hour ago, Dylanof said:

Not acceptable at all.

This would effectively steal the hard work of people who have built the economy on the server to placate for repair bills that could be fixed through another system such as no gear damage inside an operation. 

ATM every piece of content has value. OP, Heroic, Vet/MM FP, PVP everything is rewarding for the amount of time you put in. To inject 250m per toon when the average amount of wealth a legacy has is 4 to 10m that would kill the economy through inflation imported from another server while thieving from the people who has invested their time into SV.

I'm sorry mate but this is completely unacceptable when other solutions can be implemented.

 

Several things:

• Please refrain from such dramatic and emotional language as "steal the hard work of people who built the economy". Statements like these are absurd - let's keep things analytical and respectful please. 
• Secondly, that statement doesn't make sense:

1. The people bringing across credits are Australians who were initially moved elsewhere years ago, who worked hard to make THAT money. It's their credits, rightfully theirs, and they have every right for it to be accessed on their new home.
2. All people on Shae Vizla have done hard work to build the economy. I myself have had to run heroics daily to generate millions, just to keep up wth guild costs AND repair bills. Since you're not an endgame raider and you don't do high end content, you have likely not generated the level of credits I have on the server. I've had to generate basically multiple millions every few days. My hard work (i,e - credit generation) pails in comparison to yours.

Lastly, what you have focused on is purely one of the suggestions I offered. I also suggested that repair bills being severely reduced (to say, 1/10th of what they are now). At the moment; the endgame community is being punished unfairly with repair bills designed for hyper-inflated economies. Shae Vizla does not have a hyper-inflated economy. The situation of repair bills needs to be changed. There is no way for the PVE Endgame community to be sustaned with the current situation of repair bills. 

 

No one else, such as SM players, PVPers , GTN floaters - etc - are affected by such high ongoing costs.

[AFadedMemory]

30 minutes ago, frizzydude said:

1 token for completing the weekly. Raids are on a rotation. So prog teams who focus on 1 raid at a time, won't ever get said token unless they PUG. PUG raids have a dramatically increased risk of wiping or not completing. Therefore you've wasted a whole heap of time trying to get said token only for it not eventuate, meanwhile your gear durability has decreased to 0 and you are essentially naked.

 

Priority targets is a weekly objective that requires an ops group to complete (well I suppose you can solo Lucky but that would take quite some time)

[frizzydude]

7 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

Priority targets is a weekly objective that requires an ops group to complete (well I suppose you can solo Lucky but that would take quite some time)

So you're telling me you want end game PVE raiders. MM raiders. To do world bosses to get a token to get 1 free repair? Surely you're not serious.

[AFadedMemory]

37 minutes ago, FrontLineFodder said:

what does that mean for players who do not farm credits and only do maybe a couple of heroics or a planet a day (and even then, not every day)

do we really need to penalise players who have the time or inclination to farm credits 24/7 because other players can not play as much or as often ?

Correct me if I’m wrong but you don’t need end game gear to complete heroics or a planet. Also don’t most of those missions give you gear? So you don’t even need to repair.

Yes because they create inflation. This game started out as a sub only game, but changed to the F2P system because they were loosing subs. This F2P system was designed to be less comfortable to entice people to subscribe. One of the most effective aspect of this process was the 1 million credit cap. Inflation lowers the spending power of 1,000,000. Keeping GTN item (specifically Cartel items) just barely above this cap increases the urgency to sub. It’s easier to justify a sub with all its benefits and lower price then to justify a 2400 CC purchase. Once new players sub to buy these cartel items it generates a greater demand for those items increasing (ideally) the number of them being bought from the cartel market.

Edited January 21 by AFadedMemory

[Dylanof]

1 minute ago, ufion said:

 

Several things:

• Please refrain from such dramatic and emotional language as "steal the hard work of people who built the economy". Statements like these are absurd - let's keep things analytical and respectful please. 
• Secondly, that statement doesn't make sense:

Ok lets break this down. You transfer in 250m credits per toon instantly going to the GTN and steal ill use that word STEAL the hours and effort and items that the community has put up there instantly enriching yourself. all under the guise of repair bills.

5 minutes ago, ufion said:

 

The people bringing across credits are Australians who were initially moved elsewhere years ago, who worked hard to make THAT money. It's their credits, rightfully theirs, and they have every right for it to be accessed on their new home.

1. All people on Shae Vizla have done hard work to build the economy. I myself have had to run heroics daily to generate millions, just to keep up wth guild costs AND repair bills. Since you're not an endgame raider and you don't do high end content, you have likely not generated the level of credits I have on the server. I've had to generate basically multiple millions every few days. My hard work (i,e - credit generation) pails in comparison to yours.

 

You are not taking into account the value of the credit on the other servers with 10+ years of inflation and hacks that have ballooned the available supply of credits(hence the deflationary action broadsword had to implement). I may not be a NiM raider i prefer smaller scale content such as MM but i do enjoy raid content and have progressed every HM OP during 6.0 and beginning of 7. You have no idea what i have done on either server or how much i generate or fund a guild in any expansion so please don't try and cowtow or belittle as the BIG MAN IN GAME.  Quite disgraceful in all honesty. 

