Mallorik Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I think too many servers is definitely a problem. I think people are blowing 1.3 million as "too small" WAY out of proportion. Especially since it's no secret that EA is definitely getting their money back. Who in their right mind actualy believes 1.3 million is real, and if youve drank enough cool aid to believe that you still cant believe it will be anywhere near that when they finaly do server transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Yeah i agree, if you can keep happy with this content for the next 5 years or whenever ea finaly pulls the plug. because there would never be new content and cs would actualy get worse (if its possible) . the game would be the first in history to ever recover if it did. Do you even realize how many pieces of unsubstantiated rhetoric and hyperbole you just posted?! Am I the only one tired of this?? Both negative and unrealistically fanboyish (which is also "negative" in my book). I can understand being frustrated. Even venting for a post or two. But to consistently spew such sentences with zero factual foundation is perplexing to me to no end. Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDiggler Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 we will never see merges or transfers becaues the devs are to busy on important stuff like fixing helmets ect.... God knows we can't have that 1 person who refuses to quit standing alone at the pvp terminal with a broken helmet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Who in their right mind actualy believes 1.3 million is real, and if youve drank enough cool aid to believe that you still cant believe it will be anywhere near that when they finaly do server transfers. Perspectivve my ignorant friend, perspective. For all the people doomsaying how D3 was going to ruin...RUIN!!! this game, I just enjoyed a full night of several groups and flashpoints that I wasn't even looking to do! Now, I don't let that lead me to believe the game is just fine and dandy across the board. No, indeed, I know all too well the plight of those on the servers that BioWare let go way too long, in fact longer than planned, because they had to rewrite it. I know, it's painful to a dedicated MMOer. But I also know that it's difficult for that player to look past his own nose (dead server) toward the big picture. I get that. I even understand. But, my server, 20th on the list, has no problem tonight getting groups. At all. Saw several groups form and move on. Endlessly, almost. TWENTIETH!! But, I'm willing to bet that last sentence is almost totally lost on you? Please, prove me wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddzball Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Do you even realize how many pieces of unsubstantiated rhetoric and hyperbole you just posted?! Am I the only one tired of this?? Both negative and unrealistically fanboyish (which is also "negative" in my book). I can understand being frustrated. Even venting for a post or two. But to consistently spew such sentences with zero factual foundation is perplexing to me to no end. Wow. Im tired of games coming out and not learning from past mistakes. A specific game I wanted to play for example is unavailable due to servers being over loaded. And frkanly they should have KNOWN better. SWTOR is no different. Shoulda had transfers/merges ready to go in the first place. Or, I dunno, they could have not USED the archaic Shard type server technology from like 2003. Maybe went with single shard multi instances, or the ability to simply log on to whatever server you feel like playing, have characters stored independently of server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) we will never see merges or transfers becaues the devs are to busy on important stuff like fixing helmets ect.... God knows we can't have that 1 person who refuses to quit standing alone at the pvp terminal with a broken helmet. What does the bug team have ANYTHING to do with the team working overtime to rewrite the server transfer software? I'll answer for you: ABSOLUTELY ZILCH. They may as well be with two totally different companies. Non-zero-sum? You familiar with that term at all? Edited May 16, 2012 by JeramieCrowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostvein Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Sure, you *could*. And thanks to the way they handle naming convetions, you're dicking pretty much anyone that isn't one of the 'lucky few' that would be forcibly transferred. By opening transfers, those who want to move out and go places will do so. After that gets done for a time, I imagine we'll see a potential merger situation arise. Just up and doing it right off, though? Gonna alienate and piss off a lot of players. They already said they are going to do targeted transfers, and then we can only assume (logically) that they will close some empty servers after people transfer off. You and others will have a chance to keep your names. Consolidating the playerbase so that people can properly experience the game is far more important for TOR's overall health then losing a few people over their names. Because really, the amount of people quitting due to dead servers is going to greatly outnumber the people who might possibly be quitting because they weren't able to keep their name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Im tired of games coming out and not learning from past mistakes. A specific game I wanted to play for example is unavailable due to servers being over loaded. And frkanly they should have KNOWN better. SWTOR is no different. Shoulda had transfers/merges ready to go in the first place. Or, I dunno, they could have not USED the archaic Shard type server technology from like 2003. Maybe went with single shard multi instances, or the ability to simply log on to whatever server you feel like playing, have characters stored independently of server. When are people going to get it through their thick skulls that there is no such thing as perfection in this world? When?! I already know, though: NEVER. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 They already said they are going to do targeted transfers, and then we can only assume (logically) that they will close some empty servers after people transfer off. You and others will have a chance to keep your names. Consolidating the playerbase so that people can properly experience the game is far more important for TOR's overall health then losing a few people over their names. Because really, the amount of people quitting due to dead servers is going to greatly outnumber the people who might possibly be quitting because they weren't able to keep their name. If you're going to go by "what they already said", SR "already said" today that the free transfers would be to "most servers". Otherwise, stop cherry-picking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddzball Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 When are people going to get it through their thick skulls that there is no such thing as perfection in this world? When?! I already know, though: NEVER. SO not true. I had a perfect launch of our current software build for my job. I just disagree with the outdated idea of "shards" Its a stupid idea and only hurts MMOs. There is honestly no reason for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 SO not true. I had a perfect launch of our current software build for my job. I just disagree with the outdated idea of "shards" Its a stupid idea and only hurts MMOs. There is honestly no reason for it. TOR is still raved for have the "perfect launch", too. They even had server transfers ready to shut them down after the surge dropoff. And are you trying to tell me that you have developed software as multi-platform and large as TOR... perfectly?! Excuse me if I don't believe you... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddzball Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) TOR is still raved for have the "perfect launch", too. They even had server transfers ready to shut them down after the surge dropoff. And are you trying to tell me that you have developed software as multi-platform and large as TOR... perfectly?! Excuse me if I don't believe you... Multiplatform yes, as large.. of course not. (Though if they keep losing subscriptions, maybe ) You arent disagreeing with me that the way they chose to do "shards" is wrong though. Admit it. I'm right. The idea of "shards" in MMOs needs to go away. Shoulda left that crap back in 2003 with WoW, EQ and UO. I DO agree, SWTOR had one of the best launches ever for an MMO. Edited May 16, 2012 by Oddzball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Multiplatform yes, as large.. of course not. (Though if they keep losing subscriptions, maybe ) You arent disagreeing with me that the way they chose to do "shards" is wrong though. Admit it. I'm right. The idea of "shards" in MMOs needs to go away. Shoulda left that crap back in 2003 with WoW, EQ and UO. I DO agree, SWTOR had one of the best launches ever for an MMO. The idea of "shards" should go away, yes....as soon as we have affordable hardware that allows for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallorik Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Perspectivve my ignorant friend, perspective. For all the people doomsaying how D3 was going to ruin...RUIN!!! this game, I just enjoyed a full night of several groups and flashpoints that I wasn't even looking to do! Now, I don't let that lead me to believe the game is just fine and dandy across the board. No, indeed, I know all too well the plight of those on the servers that BioWare let go way too long, in fact longer than planned, because they had to rewrite it. I know, it's painful to a dedicated MMOer. But I also know that it's difficult for that player to look past his own nose (dead server) toward the big picture. I get that. I even understand. But, my server, 20th on the list, has no problem tonight getting groups. At all. Saw several groups form and move on. Endlessly, almost. TWENTIETH!! But, I'm willing to bet that last sentence is almost totally lost on you? Please, prove me wrong... And you wonder why people call you a fanboy? if i were you i would take the fanboy title because if youre not just blowing smoke up biowares rear you have some other serious problems. And I dont care what your server had on it, mine is 16th on torstatus and had 18 people on fleet, its a raid night and mu guild that had 4 hm ec raid groups had 1 person on it, me. you should get out more and see what is happening to the world around you it might help you to not look so utterly clueless in your future posts. Edited May 16, 2012 by Mallorik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) And you wonder why people call you a fanboy? if i were you i would take the fanboy title because if youre not just blowing smoke up biowares rear you have some other serious problems. And I dont care what your server had on it, mine is 16th on torstatus and had 18 people, its a raid night and mu guild that had 4 hm ec raid groups had 1 person on it, me. you should get out more and see what is happening to the world around you it might help you to not look so utterly clueless in your future posts. Well, then, perhaps TORstatus isn't as godly as the haters make it sound, eh? BTW, yes, you fell right into that. Edited May 16, 2012 by JeramieCrowe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddzball Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 The idea of "shards" should go away, yes....as soon as we have affordable hardware that allows for it. We already DO have affordable hardware. But nobody wants to try and implement it. Everybody always plays it safe. GW2 is doing something interesting. You can play on any "shard" regardless of what one you roll on. Some kinda join your friends thing. (I in no way want to hype GW2 btw, but I respect their willingness to innovate and think outside the box.