Jump to content

The-Kaitou-Kid

Members
  • Posts

    1,401
  • Joined

Reputation

91 Excellent
  1. It's really weird to take people complaining about a nerf as them hating the entire system in question. Conquest is one of the main driving factors for me when playing the game. The content I like to play doesn't have great rewards, so Conquest basically is the reward for that content, and since the objectives for that content were nerfed into the ground several years ago, the rep objective was what helped make up the difference. It allows me to do what I want with the time that I have, and then use the rep objective to finish off. That's no longer possible, so I'll get through what I have time for, realize I'm still 30-40k short, and now I have to go do something else to make up the rest when I wanted to either be done entirely or switch to another character. To imply that means I dislike the entire system is completely disingenuous (or you've given zero thought to why people might have an issue with it). You're not the first person I've seen make that argument and it's incredibly silly in my opinion. If you don't have a problem with it, that's totally fine, but that doesn't mean that other people can't have a legitimate issue with it without hating the entire system. Also good to point out, because I feel like the way you word it here is intentionally misleading, simply clicking a token is the end of the process for the rep advancement, it's not the whole process. There's very few rep lines in the game that you can just get a rep token from "nothing", and longtime players probably have those lines at max rep (which means you get the objective from them, if you weren't aware, you have to actually use the token and you can't use rep tokens for lines you have maxed out). Outside of the limited exceptions, you did content at some point in time to get that rep token. You can argue whether or not that content is "enough" for the points, but I feel like there's a lot of objectives right now that you could make that argument for, especially with how rewarding the content is otherwise. The fact is it's not simply logging in and clicking a button. If you're doing that, it's more than likely that you did content at some point in time to get the token to click on.
  2. Not sure if this is affecting any other companions that got a Date Night mission, but if Lana is wearing covert energy gloves or doesn't have any gloves equipped, she reverts to having her default gloves equipped when she shows up on Odessen. This shows both outside the cutscene when she's displayed as an NPC and then also in the cutscene itself. This isn't an issue with her elsewhere as far as I'm aware, I've had her placed in my Stronghold and she's never showed with her default gloves there, or in other cutscenes. Just here. It also seems like when you first zone in, it removes the dye on her chestpiece and puts her saber back to default as well. I was able to summon her and dismiss her to make those appear correctly again, but the gloves weren't fixed by this. Using gloves other than covert energy also display fine, but any style of covert energy glove gets replaced by her defaults. Some screenshots to demonstrate what I'm talking about: EDIT: Having now done the scene, it seems like she has some issues with her hands in this scene if you force gloves that show them (such as Bastila's gloves shown in my screenshots there). It looks like her skin is much darker, almost as if she's wearing brown gloves. I'll attach an additional screenshot to show that, would be nice to have these bugs fixed. Kinda disappointing to have to tinker with her outfit just to get this scene to look right.
  3. If the only thing you care about is the name, I'm pretty sure you can rename your legacy. I don't think it's free, but it shouldn't be crazy expensive either. Would save you from losing any progress you've made on any of the various legacy-related things (achievements, unlocks, reputations, etc).
  4. Just a quick stat here. A player wanting to transfer a character and their stronghold(s) over to Shae Vizla would have to transfer at least 2 characters to reactivate with credits any of the following strongholds: Tatooine (2.5m), Yavin 4 (2.5m), Manaan (2.5m), Rishi (3m), and Alderaan (4m). If you have all of these strongholds and want to reactivate all of them with credits, you'd need 14.5m credits, or over 7 characters transferred with 2m credits each. That's just Strongholds alone. It should have been stated clearly, from the start, that this server was a fresh start server first and foremost. Dangling the carrot that this was an APAC server for APAC players and then doing this is genuinely awful, but I suppose that's why it was announced at the end of business on a Friday.
  5. If that's what you took away from my post, you didn't even read it.
  6. I'm not? I'm sorry, but bringing trades and COD into this shows, once again, you don't understand the difference between the numbers you're talking about here. The buyout price in both systems is the same number. It's what the seller receives + the tax. That's true in both systems. So if your argument here is that you can't get the tax in 7.4 (which I agree with, you can't, never said you could), the same is true for the current system, so your argument that there's a difference between the two is wrong. You keep trying to compare different numbers and different systems because when you compare the GTN numbers directly where they're actually comparable, your point is repeatedly proven wrong.
  7. You can't really compare this to a real life sales tax since it's not actually shown in the same way. In a real life store, you don't see prices on the shelf including the tax. They show the price the store is selling it for, and then the tax is added on when you check out. The "buyer's fee" in SWTOR doesn't work that way. It's applied beforehand such that the buyout price is the only thing the buyer ever sees, and that's true in both systems. As a result, when using existing market data to set a price, sellers have to include the tax because they can only see buyout prices too, which include the tax. It's not the same. Similarly, again, to make it clear again, the unit price in 7.4 is not the same as a buyout price in the current system, so you cannot compare them. They represent different things. If your example only works when you compare numbers that represent different things, your example is wrong.
  8. You still seem to not understand the difference between a buyout price and a unit price. To clear this up for you: A buyout price, both in the current system and 7.4's system, is what the buyer sees when they make the purchase. In both systems, this price includes the tax. A unit price, in 7.4, is what the seller puts in on the listing screen and is what they receive when the sale goes through. This doesn't include the tax in 7.4. A buyout price of 3 billion in 7.4 has a unit price below 3 billion. So in that poster's example, having a buyout price of 3 billion in both systems gets the seller less credits in 7.4. That's a fact. It's just how the systems work, the tax rate is higher for a 3 billion credit buyout price in 7.4, and the buyout price includes the tax.
  9. Except it does work, because I'm applying it where buyout prices are equivalent, and it works in all circumstances there. Your example falls apart when go to a buyout price that can be matched in both systems, so your point here applies to your own example.
  10. But then the example only works for 3 billion. If you're only considering 3 billion, then yes, 7.4 gets you more credits, but that's not a matter of the tax not being applied, it's because the buyout price cap is effectively raised in 7.4 by 400+ million credits due to the change in what's being capped. Once you drop to lower prices where you can have an equivalent buyout price in both systems, your example falls apart.
  11. You completely missed the point. You're not selling the item for 3 billion in 7.4, you're selling it for 3.4 billion. You can't compare a unit price in 7.4 to a buyout price in the current system, it's not the same number. Read the post.
  12. This shows, once again, a severe misunderstanding of what the new system actually is. If you sell an item for 3 billion in 7.4, you're not listing it for 3 billion, you're listing it for 3.4 billion. These numbers aren't the same, you can't compare them. The 3 billion in the current system is a buyout price, the 3 billion in 7.4 is a unit price. They're not the same. Again, if you're talking about a low population item where you're the only one listing it, in the current system you can inflate your price by 8% to account for the tax, which would be the same as listing by unit price alone in 7.4 (go back to my 380,000 credit example again for your 350,000 credit example). But if the item is competitive and you're going by existing sales data or listings and not just coming up with a price off the top of your head, the price you use as a reference will be a buyout price, which means it has the tax included, which means your unit price will be derived from a buyout price with the tax accounted for. The same as it is now. To be clear, if you sell an item such that the buyer pays 3 billion in 7.4, you won't get 3 billion back. Your whole point here relies on an item where you have free reign on price and even then there's an equivalent example in the current system.
  13. Okay? So you're showing the prices fluctuate up and down for an item in today's system. We've established this, yes. I never said prices were set. Your idea that there's always a buyer out there willing to pay more is dependent on demand for the item, but that's also part of the market, supply and demand. That's going to happen in both systems, though, and it doesn't impact the functionality of the tax, or anything else I said. Prices fluctuating doesn't mean sellers will be able to unilaterally increase prices across the board. If the item is competitive, somebody will undercut you, and somebody will undercut them, etc. Unless the demand is outweighing the supply to the point where you can get to low population on the item like that and set a price, you still have to pay attention to the buyout price other people have set, which means you're taking the tax into account. And again, in the current system, you can also change your price to be what you want to receive if the item is low population like that. Take what you want (your "unit price" in 7.4 terms), divide it by 0.92, and put the result as your buyout price. Done. If you hit an item like the above, that's certainly possible right now, in the current system. So this isn't the smoking gun difference you think it is, it's the same, it's just easier in 7.4 due to how the listing price is set up (you don't have to divide anything), in exchange for listing prices for competitive items being more complicated (see the whole spiel I explained about the current buyout price being the only data you see).
  14. If they're the only ones listing it and can choose any price they want, sure, they can make more credits that way. Again, though, if you're the only one listing an item, then in the current system, you could price it at around 380,000 and receive 350k. You can account for the tax in the current system. There's nothing stopping you from doing that right now. The fact that the market fluctuates, like you pointed out, is what makes this not work, because you're probably not gonna be the only person selling this. Again, in 7.4, you cannot buy items that aren't the lowest buyout price, so somebody else lists that same item. They're going to list a buyout price below yours. Then maybe somebody else, then somebody else, then somebody else. The price is 350,000 buyout for the item now after all of that. That doesn't go away in 7.4, and in 7.4, as some people have already complained about, when an item is already listed and you want to list for lower, you have to work backwards from the buyout price, because that's all the buyer (and you, as a seller looking up the item to see the current prices) sees. So you don't list it for 350,000. You list it for whatever unit price reaches 350,000 as a buyout price. I sure have used it, and this really makes me think you don't fundamentally understand what they've changed. As I mentioned above, you're correct, there is no option for a seller to input a price that already includes taxes, but any price data you use to set your price will include it. If you search for an item on the GTN? It shows you the buyout price (ie, including the tax). The historical data it shows and recent sales? Buyout price, includes the tax. Everything that you see to guide your price includes the tax, because as far as the buyer is concerned, that tax doesn't exist, there's only ever the buyout price, in the current system and 7.4. So yes, if the seller posts the dye for 350,000 credits, they'll see the price as 371,000. If the current lowest buyout price was 350,000, though, their listing isn't the lowest buyout price and it won't sell (at least not until all of the lower priced listings sell first, that's how 7.4 works). In order to be lowest and actually sell, they have to lower their unit price until the buyout price becomes lower than 350,000. So instead of setting a buyout price and finding out what the tax is after the fact, you're listing a unit price and the GTN shows what the tax is right there, adds to it, and creates the buyout price. That's what I meant by "after tax". The tax was in reference to the current system's tax. Your unit price in 7.4 is what you would have gotten in the current system "after tax". In both systems, the seller almost always still has to care what the buyout price is first and foremost, because like I explained, that's what all of the data comes back to. You're not listing based on a unit price alone unless you're the only seller for an item and you're listing blind, at which point you could mentally divide your desired price by .92 in the current system and get the same effect as listing by "unit price" in 7.4 (see my 380,000 credit example above). If you're not, then you're working backwards from a buyout price. You can't set it directly, that's correct, you just have to play around with the unit price until you get it close enough. You're still aiming for a specific buyout price in the end. With that in mind, I ask again, how is the new system different as far as the tax is concerned? In both systems, you're setting a buyout price. At what point does the tax become the buyer's burden in a way that it wasn't before?
  15. First off: "Sure, sellers can factor it into their pricing, but they can do that in today's system by increasing their prices by 8%." Already addressed this. What's to stop prices from jumping now to account for the current tax? Why would that have not happened before now and suddenly happen in 7.4? What is new? I literally never said this, and in fact said, quite clearly, that the market will decide the price, which inherently means I know it fluctuates. That fluctuation, by design, means that sellers can't unilaterally increase prices to account for a new tax. If the price drives lower, because people undercut you, you're listing lower or, under 7.4's system, you will not sell. People literally can't buy items that aren't the lowest buyout price anymore. And this is the heart of it. This is where your misunderstanding is coming from. In order for your premise to work, this has to be true, and what I'm telling you is that it's not. In the current system, the buyer sees a buyout price for an item, they pay it. The GTN takes the tax out in the middle and the seller receives the buyout price minus the tax. In the new system, the buyer sees a buyout price for an item, they pay it. The GTN takes the tax out in the middle and the seller receives the buyout price minus the tax. The difference is that the seller is specifying the after tax part as their "unit price" now instead of specifying the buyout price the buyer sees, which was almost necessary due to the change to a progressive tax rate. The place where the tax comes out from hasn't changed. It's fine if you want to say the buyer pays it, but like I said before, if that's the case, then the buyer always paid it. Because the tax is in the same place. Nothing has changed functionally. If you want to argue that the sellers paid it before and don't pay it now, then explain how it's different and how sellers were paying the tax in the old system, and aren't now. Back up what you're saying.
×
×
  • Create New...