14 minutes ago, ufion said:

Lastly, what you have focused on is purely one of the suggestions I offered. I also suggested that repair bills being severely reduced (to say, 1/10th of what they are now). At the moment; the endgame community is being punished unfairly with repair bills designed for hyper-inflated economies. Shae Vizla does not have a hyper-inflated economy. The situation of repair bills needs to be changed. There is no way for the PVE Endgame community to be sustaned with the current situation of repair bills. 

 

No one else, such as SM players, PVPers , GTN floaters - etc - are affected by such high ongoing costs.

I complain daily about the high level of repair bills and offered you a solution without the need to send in over 200 times the average wealth per legacy or credits from an overly inflated server. 

 

The inflation measures that we are paying are high but have kept the inflation in check on SV and are quite livable. Would i like to see perhaps a fixed rate for repair fees YES but not the wholesale importation of credits without adjustment to actual value designed to steal the hard work of peoples time under the guise of "repair fees"

 

Im quite willing to sit down and discuss this with you, But what you have suggested is inflationary and implausible for the current economy.

 

 

[AFadedMemory]

24 minutes ago, frizzydude said:

So you're telling me you want end game PVE raiders. MM raiders. To do world bosses to get a token to get 1 free repair? Surely you're not serious.

Players have to use a credit sink or complete an object that counts towards conquest, GS, helps other players, and arguably gives another repair in the form of actual credits. I apologize that my suggestion is so damaging.

Edited January 21 by AFadedMemory

[Nommaz]

35 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

People farm credit, Some players in vast amounts. Causing inflation

Farming credits does NOT cause inflation, People cause inflation, and its the reason we will eventually have it, because people are greedy, selling things for stupid amounts and greed cause inflation. The fact that people that farm credits have them to spend is just another cog, but not the cause.

 

38 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

be less efficient then they were at launch.

Yes that is correct, so a system designed for this server needs to be put in place, not one designed for servers with hyper inflation and trillions of credits.

39 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

This means SV’s economy would/could get inflation at a rate faster then any other serve

Not true at all, it is assumed it would but its far from a given.

 

 

32 minutes ago, FrontLineFodder said:

do we really need to penalise players who have the time or inclination to farm credits 24/7 because other players can not play as much or as often

No we don't as you said it will only hurt, there is zero reason to continue keeping this system which was designed for a different set of circumstances, it is wildly unfair to raiders, and its harsh to everyone realistically. Such a small thing but going from 1 to 70 so far on multiple toons I barely have enough to cover sending companions out on missions, let alone everything else, without being forced into taking credit making professions I don't want. 
I levelled 8 toons to 50 and amassed 2.5 million credits by playing the GTN (at the lower levels) and increasing the prices lol but it was the only way to keep up, so its having the opposite effect its supposed to because it is too harsh in a zero credit economy. 
Its not a wonder people are buying them and encouraging credit sellers.

37 minutes ago, FrontLineFodder said:

or to this point, players who have played for years, wanting to enjoy the better experience of the regional server have to forfeit their work in order to play on said server

I honestly don't have an issues with a credit reduction on server transfer but if its something ridiculous like 500k then I will it need to be millions (100-200 minimum) I think the current rate of 1 Billion Is more fair myself.
But a lot disagree.
So am willing to drop a bit but...
I only hope they are listening to APAC players and not people from NA EU etc that just decided to pick  our server for a "fresh start" Suggestion forums for asking for a fresh start server that way >>>
 

[frizzydude]

14 minutes ago, AFadedMemory said:

Players have to use a credit sink or complete an object that counts towards conquest, GS, helps other players, and arguably gives another repair in the form of actual credits. I apologize that my suggestion is so damaging.

As end game raiders, we dont want to be farming conquest. We dont want to be doing GS. We raid. That is why we play the game. But what everyone is suggesting by limiting the amount of credits that we have earnt from playing this game for a decade is ludicrous. They are the credits that we earnt. Farming content for years so why should we be made to suffer our experience because selfish people don't want "us" to ruin the economy. 

 

I see these options for SV:

1. Remove the credit sinks that were implemented on older servers. We don't have the credits to support such high taxes.

2. Allow us to bring over our hard earnt credits.

 

We've done our time farming heroics and other soloable content on this game. We shouldnt be forced to go back to farming dailies and heroics just to support our repairs and gear upgrades 

[AFadedMemory]

2 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

Farming credits does NOT cause inflation, People cause inflation, and its the reason we will eventually have it, because people are greedy, selling things for stupid amounts and greed cause inflation. The fact that people that farm credits have them to spend is just another cog, but not the cause.

If there is 1 billion credits in a system and a player has 5,000,000 of that 1 billion. Can that player list an item for 1 billion and make a sale while at the same time not losing what they already have?

If there is 100 billion credits in a system and a player has 5,000,000 of that 100 billion. Can that player list an item for 1 billion and make a sale while at the same time not losing what they already have?

5 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

Yes that is correct, so a system designed for this server needs to be put in place, not one designed for servers with hyper inflation and trillions of credits.

This sink is not game breaking though. Transfers will elevate the impact to some degree. It can also be addressed without changing it or adding more credits into the system. (As it has been stated a niche group of players are hurt the most. Giving them rewards that compensate for this damage could do a similar job)

 

17 minutes ago, Nommaz said:

Not true at all, it is assumed it would but its far from a given.

That’s where the would/could comes in. I’m aware it’s a theory. If there are not appropriate sinks in place and it has the same credit generating capacity it does now it would mostly likely arrive at a 100 billion credit economy faster then any other server did, especially with transfers.