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostvein Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 If you're going to go by "what they already said", SR "already said" today that the free transfers would be to "most servers". Otherwise, stop cherry-picking. I don't know how it was cherry picking, it is targeted transfers. Not because of anything malicious, but my guess is they lock the top 10 servers, and then give you limited options on the rest. Logically speaking, they cant let you transfer to any of the servers that they are transferring people off of - that would defeat the purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 We already DO have affordable hardware. But nobody wants to try and implement it. Everybody always plays it safe. GW2 is doing something interesting. You can play on any "shard" regardless of what one you roll on. Some kinda join your friends thing. (I in no way want to hype GW2 btw, but I respect their willingness to innovate and think outside the box.) Eh.... "affordable" is so subjective, though, and changes with the overall economy. Now's not looking so good for "affordable" to be available to the average end user... Also, you can join your friends in any "shard" on TOR, too. Just open your map, and select from the drop-down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddzball Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I don't know how it was cherry picking, it is targeted transfers. Not because of anything malicious, but my guess is they lock the top 10 servers, and then give you limited options on the rest. Logically speaking, they cant let you transfer to any of the servers that they are transferring people off of - that would defeat the purpose. This whole transfers instead of just doing a damn server merge is fricking ridiculous btw. Seriously, suck it up, take the bad press hit, and get it over with. Life will go on. SWTOR will survive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I don't know how it was cherry picking, it is targeted transfers. Not because of anything malicious, but my guess is they lock the top 10 servers, and then give you limited options on the rest. Logically speaking, they cant let you transfer to any of the servers that they are transferring people off of - that would defeat the purpose. Top ten...I can definitely see that. How bright this community is so far, they'd probable pick one of those top 10, then QQ to BioWare that they're in queues, and think it's BioWare's fault. At least BW is doing something smart for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddzball Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 Eh.... "affordable" is so subjective, though, and changes with the overall economy. Now's not looking so good for "affordable" to be available to the average end user... Also, you can join your friends in any "shard" on TOR, too. Just open your map, and select from the drop-down. You know I mean server "shards" not instances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallorik Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 (edited) Well, then, perhaps TORstatus isn't as godly as the haters make it sound, eh? BTW, yes, you fell right into that. I fell into nothing einstein, ive never quoted tostatus numbers. Youre the one who said your server is 20 on the list. Anyway arguing with you about how swtor's subs arent falling anymore is like arguing with a syphilitic blind man with turrets about the color of his car. so you can spew your crazy bs all over the boards with out any interuption from me anymore. we can see who was right when the new numbers come out. Edited May 16, 2012 by Mallorik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 This whole transfers instead of just doing a damn server merge is fricking ridiculous btw. Seriously, suck it up, take the bad press hit, and get it over with. Life will go on. SWTOR will survive. It would be a bad press hit to do a merge instead of a shut-down. Because merges, historically speaking, are so buggy and convoluted, not to mention outdated, that I can already see at least 6 points to bash them on before they even implement the buggy "solution". And then I'd bash on the unplayability of the "merged" servers. Screw that. Just let people choose where to go after putting a message on the server that says "Server shut-down in X weeks", then shut it down. Anyone left over gets a simple bx to choose a server upon login and, voila, done. As fast as logging in, practically. Already been done this way, by the way. Extremely painless for both player and developer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeramieCrowe Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 I fell into nothing einstein, ive never quoted tostatus numbers. Youre the one who said your server is 20 on the list. Anyway arguing with you about how swtor's subs arent falling anymore is like arguing with a syphilitic blind man with turrets about the color of his car. so you can spew your crazy bs all over the boards with out any interuption from me anymore. we can see who was right when the new numbers come out. "Aren't falling anymore"... is that seriously what you think this is when you first started responding to me?! Dude, you need to go back and reread my post you responded to in its ENTIRETY several times, it seems... Because I never said they aren't falling anymore... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddzball Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 It would be a bad press hit to do a merge instead of a shut-down. Because merges, historically speaking, are so buggy and convoluted, not to mention outdated, that I can already see at least 6 points to bash them on before they even implement the buggy "solution". And then I'd bash on the unplayability of the "merged" servers. Screw that. Just let people choose where to go after putting a message on the server that says "Server shut-down in X weeks", then shut it down. Anyone left over gets a simple bx to choose a server upon login and, voila, done. As fast as logging in, practically. Already been done this way, by the way. Extremely painless for both player and developer. That works too. I agree. BTW poor D3 is getting destroyed right now... *sigh* would have been nice to play it today, after sitting at work all day, wanting to play it. Developers will never learn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts