-Kraxis- Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 Do you work in Sales/Marketing or something? Spin it any way you want.. "SERVER CONSOLIDATION". "TRANSFERS" "SERVER MERGE" They are taking players from low pop servers and MERGING them into other servers BECAUSE THEY OPENED TOO MANY SERVERS AT LAUNCH. You can argue semantics all you want, but fact of the matter is: There are too many servers for the given amount of people playing this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carnac_fett Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 I wish Bioware would just suck it up and merge servers. Sure, a few people would have a stupid knee-jerk reaction to hearing news of server mergers, and quit (or decide not to start playing) the game. But they'll lose far more people by stubbornly refusing to merge servers. I don't see how transfers will help solve the problem. At most, it's a band-aid. People are going to transfer to a dozen specific realms while the rest of them become even more desolate than they are now, and Bioware will end up having to announce server CLOSINGS instead of mergers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) I wish Bioware would just suck it up and merge servers. Sure, a few people would have a stupid knee-jerk reaction to hearing news of server mergers, and quit (or decide not to start playing) the game. But they'll lose far more people by stubbornly refusing to merge servers. I don't see how transfers will help solve the problem. At most, it's a band-aid. People are going to transfer to a dozen specific realms while the rest of them become even more desolate than they are now, and Bioware will end up having to announce server CLOSINGS instead of mergers. Actually, BioWare is doing even better than the inherently buggy, convoluted server merge (which is combining server's existing economy, loot tables, software, etc.) and just moving people off of and likely shutting down low-pop servers (which is NOT merging by definition, it's transferring). Edited April 30, 2012 by JeramieCrowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostvein Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (which is NOT merging by definition, it's transferring). It's the exact same thing under a different name. The end result is the closing of servers and moving the population, but this way they don't actually have to say they needed to merge even though they absolutely do. You are are literally arguing semantics. There is virtually no difference between "We're merging servers, you go from X to Y and X is closing." and "We're offering free transfers, you can go from X to either Y or Z and possibly Q. X will still be closed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekimmak Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 ... and released the game with too many servers. I played some of the beta test weekends, and I can understand perfectly why they had so many servers. It was a nightmare then, you'd be kicked off if you left the computer for under a minute, it was utterly crowded, fulls across the entire board... The problem is, they've lost too much of their population who jump from game to game like grasshoppers, advertising the next big release and how it'll be so much better than this current trash, etc... The servers are too many at the moment, but can you explain to me what it would be like if they released with too FEW servers? Would have been much worse, in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 It's the exact same thing under a different name. The end result is the closing of servers and moving the population, but this way they don't actually have to say they needed to merge even though they absolutely do. You are are literally arguing semantics. There is virtually no difference between "We're merging servers, you go from X to Y and X is closing." and "We're offering free transfers, you can go from X to either Y or Z and possibly Q. X will still be closed." "Merging" is literally "merging" two server clusters together. "Transferring" sometimes results in removing the cluster from the network altogether. Two totally different things. This argument will continue to go in circles as long as miscommunication continues to happen due to the incorrect use of terms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 That's becuase they are too nuttless to admit they F'ed up and released the game with too many servers. IE, the market perception of merges will be that the game is not as successful as anticpated, which would be accurate. The truth hurts and free transfers will not fix the population issues overall. IMHO. Actually, modern MMOs don't merge servers. They don't have to. They open a transfer process and let players have more control over where they play. No need for totalitarian sever merging these days. Oh, and your derogatory perjoratives are not constructive and not needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Kraxis- Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) I played some of the beta test weekends, and I can understand perfectly why they had so many servers. It was a nightmare then, you'd be kicked off if you left the computer for under a minute, it was utterly crowded, fulls across the entire board... The problem is, they've lost too much of their population who jump from game to game like grasshoppers, advertising the next big release and how it'll be so much better than this current trash, etc... The servers are too many at the moment, but can you explain to me what it would be like if they released with too FEW servers? Would have been much worse, in my opinion. I played in the beta too, and during the head-start, FYI. They should have built their hardware and infrastructure to scale appropriately. They didn't. /hindsight It's 2012. I've worked in IT since the mid 90's (Enterprise and Small Business) and there is plenty of technology today that SCALES APPROPRIATELY without adding an entire new "world" (Server) to their server farm. They should be able to throw in a few blades or GBIC modules and meet the demand, not throw up entire new "Servers" (that is oversimplifying, but still makes the point to those who know IT). Look at Amazon EC2. Point proven. Bioware had a huge budget for this game and it feels like they skimped on their infrastructure design - which is the most important part!!! (ok, so the coders might disagree with me.. lol) Edited May 1, 2012 by -Kraxis- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostvein Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 "Merging" is literally "merging" two server clusters together. "Transferring" sometimes results in removing the cluster from the network altogether. Two totally different things. This argument will continue to go in circles as long as miscommunication continues to happen due to the incorrect use of terms... Semantics. Regardless of how they do it, the act of removing servers from the network to consolidate the population is the end result, no matter if they dress it up by offering free transfers first or not. It's. The. Same. Thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) They should be able to throw in a few blades or GBIC modules and meet the demand, not throw up entire new "Servers" (that is oversimplifying, but still makes the point to those who know IT). Look at Amazon EC2. Point proven. Bioware had a huge budget for this game and it feels like they skimped on their infrastructure design - which is the most important part!!! (ok, so the coders might disagree with me.. lol) Unless you've seen the code, there is no way you can objectively make such a sweeping statement. Unless their code is written to work in a virutal scaling environment, you are blowing smoke. Unless you are privy to the code, you have no way of knowing. And Amazon EC2 =/= an MMO server environment. Name a real MMO running on