Let Bioware create Slicing nerfed servers. People can transfer there if they want. Would you object to playing on a server that suits your playstyle and economic theories? If not, allow me my regular "unNerfed" servers. This way, everyone is happy.

 

Who has a problem with Slicing "unNerfed" and Slicing nerfed servers?

Sounds suspiciously like the Everquest Premium Servers tried to be.

 

I.e. Ghost towns full of rich ******es.

Sounds suspiciously like the Everquest Premium Servers tried to be.

 

I.e. Ghost towns full of rich ******es.

 

I'm not trying to sell anything. Also, pre-nerf Slicing countered gold farmers, post nerf, you'll be flooded with them. I'll bet the vast majority of players choose the "unNerfed" servers, proving no nerf was needed.

 

But you didn't answer my question. Are you for, or against having a choice on which server to play on (the post Slicing nerf, or pre-nerf servers)?

 

No one is forcing you to play on a server you think will be a ghost town. The transfer choice, should Bioware adopt this approach, would be up to you.

Let Bioware create Slicing nerfed servers. People can transfer there if they want. Would you object to playing on a server that suits your playstyle and economic theories? If not, allow me my regular "unNerfed" servers. This way, everyone is happy.

 

Who has a problem with Slicing "unNerfed" and Slicing nerfed servers?

 

No one would play on the nerfed servers. Sure they are happy they got Bioware to cave to the forum QQ, but if presented a choice they wouldn't choose to be on a regular server where no one would play.

No one would play on the nerfed servers. Sure they are happy they got Bioware to cave to the forum QQ, but if presented a choice they wouldn't choose to be on a regular server where no one would play.

 

I agree. I've posted this "fix" on the thread dedicated to the slicing nerf, and no one wants to answer my question, lol. If they won't go on a slicing nerfed server, then slicing didn't need to be nerfed.

You can't really be serious about this, can you?

 

You know the answer, and you know it has nothing to do with the question.

 

People wouldn't play on slicing-nerfed servers because it's an unnecessary fragmentation of the community, over a non-issue. Not, as you suggest, because it didn't need nerfed. This is a classic straw man argument, and that's likely why most people won't answer you.

 

Slicing needed nerfed. A crew skill that essentially exists for no other purposes than to rake in wads of credits is damaging to the economy. The issue is now fixed, and it's those who lost their meal ticket that are angry, not the rest of us. How about Bioware makes a handful of "Classic Slicing (Pre-Nerf)" servers? Would you go play on those?

Slicing did need nerfed. Big time. And while it is still profitable (ie. Spend hours at lock box locations at 3am farming super fast respawns) I predict a small buff to slicing so that its Level 6 missions bring a bigger return instead of a net loss.

 

As to the question:

 

I would play on a prenerf server. I think that the prenerf Slicing was Anti- Gold Farmer.

 

And if someone wished to complain about the amount of money generated by a prenerf Slicer my only response would be, Level an Alt with Slicing and join the club.

I think Bioware should make a new server for every change they make to the game!

Slicing needed a fine tuning, but I still think that Bioware overdid it, but this is one helluva tough "proffesion" to balance in the first place. Honestly, I'm surprised it made it into the actual game.

You can't really be serious about this, can you?

 

You know the answer, and you know it has nothing to do with the question.

 

People wouldn't play on slicing-nerfed servers because it's an unnecessary fragmentation of the community, over a non-issue. Not, as you suggest, because it didn't need nerfed. This is a classic straw man argument, and that's likely why most people won't answer you.

 

Slicing needed nerfed. A crew skill that essentially exists for no other purposes than to rake in wads of credits is damaging to the economy. The issue is now fixed, and it's those who lost their meal ticket that are angry, not the rest of us. How about Bioware makes a handful of "Classic Slicing (Pre-Nerf)" servers? Would you go play on those?

 

Yes, I would.

Cool idea, we could have a server type for every preference. I could have my own 1-man server, never have to listen to anyone whining in General again

 

Maybe even a wow server for those that miss wow

 

 

/signed!

 

 

 

...wait was this thread serious?

Cool idea, we could have a server type for every preference. I could have my own 1-man server, never have to listen to anyone whining in General again

 

Maybe even a wow server for those that miss wow

 

 

/signed!

 

 

 

...wait was this thread serious?

 

 

The thread was created to see what intelligent responses I would receive. I've had a few so far. I always appreciate intelligent responses.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Volki

Sure why not. Right now SWTOR history is pre-slicing nerf and after xD

Slicing did need nerfed. Big time. And while it is still profitable (ie. Spend hours at lock box locations at 3am farming super fast respawns)

 

 

The respawn times on slicing nodes are about 15-20 minutes. I just got a 1677 credit chest(c5 box, lv 48) from Corellia a lv 47-50 zone. Unless the box I loot is green+,6k credits an hour is not amazing. I do send my guys on slicing missions to increase that number.

 

I assure you doing anything else is more profitable than me being afk looting 1 box over and over while I am at work.

The problem with the old slicing is clear in 2 secs of looking at the data that been mined.

I mean just look here .

 

It only takes 3 seconds to see the major problem is the return on the Rich missions and the Level 25 to 40 Bountiful missions in this data. Going from 20 credits per min to 100+ it clear that they messed up with the data entries for these missions.

 

But look at the new data here.

And you see they changed these too far the other way now as as is show all Bountiful and some Rich missions return less then the 'lowest' yielding Moderate missions

 

Really all they need to do is to set the returns at lets say Moderate 10 creds/min, Abundant 20 creds/min, Bountiful 30 creds/min and Rich 40 creds/min profit on average and everything would be fine. If this is to high just change the return downwards a bit to say 5,10,15 & 20 or what ever value they think is right.

 

They should of set the return base as mission cost+X*time*box lvl where X is based on mission yield level then there should be a +/-Y factor to make the return vary and then the Crit bonuses amount applies to this IE +25% +50% +75% +100% or whatever the crit bonus should be.

 

Editted to add in box lvl factor that I left out.

Edited December 30, 2011 by Kotli

The thread was created to see what intelligent responses I would receive. I've had a few so far. I always appreciate intelligent responses.

 

You would get more with an intelligent suggestestion

Anybody who says having slicing returning high amounts of credits is anti-gold selling is deluding themselves.

 

Yes you as an individual have the ability to earn a large amount of credits, but so does everybody else. If slicing was the major way to earn credits everybody would be doing it and that means that credits get over inflated, the value of them becomes less and less the more people that use slicing to earn large amounts of credits. In the end everybody ends up on the same level and credit farmers will still exist because someone will always be looking for a way to get ahead of everyone else.

The problem with the old slicing is clear in 2 secs of looking at the data that been mined.

I mean just look here .

 

It only takes 3 seconds to see the major problem is the return on the Rich missions and the Level 25 to 40 Bountiful missions in this data. Going from 20 credits per min to 100+ it clear that they messed up with the data entries for these missions.

 

But look at the new data here.

And you see they changed these too far the other way now as as is show all Bountiful and some Rich missions return less then the 'lowest' yielding Moderate missions

 

Really all they need to do is to set the returns at lets say Moderate 10 creds/min, Abundant 20 creds/min, Bountiful 30 creds/min and Rich 40 creds/min profit on average and everything would be fine. If this is to high just change the return downwards a bit to say 5,10,15 & 20 or what ever value they think is right.

 

They should of set the return base as mission cost+X*time where X is based on mission yield level then there should be a +/-Y factor to make the return vary and then the Crit bonuses amount applies to this IE +25% +50% +75% +100% or whatever the crit bonus should be.

 

Except you never get bountiful + on lv 47-50 boxes in cl6 - ever. You only get them(from my personal experience) is cl5 or lower.

 

Try it and see for yourself. I have emptied the tier 6 slicing at a GREAT loss and maybe seen 1-2 ever. There is no reason to try to get augments until you have a piece of gear that has an open slot because no one is buying augments.

Making a separate server is not a solution. Making a slicing alt, is not a solution. Making slicing "required" for everyone is NOT a solution.

 

Slicing was going in a bad direction. It was becoming a "must have" skill. Either on your main, or on alts. If something becomes a "must have", then it should become a basic skill that everyone has. If that is not the intention, then it has to be brought in line with other skills.

 

All your recommended solutions do not do squat, because it does not address the problem. The problem is in a skill that generates credits directly. It's impossible to balance. They should change the lockboxes to a different kind of return.

 

I understand others that state the money from slicing helps the economy move. That is fine, and if BW wants that, they can accomplish it in other ways. Random lockbox returns on all missions, or more lockbox rewards from all quests.

 

Slicing itself is flawed. It will always be a problem because it is too easy to measure. It will either lose money (so it sucks), break even (not too good), or make money with one click (making it a printing machine). It should be changed altogether.

Except you never get bountiful + on lv 47-50 boxes in cl6 - ever. You only get them(from my personal experience) is cl5 or lower.

 

Try it and see for yourself. I have emptied the tier 6 slicing at a GREAT loss and maybe seen 1-2 ever. There is no reason to try to get augments until you have a piece of gear that has an open slot because no one is buying augments.

 

Yeah I forgot to include the box lvl factor.

Just spent 2025 on a RICH lv 5 missions with a companion that has + to slicing, I got a GREEN chest with 2206 as a reward for 30 minutes of not having my highest DPS char, so a profit of 181 credits.

 

6 credits per minute. Clearly working.

 

 

What am I doing wrong?

Printing money, with a few clicks, and minimal time is a red carpet engraved invitation for massive bot farming and credit sellers as well as a hyper-inflative state. Edited December 30, 2011 by LexiCazam
Rude - quote

I'm not trying to sell anything. Also, pre-nerf Slicing countered gold farmers, post nerf, you'll be flooded with them.

 

Rampant inflation is anti-gold farmers? How does that work !

ROFLMAO ... flag me for calling you out.

An entire server just for slicing? haha good morning laugh, thatnks.

 

They need to fix crafting, who the **** catres about slicing when the entire system is gimped.