Buying currency: thoughts

2.) Your buying credits devalues the effort I put into getting what I got.

4.) The path is the goal. Set a goal, have fun getting there and enjoy the rewards.

For instant-gratification, single-player experience - look elsewhere?

EVE has been referenced here, and by a very successful player of that game. None of the things you mention have happened in that game, where there is an UNREGULATED ability to buy credits. No hyperinflation, no unfair advantage. Can you provide me an example of a game that was destroyed by giving players the ability to buy small amounts of currency?

I am all against a system where you can buy money directly, because that would tip the in-game off balance and render it meaningless and I certainly dislike the sentiment of a clear distinction between players of several types, putting players into boxes. But....

I find the system that EVE Online employs beautiful, it solves many problems at once and naturally balances itself: You cannot buy money, you can only buy game time which you can then trade. It cannot tip the currency off balance because it does not inject new money into the system. The price for a game-time certificate is subject to supply and demand, if particularly many player would buy such certificates, the in-game price would drop. Gold farming has become largly irrelevant in EVE Online as far as I can tell. It is a way to trade currency around the corner while maintaining a healthy economy.

I am just not sure whether it is simply possible to utilize such a system with the same efficiency in SW:TOR. The bazaar on The Progenitor is not the same as Jita IV, it's a way smaller scale. The separation between two distinct factions which cannot directly trade with each other is not helping either. Nevertheless I find it a most interesting idea.

Let me start by saying, I am against in game currency being bought by real life money.

The problem with restrictions (as suggested in this thread), is the adage "if you give an inch, they'll take a mile." Sure BW can impose severe restrictions on the amount of credits one can buy in a time frame and further limit the max number of credits a given account can have (if they purchase credits with real money), but then you open up the flood gates to those who complain that it is not enough.

As proof, I look to WoW dual spec. In WoW, for a long time, if you wanted to change your skill tree setup you had to go to a vendor, reset your trees for a steadily increasing fee (that eventually maxes out), then reapply your points. A lot of players did this a lot - going back and forth between tanking or healing and DPS for raids, switching between PvE and PvP specs, etc. For years players asked for a cheaper faster way to change skill sets. Eventually, Blizzard implemented a dual spec system, where you can pay a single rather hefty fee (for the time) and one character can now have two specs.

For a while, most were happy. But then players started realizing that they really wanted more than two talent sets. They realized that for optimization, if they had a PvE healing spec and a PvE DPS spec, if they wanted to participate in PvP at an optimal level they had to pay to undo one of their two specs and redo it as PvP. And so the forums became flooded with requests for tri-spec. Some even went so far as to ask for unlimited specs (for a fee).

the kicker is that as it turns out, Blizzard was not at all happy with the effect(s) that dual spec had on the game. So going against their nature of "never say never" they actually did state that they would NEVER implement more than a two talent set system; that if they could reverse dual-spec they would, but they know they cannot.

And yet, the tri/multi-spec threads continue to appear on a regular basis.

My point is, two fold:

- be careful what you wish for you might get it but not the way you want it.
- even if what you suggest does come to pass, eventually it will not be enough

I will most likely quit if they make currency purchasable. That is just unacceptable to me. I will not play a pay to win game.

It's in the man nature and there are thousands of people that want the game as they like (some also threat to close the subscription if they are not satisfied) but it is bioware duty (and right) to develop the game following their design, suggestions can be appreciated but final decision must be at bioware side, not community side no matter what.

It is clear that people (and swtor community is a good example) can complain about everything and its opposite. It's in the man nature and there are thousands of people that want the game as they like (some also threat to close the subscription if they are not satisfied) but it is bioware duty (and right) to develop the game following their design, suggestions can be appreciated but final decision must be at bioware side, not community side no matter what.
Said that, i don't agree to not propose improvements to avoid further requests ( "if you give an inch, they'll take a mile") simply because bioware is, and have to remain, free to answer a firm and decisive "yes" or "no" to people requests. Otherwise the game will not go anywere.it seems that you agreed with my strict limit rules proposal, i don't know other people ideas, but i'd start from that not because it is my proposal but simply because it is a proposal that tries to take the good of the suggestion putting an hard limit on the risks connected to it.

I agree - in order to be careful, a pilot or a gradual implementation would be better.