EC2, or anything like it. You could run a browser based MMO on it, perhaps. It's good for many kinds of applications, but running as a large gaming sever feeding thousands of clients is not one of them. VPS is not optimal for the requirement, at least not yet. EC2 in particular is optimized for site hosting services, which are easy to scale in a virtual manner. Edited May 1, 2012 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SonOfSega Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Be thankful you have more than 3 servers. The Austrilasian servers are constantly full and there is a long que on weekends. Another PVP and PVE is needed for this region please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Kraxis- Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Unless you've seen the code, there is no way you can objectively make such a sweeping statement. Unless their code is written to work in a virutal scaling environment, you are blowing smoke. Unless you are privy to the code, you have no way of knowing. And Amazon EC2 =/= an MMO server environment. Name a real MMO running on EC2, or anything like it. You could run a browser based MMO on it, perhaps. It's good for many kinds of applications, but running as a large gaming sever feeding thousands of clients is not one of them. VPS is not optimal for the requirement, at least not yet. EC2 in particular is optimized for site hosting services, which are easy to scale in a virtual manner. Amazon EC2 was only a general example of a well deigned, scalable IT system... something Bioware failed to do with this game, IMO. I agree, you probably couldn't run SWTOR on EC2. =P .. and I don't need to see the code to know they are running the Hero engine, which is garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kthx Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) and I don't need to see the code to know they are running the Hero engine, which is garbage. You are drawing conclusions about things you know nothing about. They are using their own modified version of the engine. You have no idea what they have modified. Edited May 1, 2012 by Kthx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Kraxis- Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) They are using their own modified version of the engine. Already knew that. Edited May 1, 2012 by -Kraxis- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Semantics. Regardless of how they do it, the act of removing servers from the network to consolidate the population is the end result, no matter if they dress it up by offering free transfers first or not. It's. The. Same. Thing. How can they offer free transfers "first" if it's the same thing? It's all one thing. What are we arguing about? Server transfers are needed. They are going to do it. Very likely by moving people off of LIGHT servers to STANDARD and shutting them down. There is no issue here. Move along, move along... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostvein Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 How can they offer free transfers "first" if it's the same thing? It's all one thing. What are we arguing about? Server transfers are needed. They are going to do it. Very likely by moving people off of LIGHT servers to STANDARD and shutting them down. There is no issue here. Move along, move along... Because the end result is the desired outcome. People want the number if servers reduced to consolidate the active population. Offering free transfers before they force people off and close servers doesn't change the fact that they are still closing the servers, which is exactly what the OP wants and basically what you said isn't needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Because the end result is the desired outcome. People want the number if servers reduced to consolidate the active population. Offering free transfers before they force people off and close servers doesn't change the fact that they are still closing the servers, which is exactly what the OP wants and basically what you said isn't needed. You're not reading my post. I just said that free transfers off of low-pop servers so they can close it is not only needed, but likely. This is why I insist we stop using the word "merger". Because BioWare is going to do exactly what you're asking for, only they're using the right word: transfers. So, it's much ado about nothing because you misunderstood what BioWare is going to do due to insisting on using the word "merger" incorrectly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polyyy Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 we need "merge" /"transfers" but we need that now/fast. lot of servers are dead (3-9 ppl on fleet's) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 we need "merge" /"transfers" but we need that now/fast. lot of servers are dead (3-9 ppl on fleet's) Just as a human being can only run a mile so fast, so this can also only come so fast. It is TOP PRIORITY for BioWare. They really are getting it here ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicolettexiv Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 Article - SWTOR: BioWare Reponds To Criticism, Server Merges Still Possible'Everything on the table' as BioWare looks at ways to combat low server populations in Star Wars: The Old Republic. http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1324496/swtor_bioware_reponds_to_criticism_server_merges_still_possible.html They've also commented on server transfers, which I certainly prefer - and stated that they're actively working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi_don Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 sceptor of ragnos is dead. one pvp match at any time on peak times :S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanfordBlows Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 I saw that free Character transfers will be made available in "early summer". I dont want to continue to play on a dead server. Can you please open up PAID character transfers like YESTERDAY? This isn't an outlandish or difficult request. I play an MMO to play with, you know, other people... I'm tired of seeing this when I get online: "HEALER LFG ANY HM"... For 2 straight hours... Healer sighs and logs off. Or IMPERIAL FLEET: 7 Hopefully this early summer business doesn't turn into a similar debacle as the ranked warzone release. I also hope I'm still subscribed by then... I really like this game (when there are other people to play it with). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deusmortale Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 BW promotive action with free 30 days failed, it didn't recover any server. Summer is long away from us, tbh 8ing for transfer/merge for more then 1-2 weeks from now is fail. Diablo 3 is comming in 10 days so practicly servers will be EMPTY not Light. So BW make new status Empty asap if u don't do server merge like in next 8 days or so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pretty_Flacko Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 if my server doesn't pick up, D3 here i come baby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightsey Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 I know this has been said over and over again, and I doubt that BW even reads any of these or cares in the least about what we post, but I just wanted to add to the general cry for some sort of population fix. I don't mind developers taking their time and ensuring that the fix is proper. I prefer it. But I am paying PER MONTH to play this game. If I wanted to play a single player BW game, I'd beat the Mass Effect series again. I enjoy swtor, but I play a massive MULTIPLAYER online rpg for it to be multiplayer... not 10 people or fewer per zone and 20min+ wz queues. /endnerdrage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts