Again, high priced mounts and pets are NOT universal credit sinks. Some will choose to buy them and some will choose not to buy them. Repair costs are universal.

Again (read a few posts up), repair costs are not universal. They just require slightly more effort to control than avoiding the purchase of a speeder.

Additionally, repair costs, if they are too high, drive away subscribers which decreases revenue for the game's publisher which can't possibly be a good thing for the game.

If this was an intentional change, and if the ultimate goal was to remove money from the game, they probably would be less willing to create vendor novelty items at this point because it would directly compete with the cartel market.

 

In order for repair costs to work as a money sink they need to be innocuous enough that community doesn't mind that they are there, yet high enough to actually compete with all the sources of income this game has.

 

Frankly, daily quests are the biggest contributing factor to inflation and credit bloat in the game, they could easily have left repair costs alone and decreased the the value/frequency of vendor trash from daily zones and reduced the daily rewards themselves.

 

Or they could do a little of both. Honestly, I believe this fix is not working as intended. As has been pointed out before, if you read the actual patch information regarding this change it only states that Enhancements weren't being factored into repair costs.

 

At most this should be a 50% increase to repairs (33% if the shell item also incurs it's own repair costs.) so people should probably being seeing a repair cost increase from ~3000 to ~5000 for the gear damage inflicted from a death at 50 in decent progression gear. That, to me, is not unreasonable.

 

If they are indeed looking to reduce the amount of money in the game then they should look to stem the inflow rather than try to increase the outflow.

If they nerfed the credit rewards from dailies, and the trash drops from mobs in the daily areas, the outcry on the forums would make this debate look like a standing ovation. All one has to do is go the WoW forums and check out the threads about the reduction of gold drops from old raids, and vendor prices for drops from those raids.

Someone who has no clue whatsoever how the forum admins work. They can't comment on crap like this. This issue will take time to sort out, since there will need to be data obtained.

Or they could come out and say:

Hey folks!

Yes, it seems you folks are generally unhappy with the repair prices. I will forward your complaints to the devs for further analysis. I'll keep in touch!

Just to be kind, just to show they actually have a communications team. Even if such response does not aggregate much, it officially aknowledges they know the issue being complaint at.

If the goal of the repair cost increase is to remove credits from the game, the devs did absolutely the wrong thing.

In the economy of this game, you have people who are perpetually broke. They grind enough credits to do what they want to do, do that thing and get them near broke again, then they grind more credits and the cycle continues. These are the people who pay the most repair bills. These are also the people who do not horde credits.

Then you have the people who horde credits. Tens to hundreds of millions at a time. They have so many credits because they know how to make them but they are equally adept at NOT SPENDING them, much like the uber-wealthy in the real world.

But here's the thing... the uber-wealthy will buy exotic cars. The uber-wealthy will buy yachts. The uber-wealthy will spend $10,000 to $100,000 on a suit or dress for a special occasion.

If you really want to reduce the number of credits in the game, the way to do this is not by taxing the people who constantly churn credits. Everything they get goes right back out of their hands anyway.

You need to give the wealthy something to spend their money on. They're smart enough to avoid the "taxes" you're trying to impose with your increased repair bills. They're smart enough to avoid any tax you try to impose.

But if you give them something suitably sexy to buy, some (not all, but some) of them will buy it.

I think there's a very good chance you're right. I wouldn't be at all surprised if what they were really trying to fix were cases where people would rip mods out of shells, sell the shell for full price, and then sell the mods (or re them). Maintenance is coming through tonight, have to see if they fix this.

If the new repair costs are bugged, the bug should obviously be fixed. The costs should be working as intended.

I think Bioware knows how much credits people have and some how think the larger percentage have 2 million + credits and think they need to spend more. They are essentially raising the Interest rates to suck in all that extra money. Then at some future point the market will stabilize because folks don't have as much.

Right now as someone who sells on the GTN I can put something up for 500k and know it will sell cause people are bleeding credits.

I still think it sucks but then again be glad equipment doesn't have decay. If it did once it hit a certain amount of decay you wouldn't be able to repair it and would be forced to buy a new one...

If the new repair costs are bugged, the bug should obviously be fixed. The costs should be working as intended.

Well, they said that the new repair costs are the correct amounts in the 1.7 patch notes.

"Item sell values and item repair costs now reflect the value of the items and any enhancements attached to them. Previously, items were incorrectly being valued without their enhancements."

Reminded me of this from Office Space

Bob#1: Here's a peculiar... Uh, Milton Waddams.

Dom: Who's he?

Bob#2: You know, squirrely looking guy. Mumbles a lot.

Dom: oh, yeah.

Bob#1: We--we can't actually find a record of him being a current employee here.

Bob#2: I looked into it more deeply, and I found that apparently what happened is that he was laid off 5 years ago, and no one ever told him about it, but through some kind of glitch in the payroll department, he still gets a paycheck. So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch.

Lumbergh: Great.

Dom: So, uh, Milton has been let go.

Bob#1: Well, just a second there, professor. We, uh, we fixed the glitch. So he won't be receiving a paycheck anymore. So it'll just work itself out naturally.

Bob#2: We always like to avoid confrontation whenever possible. The problem is solved from your end.

Lol I have to laugh at those who say 'stop being lazy' and to go and do dailies etc. Okay I hate the dailies, HATE them. I game the GTN a lot but still can't cover my rakata repair costs. Yes it probably is possible to make 400k credits etc in a day doing all the stuff u hate doing. The bottom line is why the hell would I want to spend hours doing something I hate when this is supposed to be something you do for fun?

I will be unsubbing if repair costs or rewards aren't adjusted cuz my endgame is now over.

Actually no the bottom line is I'm struggling with a recession in the UK, now I have to struggle with one in the galaxy........lol

do bw/ea want to remain employed or will they watch sub numbers circle the drain?

OOOOH. The "do what I want, or a lot of players will quit" threat. What happens if EA/BW reduces the cost to pre-1.7 costs due to the threatened numbers of players who would quit? I'll take a guess. A lot of people would be happy right now with the reduced repair costs, fine. But down the line, people get the idea that since EA/BW changed one thing due to threatened numbers of quitters, let's try it again. Maybe it's that someone doesn't like the fact that we only get tionese gear at 50. They want Rakata gear. They start a campaign that gathers a lot of support for Rakata gear to be handed to every new 50, or a lot of people will quit. Maybe EA/BW listens again, maybe they don't.

It's the old "If you give a mouse a cookie..." syndrome.

OOOOH. The "do what I want, or a lot of players will quit" threat. What happens if EA/BW reduces the cost to pre-1.7 costs due to the threatened numbers of players who would quit? I'll take a guess. A lot of people would be happy right now with the reduced repair costs, fine. But down the line, people get the idea that since EA/BW changed one thing due to threatened numbers of quitters, let's try it again. Maybe it's that someone doesn't like the fact that we only get tionese gear at 50. They want Rakata gear. They start a campaign that gathers a lot of support for Rakata gear to be handed to every new 50, or a lot of people will quit. Maybe EA/BW listens again, maybe they don't.

 

It's the old "If you give a mouse a cookie..." syndrome.

I go to this one club and it's really fun. Great drinks, good atmosphere, lots of beautiful women.

Then, one day, they decided that everyone needed a swift kick in the junk on the way in. Well, most of us decided to stop going but a few people loved the club so much they kept going. The rest of us complained to management.

Well, lo and behold after a week of junk-kicking, the clubs's revenues fell so much that they decided to reverse the policy and apologize to us all for the silly mistake. Now most of us are back and the club's as good as ever.

We're asking EA to stop kicking us in the junk. We're not asking for free drinks.

OOOOH. The "do what I want, or a lot of players will quit" threat. What happens if EA/BW reduces the cost to pre-1.7 costs due to the threatened numbers of players who would quit? I'll take a guess. A lot of people would be happy right now with the reduced repair costs, fine. But down the line, people get the idea that since EA/BW changed one thing due to threatened numbers of quitters, let's try it again. Maybe it's that someone doesn't like the fact that we only get tionese gear at 50. They want Rakata gear. They start a campaign that gathers a lot of support for Rakata gear to be handed to every new 50, or a lot of people will quit. Maybe EA/BW listens again, maybe they don't.

 

It's the old "If you give a mouse a cookie..." syndrome.

ah the slippery slope fallacy, i was wondering when you were going to show up. i mean we already had the word "entitled" appear on this thread and something to do with democrats on the other, so it was only a matter of time for this appear.

OT: no what you said wont happen, and do you know how i know this? because ppl said the same thing with prefer players getting extra quickbars and that it will lead into a players demanding more and more lax restriction onto the f2p model...i have read these forum everyday since f2p and I HAVE NOT seen any threads where a majority , if not half of the players on this forum or in game continue ask more lax restrictions. ofc some do appear once in a while, but those thread normally simply just get the "no freeloader" responses.

I wish they didnt fix this "bug". If they were going to fix a long running bug, they should have made the taxis on Coru and Nar solid and not flashing in and out. That bug fix wouldnt have caused an uproar... The only positive side to this is when I die from a PVP person as I try to do my PVE in Ilum, I dont have to face those high repair costs.

This fix and the change to the GTN search terms really made for a crappy 1.7 update.

Stop saying the rep cost where higher in 1.2. You are forgetting all the nerfs to chests, rewards, cash from mobs etc. that has occurred in the time between 1.2 and now.

 

Our income is WAY lower.

They removed some of the chest in lower level FP's so that players couldn't just go in with a a geared or even ungeared 50, steamroll the instance for free blues and possible purples to sell on the AH.

They also added about 400-500k a day in daily rewards, not including the vendor costs of any trash items, or the AH value of any lucky blue or purple drops. BTW, I usually net at least one purple BOE a day doing dailies.

How is our income, or potential income, WAY lower?

Again, high priced mounts and pets are NOT universal credit sinks. Some will choose to buy them and some will choose not to buy them. Repair costs are universal.

I've been doing some looking at the literature about game economies and the necessity of gold sinks and how they should be structured. I haven't seen anything that indicates that gold sinks need to be universal in order to function properly. Gold sinks exist to remove credits from the game economy. As far as I've seen, whether the gold sink is "universal" or will only impact those with excess credits to burn doesn't seem to matter.

Have you found any sources that would indicate a gold sink needs to be universal in order to work?

I go to this one club and it's really fun. Great drinks, good atmosphere, lots of beautiful women.

 

Then, one day, they decided that everyone needed a swift kick in the junk on the way in. Well, most of us decided to stop going but a few people loved the club so much they kept going. The rest of us complained to management.

 

Well, lo and behold after a week of junk-kicking, the clubs's revenues fell so much that they decided to reverse the policy and apologize to us all for the silly mistake. Now most of us are back and the club's as good as ever.

 

We're asking EA to stop kicking us in the junk. We're not asking for free drinks.

You left the club, and got them to stop kicking you in the junk. That's a good thing, I agree. But what happens when you decide that the drinks there are too expensive? What will you do then? Will you and your cronies take your business elsewhere again, or threaten to do so, in an attempt to get the your preferred club to lower its prices? If they lower the prices on their drinks, what's next? What will be the next thing you want--the next reason to threaten to go elsewhere unless your demands are met?

I go to this one club and it's really fun. Great drinks, good atmosphere, lots of beautiful women.

 

Then, one day, they decided that everyone needed a swift kick in the junk on the way in. Well, most of us decided to stop going but a few people loved the club so much they kept going. The rest of us complained to management.

 

Well, lo and behold after a week of junk-kicking, the clubs's revenues fell so much that they decided to reverse the policy and apologize to us all for the silly mistake. Now most of us are back and the club's as good as ever.

 

We're asking EA to stop kicking us in the junk. We're not asking for free drinks.

To be fair, the club was called "Junk Kickers".

You left the club, and got them to stop kicking you in the junk. That's a good thing, I agree. But what happens when you decide that the drinks there are too expensive? What will you do then? Will you and your cronies take your business elsewhere again, or threaten to do so, in an attempt to get the your preferred club to lower its prices? If they lower the prices on their drinks, what's next? What will be the next thing you want--the next reason to threaten to go elsewhere unless your demands are met?

I used to DJ quite a bit up until a few years ago. I spent many a night in bars working or otherwise patronizing. When the state of Illinois imposed a no smoking ban in its bars business was greatly reduced for a lot of those bars. One though stood out, it was always packed with people from early in the evening until closing time. The owner of the bar said to hell with the smoking ban and let people light up anyways. Once in awhile the cops would come in and ticket the people smoking. The owner would then come around and collect every single one, pay them off, raise his drink prices a buck for a few weeks to a month to recoup cost and everyone was happy.

The point is there are other ways to keep your customers happy. The owner by the way made a killing.

ah the slippery slope fallacy, i was wondering when you were going to show up. i mean we already had the word "entitled" appear on this thread and something to do with democrats on the other, so it was only a matter of time for this appear.

 

OT: no what you said wont happen, and do you know how i know this? because ppl said the same thing with prefer players getting extra quickbars and that it will lead into a players demanding more and more lax restriction onto the f2p model...i have read these forum everyday since f2p and I HAVE NOT seen any threads where a majority , if not half of the players on this forum or in game continue ask more lax restrictions. ofc some do appear once in a while, but those thread normally simply just get the "no freeloader" responses.

In this very thread, you contradict your own argument. You use the extra quickbars as a "slippery slope fallacy". You know that people argued that giving preferred players extra quickbars would lead to players demanding more lax restrictions on the F2P model. You admit that there have been multiple threads on these forums asking for fewer restrictions on the F2P model. Seems like exactly what was predicted happened--more demands for fewer restrictions predicted, and more demands for fewer restrictions actually seen.

For the record, I agreed with the decision to give preferred players more quickbars and fewer restrictions than a true F2P player. That does not diminish the slippery slope that was created.

Anyone who reads these forums can see the multiple threads demanding a credit cap unlock, medical probe unlocks, permanent unlimited FP, OPS warzone unlocks. In fact, there are threads asking for, or demanding, unlocks for every feature that a subscriber gets.

Does it mean that just because there are threads demanding things that EA/BW will listen? No, it doesn't. The fact remains, though, that every time EA/BW changes something based on people threatening to quit, it further reinforces the "We can hold our breath til we get what we want" mindset some people have. Some changes are worth making. Some changes may not be. The ultimate decision on whether or not to change something should be not be based on the number of players threatening to quit, but rather on the merits of the possible change.

ah the slippery slope fallacy, .

That's not actually slippery slope fallacy. He's simply postulating that event A would lead to event B.

*EDIT

Or in clearer terms, his hypothesis is that rewarding undesirable behavior will encourage that undesirable behavior in the future.

I've been doing some looking at the literature about game economies and the necessity of gold sinks and how they should be structured. I haven't seen anything that indicates that gold sinks need to be universal in order to function properly. Gold sinks exist to remove credits from the game economy. As far as I've seen, whether the gold sink is "universal" or will only impact those with excess credits to burn doesn't seem to matter.

 

Have you found any sources that would indicate a gold sink needs to be universal in order to work?

I've not looked for any sources that claim a credit sink should be universal, nor do I have to find any to make an observation on already evident facts. I recall simply pointing out that the proposed alternate credit sinks are not universal while repair costs are.

Repair costs are not voluntary, while the proposed alternate credit sinks would be. Do I have to go find a source that claims that credit should not be universal to make that observation?

OOOOH. The "do what I want, or a lot of players will quit" threat. What happens if EA/BW reduces the cost to pre-1.7 costs due to the threatened numbers of players who would quit? I'll take a guess. A lot of people would be happy right now with the reduced repair costs, fine. But down the line, people get the idea that since EA/BW changed one thing due to threatened numbers of quitters, let's try it again. Maybe it's that someone doesn't like the fact that we only get tionese gear at 50. They want Rakata gear. They start a campaign that gathers a lot of support for Rakata gear to be handed to every new 50, or a lot of people will quit. Maybe EA/BW listens again, maybe they don't.

 

It's the old "If you give a mouse a cookie..." syndrome.

No...they wouldn't. Because that's dumb. MOST people posting on these forums are intelligent enough to understand they don't get handouts. What they are NOT, are doormats, that don't voice their opinions on a seriously game impacting issue.

That's not actually slippery slope fallacy. He's simply postulating that event A would lead to event B.

 

*EDIT

 

Or in clearer terms, his hypothesis is that rewarding undesirable behavior will encourage that undesirable behavior in the future.

That rewarding of "undesirable behavior" encouraging future "undesirable behavior" is one of the major reasons why gambling is such a huge business. Just look at the number of casinos, lotteries, sports betting parlors, poker rooms, etc.

I've not looked for any sources that claim a credit sink should be universal, nor do I have to find any to make an observation on already evident facts. I recall simply pointing out that the proposed alternate credit sinks are not universal while repair costs are.

 

Repair costs are not voluntary, while the proposed alternate credit sinks would be. Do I have to go find a source that claims that credit should not be universal to make that observation?

If you can find one, I'd like to see it. I don't see it as evident that a credit sink must be universal in order to function properly, therefore more evidence would be helpful in proving your point.

As far as my understanding goes from doing some reading on game economies is that inflation is caused by too much gold (or credits in this case) in the game economy. People with excess amounts of credits will then be willing to spend exorbiant amounts on even low-value items because they can. By providing "luxury" items such as high-priced vanity items, credits are taken out of the game economy through those with excess credits.

Since the credit hoarders have less excess credit, they are less likely to buy overpriced common items, returning the game economy to some sane level (I've seen articles that actually speak of "sanity checks" when evaluating game economies).

Repair costs are paid by everyone who engages in activities that involve damage and combat-induced death. Repair costs are typically used in games because they are a relatively passive gold sink (relatively because people can actively choose not to partake in combat by avoiding flashpoints and operations - which is what we're seeing). There is a place for them in the game, but when they become excessive to the point of restricting play, they have a negative impact on the game. (Fewer people taking part in ops is not a good thing for the game as a whole.)

You guys saying that these gear repair cost are overprice? you r troll? if not, how do player who are F2P that reach 50 lvl and it's require to pay the credit which they are limited to 200k cap? This need to fix asap.

I cant image how much it cost to repair on next swtor's expansion.

If you can find one, I'd like to see it. I don't see it as evident that a credit sink must be universal in order to function properly, therefore more evidence would be helpful in proving your point.

 

As far as my understanding goes from doing some reading on game economies is that inflation is caused by too much gold (or credits in this case) in the game economy. People with excess amounts of credits will then be willing to spend exorbiant amounts on even low-value items because they can. By providing "luxury" items such as high-priced vanity items, credits are taken out of the game economy through those with excess credits.

 

Since the credit hoarders have less excess credit, they are less likely to buy overpriced common items, returning the game economy to some sane level (I've seen articles that actually speak of "sanity checks" when evaluating game economies).

 

Repair costs are paid by everyone who engages in activities that involve damage and combat-induced death. Repair costs are typically used in games because they are a relatively passive gold sink (relatively because people can actively choose not to partake in combat by avoiding flashpoints and operations - which is what we're seeing). There is a place for them in the game, but when they become excessive to the point of restricting play, they have a negative impact on the game. (Fewer people taking part in ops is not a good thing for the game as a whole.)

Please tell me where in that post I said that credit sinks must be universal. Pointing out an already evident fact-- that repair costs are universal while the proposed alternate credit sinks are not universal-- is a far cry from claiming that credit sinks need to be universal.