Server population is dropping...

[Tenceriker]

everquest

 

No, it's pretty terrible, especially since 20% of those people are raiding because it's the day that the raid lockout reset... that means it's pretty likely to be the weekly peak usage, or close to it.

 

Even before EQ added the bazaar, back when SOE actually reported the server numbers on the server select screen*, most of their medium population servers had ~2500 people on them at prime time; heavy pop servers like Sullon Zek had more in the 4000-5000 range, and I seem to recall seeing a screenshot of the server select where there were nearly 8k people on a server. Low pop servers were in the 1500-2000 range

 

*that went away around or shortly before DAoC released iirc... they didn't want to give competitors any info about their usage. But before then, they had the actual logged in users at the server select for the world to see, which was also available through the web page that had the server status.

 

 

Those were good times, back before the casualization and the death time investment in games.

[trueanimus]

Why is no one addressing the impending issue of conflicting names? <.<

Can't have two John Smiths on one server.

if they do merge servers.. there will prob be a name option for the second john smith (as an example) when they log in sort of like wow has when you name change / faction change...

 

 

oh wait this is bioware.. nevermind... they wont think of it and it will cause fps issues!

 

 

lolz

[ferroz]

Those were good times, back before the casualization and the death time investment in games.

Meh, it was good times, but casualization and eliminating the design notion that "spending time" = challenging were both good things.

 

I'm just remarking on the fact that a decade ago, their servers held FAR more people than most modern MMOs seem to be capable of.... with significantly poorer hardware.

 

You could have literally 1000+ people in a zone... and yes... there were performance issues with that, but modern mmos choke on 2 or 3 dozen people.

Edited April 4, 2012 by ferroz

[Touchbass]

WoW had massive populations on many servers in vanilla, they had a good system I think. There were a couple low population realms but having a few is ok for people who have latency issues and those who generally like being alone.

[Ansultares]

I always find it odd that people keep referencing fleet population rather than getting the whole server population.

It's an easy reference point between the servers.

[Runeshard]

It's an easy reference point between the servers.

But hardly gives a complete picture.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Runeshard

[Touchbass]

But hardly gives a complete picture.

 

Very true, although it has some uses. For instance, if a server has 10 people in the fleet in prime versus 300 in another we can draw a logical conclusion that the latter is most likely a more healthy server. I've eschewed from using realistic numbers example to illustrate my point that you need to be extremely careful when trying to decipher "facts" from fleet. It paints a bit of a picture but it doesn't complete it.

[SinisterZz]

Tassaa Bareesh.

 

Counted around a 130 republics online at peak time. my guild Serenity is still the only rep guild on the server that is able to do 16man ops. D'ont know the numbers on imp side but we ussualy win in pvp. ilum is dead and we organize a contest on sunday between imps and reps with pricemoney to get some world pvp done. Please Bioware start manning up and tell us at least that you are working on a plan!

[vinceng]

Well, if you want a server merger i think the only thing they will merge is our complaint topics, there for there don't seem to be so many complaints, hahahaha

[dlaselle]

In an MMO without instant gratifaction tools like LFG. People would know who was what on your server. If you were a ninja, Your name would get around the server, which would get you black listed. A community built, people got to know peoples rolls and classes. Idiots would be outed and black listed and the server balance would take effect. At the moment in WoW, people log in, push a button, jump in an instance with no community ties. people ninja with no back lash. people act like idiots with no back lash as they know all that they have to do is join another queue.

 

No thanks!

 

Server merge yes, Cross server LFG no thanks.

 

I agree with no cross-server LFG but a nice working same server LFG would be a nice addition.

[Crosswinder]

Ula Vii

 

We have 3-10 players on fleet in prime time. Will cancel sub till transfer or server merge

[CJ_SAX_MAN]

If you have any pride for this game take a little responsibility. The developers had a plan but we were too impatient.

 

They didn't have a choice; player's were launching campaigns demanding more servers, and the uproar was getting so big that the mass media outlets were starting to pay attention. The developers are the ones who have to clean the mess, but they didn't make it. They did everything they could to convince us to let them stick to their plan, but we didn't allow it. They predicted the losses we're suffering now based on industry patterns, and knew perfectly well they would end up with too many servers to host thriving communities on all of them. It just demonstrates what happens when players selfishly push the "give me what I want now" mentality in this industry: the industry pushes back.

 

Agree, I didn't start playing this game until march because i didn't realize this old computer would actually be able to half-*** run it, but I was seeing all the madness about servers filling up super fast and them having to frantically make extras

[Gabaran]

Poor Communication is better than none.

 

Yes ppl wanted lower server queues. Why wouldn't they? In the end what players want is to play the game. Given that presupposition waiting in a queue to log in, or logging in to a server only to have no one to play with, that is if we accept the notion that this game was supposed to be a multiplayer game in the first place, does not fall under the category of playing the game. Yes ppl screamed to the heavens about load time initially. Yes BW over compensated. Now, they just need to put it back. Sounds to me like the only real issue is pride. And while I will be the first to admit that maybe the playing population was too vocal about login queues, it doesnt change the fact that ALL of the power to make ANY change to SWTOR lies solely in the hands of BW and NOT the playing community. (which is now vocal about something worse than too many ppl, that is to say too few.)

 

But thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

[Goretzu]

Poor Communication is better than none.

 

Yes ppl wanted lower server queues. Why wouldn't they? In the end what players want is to play the game. Given that presupposition waiting in a queue to log in, or logging in to a server only to have no one to play with, that is if we accept the notion that this game was supposed to be a multiplayer game in the first place, does not fall under the category of playing the game. Yes ppl screamed to the heavens about load time initially. Yes BW over compensated. Now, they just need to put it back. Sounds to me like the only real issue is pride. And while I will be the first to admit that maybe the playing population was too vocal about login queues, it doesnt change the fact that ALL of the power to make ANY change to SWTOR lies solely in the hands of BW and NOT the playing community. (which is now vocal about something worse than too many ppl, that is to say too few.)

 

But thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

This is the thing.

 

- 4 to 6 hour login queues were unacceptable, they had to open more server (or do something else)

 

- dead servers help no one, something needs to be done.

 

 

 

They did something about the first issue, however Rift did something about both and is now growing in subs again.

[Runeshard]

This is the thing.

 

- 4 to 6 hour login queues were unacceptable, they had to open more server (or do something else)

 

- dead servers help no one, something needs to be done.

 

 

 

They did something about the first issue, however Rift did something about both and is now growing in subs again.

 

I've heard we'll get server transfers sometime in may, haven't heard anything about mergers. The reason for the delay seems to be that BW want to make sure that there won't be any issues with the Legacy system. The way it'll work, if you transfer characters with their own Legacy name to a server where you have characters of another Legacy name, is that the more advanced one will take over while the other one is erased, or something. Guess they really don't want any mistakes when it comes to that.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Runeshard

[ferroz]

It's an easy reference point between the servers.

it's really a meaningless reference point...

 

last night, the # of 50s on my server didn't change by more than 5 or so in an hour, but the number of people in fleet varied considerably: ranging between 6 and 30 depending on raid wipes, and pvp queues.

[Goretzu]

I've heard we'll get server transfers sometime in may, haven't heard anything about mergers. The reason for the delay seems to be that BW want to make sure that there won't be any issues with the Legacy system. The way it'll work, if you transfer characters with their own Legacy name to a server where you have characters of another Legacy name, is that the more advanced one will take over while the other one is erased, or something. Guess they really don't want any mistakes when it comes to that.

 

I don't really understand why they couldh't have the same legacy name really, as there's more ways to mark a legacy name than the displayed name itself.

 

Really it hurts no one to have the same legacy name, anymore than it hurts someone to have the same last name IRL.

[Spooler]

Bit ridiculous that we are still waiting for a reasonable amount of info on this

[Jett-Rinn]

I don't really understand why they couldh't have the same legacy name really, as there's more ways to mark a legacy name than the displayed name itself.

 

Really it hurts no one to have the same legacy name, anymore than it hurts someone to have the same last name IRL.

 

Because the future of the Legacy system has dependencies that require your name to be unique. Also Transfers is much much simpler than merging servers.

[Goretzu]

Because the future of the Legacy system has dependencies that require your name to be unique. Also Transfers is much much simpler than merging servers.

 

That's what I'm saying, there's absolutely no need that the displayed name be the defining factor.

 

Just because two legacy names display "Whatever" doesn't mean they can't be marked behind the scenes to be "Whatever001" and "Whatever002".

 

Doing it in a way that requires the displayed name to be unique is actually harder work in the long-run.

[Nitewolfe]

That's what I'm saying, there's absolutely no need that the displayed name be the defining factor.

 

Just because two legacy names display "Whatever" doesn't mean they can't be marked behind the scenes to be "Whatever001" and "Whatever002".

 

Doing it in a way that requires the displayed name to be unique is actually harder work in the long-run.

 

To be honest i do not think they thought of that. The system is already hardcoded and they have stated that the legacy system is one of the factors in making merges/transfers difficult.

BW has boxed themselves into a corner so to speak.

I really wish these games would stop with the unique name stuff. If i do a name search in just my state there are hundreds of people with the same first and last name as myself.

 

The main problem here is BW has little to no real experience making a mmo. That is highly reflected in swtor.

BW aprocced swtor the same way they did single player games they are known for then tried to tack on the mmo elements.

We ended up with swtor a great story driven single player mmo with subpar mmo elements.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Nitewolfe

[Wuxifinger]

Apparently Bioware can't even tell us if they are working on mergers or are only going to allow for transfers... some day.

 

As such, I would wager that we are months away from an answer and months and months away from any kind of solution. I have re-rolled on a new server and am praying that one day they allow me to bring my 50's from my ghost-town server to my new Legacy on The Harbinger.

[ferroz]

To be honest i do not think they thought of that.

if they didn't... that's a VERY rookie data design mistake.

 

and it's not hard to fix: you can pretty easily go back and assign autogenerated numeric id's to each person's legacy, re-link everything on that id instead of the legacy name and and go back and remove the uniqueness constraint on the name.

 

I really suspect that they didn't make that kind of simple mistake and it's more a design thing: they want people to have a unique legacy name even though it's not required.

[Dilkin]

This is so funny because people were crying about server queue times, myself included, now there are dead servers..... Sucks actually. LFG for any FP on a wide range of char. Lvls and roles.

[evildestroyer]

This is the thing.

 

- 4 to 6 hour login queues were unacceptable, they had to open more server (or do something else)

 

- dead servers help no one, something needs to be done.

 

 

 

They did something about the first issue, however Rift did something about both and is now growing in subs again.

 

Well those queues were on purpose, they reduced server caps and wanted to spread out people. Look where it got them now. And heck just about every server had hour long queues and now most of them are light/standard. We only have 5 servers that are heavy in peak with 1 having queues.

 

All bioware need to do was raise server pop caps but no they didnt. And Dead servers do help no one, MOST PEOPLE will not reroll and do the same old crap again they would rather quit. I have talked to many ppl on my server which is now a low pop server they feel the same. They will quit come Diablo 3 or GW2 or sooner.