wutru Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) http://www.gamebreaker.tv/video-game-shows/star-wars-the-old-republic-video/the-republic-swtor-show/swtor-server-merges/ Server merges are coming; there is no denying that. Sure, BioWare is not going to call the free transfers being offered for Star Wars: The Old Republic the start of server merges, but realistically that’s what they are. Our whole panel agrees; however, it also agrees that server merges are a good thing. The server populations are spread way too thin. In fact, it was spread too thin the week after launch, and that’s when the game had hit its current peak. The most frustrating issue is not that BioWare is doing servers merges, but how it is handling them. Justin Lowe sees no other good way to move the situation forward, but Larry Everett, on the other hand, is extremely disappointed. He said, “Out of all the ways you could possibly handle server transfers [...] the way BioWare is handling them is the worst.” To find out more about Larry’s frustration, the exciting updates coming to SWTOR in update 1.3, and Gary Gannon‘s impersonation of Ed Park tune into the show today. We have three media personalities — Gary Gannon from GAMEBREAKER, Justin Lowe from Darth Hater, and Larry Everett from Massively — to tell us what’s what in the world of Star Wars: The Old Republic on our forum called The Republic! I agree with them so much. Listen to it, because they bring up critical issues that most people are denying. Edited June 13, 2012 by wutru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjSnazzyduds Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Watch out people! Another totally original thread here! Edited June 13, 2012 by DjSnazzyduds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sauska Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Lol, you can read it any way you want, Besides, Justin Lowe > Larry Everett. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celebrus Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 BW may not call them merges, but that is definitely what the industry and gamers in general will be viewing it as. For every one person that tells a friend "hey, swtor is offerring xfers to beef up the pops again, come back" someone will probably tell 5-7 of their friends that "swtor is merging servers and dying, don't bother". So really. It doesn't matter what BW wants to call them, most with a clue will know the reality of the situation, and it isn't as pretty of a reality as BW and some others around here would like us to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feztonio Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 i agree they're a good thing too. they're not completely transfers since we cannot choose the destination. by BW controlling the servers you can go to, it feels more like staged server merges, than a true player controlled transfer, since we cannot transfer to any destination of our choosing. that said i agree it's good and hope my main and original server of kaas city gets added in because there's never a population there and i'd love to go somewhere with hundreds of folks on the stations and planets with populations of over 100 of leveling toons. like how it was at launch and how fatman is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallorik Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 I agree with them 100%, these arent transfers, theyre optional merges. Companies may be scared to death of the word "merges" but the fact is they were what they needed badly and i dont think just flat out shutting down servers and merging them could have lowered biowares rep any further than it already is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wutru Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 I agree with them 100%, these arent transfers, theyre optional merges. Companies may be scared to death of the word "merges" but the fact is they were what they needed badly and i dont think just flat out shutting down servers and merging them could have lowered biowares rep any further than it already is. Finally, someone who gets it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wutru Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 Lol, you can read it any way you want, Besides, Justin Lowe > Larry Everett. Only because he runs Darth Hater.. if it wasn't because of that, he would be very critical of swtor, but the fact is, he can't, because he gets money off that website, and gets exclusive interviews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtWalt Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 BW may not call them merges, but that is definitely what the industry and gamers in general will be viewing it as. For every one person that tells a friend "hey, swtor is offerring xfers to beef up the pops again, come back" someone will probably tell 5-7 of their friends that "swtor is merging servers and dying, don't bother". So really. It doesn't matter what BW wants to call them, most with a clue will know the reality of the situation, and it isn't as pretty of a reality as BW and some others around here would like us to think. It's not pretty and you might be right about the writting on the wall. But at the end of the day it was needed for those of us who still play. I am hopefull that the game survives, but at the same time I have my reservations....kind of a 50/50 thing in that regards I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senatsu Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) If you look at the most recent batch of added servers under Europe (English), you'll see that there are 7 servers that go to either Tomb of Freedon Nadd or The Red Eclipse. This could either be a big coincidence (doubtful) or a means of pushing the low population servers onto high population servers, so they can then remove servers that have 0 people on them. That way they can say that those servers had 0 people on them and were just wasting space, instead of having the investors and shareholders think the game is dying if they were to do a real server merge. If the remaining servers have only a small handful of characters left they forcefully transfer the rest, saying that the cost of hosting the server and waste of bandwidth outweighed the low population number. Perfect smokescreen to cover up their true intent. It's devious in it's brilliancy. Edited June 13, 2012 by Senatsu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sauska Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Only because he runs Darth Hater.. if it wasn't because of that, he would be very critical of swtor, but the fact is, he can't, because he gets money off that website, and gets exclusive interviews. I'm not contesting the fact that our current transfers are soft mergers. I'm contesting the question whether that's a gamebreaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galbatorrix Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Why would I listen to that tripe? Bioware is doing an awesome job with this. Other than name changes, no one is really complaining at all and they're happening smooth and quick. Who gives a crap if they're transfers or merges? No one but lame internerds. Edited June 13, 2012 by Galbatorrix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senatsu Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Why would I listen to that tripe? Bioware is doing an awesome job with this. Other than name changes, no one is really complaining at all and they're happening smooth and quick. I doubt anyone can really be angry with BioWare about name changes, you can't expect only you being able to think of the character names you use. I'm not contesting the fact that our current transfers are soft mergers. I'm contesting the question whether that's a gamebreaker. I don't really feel it'll be a gamebreaker. For months people have been leaving because there were never enough people to do content with, it was not about anything else. There might have been some minor grief with bugs, but it doesn't come close to the headache low population gave. I believe this will only strengthen the game, perhaps even bring back some previous players because now there is actually a possibility of running the content for the majority. Edited June 13, 2012 by Senatsu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallorik Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Perfect smokescreen to cover up their true intent. It's devious in it's brilliancy. Like most things bioware has done with swtor, devious? yes. Brilliant? lol, no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senatsu Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Like most things bioware has done with swtor, devious? yes. Brilliant? lol, no. This way they don't need to call it a server merge, which is what people take as a sign of an MMO's imminent death. So, yes, it's brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimG Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 If you look at the most recent batch of added servers under Europe (English), you'll see that there are 7 servers that go to either Tomb of Freedon Nadd or The Red Eclipse. This could either be a big coincidence (doubtful) or a means of pushing the low population servers onto high population servers, so they can then remove servers that have 0 people on them. That way they can say that those servers had 0 people on them and were just wasting space, instead of having the investors and shareholders think the game is dying if they were to do a real server merge. If the remaining servers have only a small handful of characters left they forcefully transfer the rest, saying that the cost of hosting the server and waste of bandwidth outweighed the low population number. Perfect smokescreen to cover up their true intent. It's devious in it's brilliancy. Actually, you're probably over-thinking it. If you took the lowest pop server, there would be 3-4 people on each fleet at peak time. Do you think that anyone who has money tied up in this game would carry whether a server had 0 people on it or 20? No. Everyone knew that there were a number of servers with a bare, paltry population. Everyone knew those servers were dead. Not really anything that can be done to hide that as it has been the hot topic of conversation for the last couple of months. However, you do have people on those servers who would scream bloody murder if they were forced to transfer because they'd lose their character names, lose their legacy name, they want to run everything solo, or whatever the case may be. So for the people who are just desperate to have a healthier pop on their server, they offer them the free transfer off the low pop. Then, once all the free transfers are done, they can say to the remaining few people, "you can purchase a transfer to any server you want and, if you don't, in 60 days this server will be shut down and you will be automatically transferred to server X". Basically, they are offering the people who want a higher pop server a way out first and trying to limit the number of people who they have to involuntarily force to merge. Makes perfect business sense to me, nothing devious about it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimG Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 "gamebreaking" has to be the most overused term on these forums. According to the forums, the game has already broken 289 times.....yet, it's still here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senatsu Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Actually, you're probably over-thinking it. If you took the lowest pop server, there would be 3-4 people on each fleet at peak time. Do you think that anyone who has money tied up in this game would carry whether a server had 0 people on it or 20? No. Everyone knew that there were a number of servers with a bare, paltry population. Everyone knew those servers were dead. Not really anything that can be done to hide that as it has been the hot topic of conversation for the last couple of months. However, you do have people on those servers who would scream bloody murder if they were forced to transfer because they'd lose their character names, lose their legacy name, they want to run everything solo, or whatever the case may be. So for the people who are just desperate to have a healthier pop on their server, they offer them the free transfer off the low pop. Then, once all the free transfers are done, they can say to the remaining few people, "you can purchase a transfer to any server you want and, if you don't, in 60 days this server will be shut down and you will be automatically transferred to server X". Basically, they are offering the people who want a higher pop server a way out first and trying to limit the number of people who they have to involuntarily force to merge. Makes perfect business sense to me, nothing devious about it at all. The devious part is how they don't say server merge, instead they use server transfer and then server shutdowns. How is this not sinking in with anyone yet? It's not that hard to read what I meant about devious. According to your post I'm not over-thinking things at all, seems like you completely agree with me. Don't see the problem here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typeslice Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Still not sure what the big deal is - they're mergers, but who cares? BW has the second highest paid subscription base in the industry spread across too many servers. Now they're fixing that. Edited June 13, 2012 by Typeslice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtWalt Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) I doubt anyone can really be angry with BioWare about name changes, you can't expect only you being able to think of the character names you use. I don't really feel it'll be a gamebreaker. For months people have been leaving because there were never enough people to do content with, it was not about anything else. There might have been some minor grief with bugs, but it doesn't come close to the headache low population gave. I believe this will only strengthen the game, perhaps even bring back some previous players because now there is actually a possibility of running the content for the majority. I somewhat agree, except with the fact that the only reason people are leaving is because of server pop. The question is why was there a population drop in the amount we have seen in the first place? It cannot be discounted how much effect the end game content has hurt the game. Once that happened and the pop started to drop, that effected the entire game as far as people finding others to do content with, which made the issue even worse. Basically it caused a meltdown inside the community on a lot of servers. Edited June 13, 2012 by SgtWalt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgelling Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) This way they don't need to call it a server merge, which is what people take as a sign of an MMO's imminent death. So, yes, it's brilliant. I guess, but they aren't fooling the gaming press (IGN, Joystiq, etc all use the phrase mergers) or the regular press (Forbes sent me an article that kept using the words "desperate" and "dwindling" and there might even have been a "beleaguered" somewhere in there). You're probably right though: it sounds better for some people, maybe fans still playing SWTOR. As for Gamebreaker, I caught part of the last 2 weeks of that show and especially when the camera goes off (after show, etc) those guys sound pretty grim about SWTOR. They spend more time talking about that dayz mod(?) than SWTOR. Ever since the layoffs they seem pretty grim. Edited June 13, 2012 by jgelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhuru Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) Still not sure what the big deal is - they're mergers, but who cares? BW has the second highest paid subscription base in the industry spread across too many servers. Now they're fixing that. Agreed. Anyone who listens to anything Larry Everett or any other blogger over at Massively has to say is relying on poor blogosphere information. That site suffers from a glut of chicken little journalism. Not that I consider any of it journalism:D It drives site viewings I suppose. No doubt this game has taken a hit but to call these soft mergers a gamebreaker is sensationalism at its best. I think that the sweet spot for this game will be between 500,000 and 750,000 subs. I could be wrong and it goes into the toilet but that is doubtful. This is a quality game that is getting better by the month. Server transfers and the LFG tool will help tremendously with us remaining "lifers". By the way I gave up on Massively about six months ago and have not missed them a bit. They put the Drama into Drama Queen. I recommend getting your info anywhere but there. They have really gone down hill over the last year. Everyone seems to have an agenda and that completely kills their credibility. JMHO Edited June 13, 2012 by Uhuru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordofdamornin Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 (edited) I used to watch Gamebreaker, back when Gary was running it out of a room in his house. Then it got bigger, they got the studio, with Mike Failnit offscreen. Sometime during that transition, Gary changed (besides starting to get fat), and I saw him for what he is. I don't watch it any more, because you have a misrepresentative panel that includes: Larry Everett - good guy, but at least part of his bread is buttered writing about this game. Gary interrupts him way too much. He doesn't actually know very much about how MMO's actually work, and it shows. Justin Lowe - runs Darth Hater, so...anything he says is always filtered, making his commentary worthless, though sometimes humorous. Ed Park - seems to be the only one who really has any clue about anything, and has a wider view than the other two. He should start distancing himself from Gamebreaker, imo, because even if it gives him more exposure, it's bringing down his credibility. Gary Gannon - talks too much, and interrupts his panelists way too much. He is supposed to facilitate the discussion of his panel, not overrun them. He's also a businessman, and he will (and does) color the shows accordingly. He has people to answer to, now - don't forget that. If you can't see this, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. A lot of people are claiming that this game is in trouble. Maybe, maybe not. We'll see. Nice plug for Gamebreaker TV, btw, and this is far from the first one I've seen in these forums. Perhaps Gamebreaker TV has had a drop in *viewers* too? Which panelist are you, OP? If I had to guess based on writing, I would say Ed Park. Riôt Edited June 13, 2012 by lordofdamornin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wutru Posted June 13, 2012 Author Share Posted June 13, 2012 I used to watch Gamebreaker, back when Gary was running it out of a room in his house. Then it got bigger, they got the studio, with Mike Failnit offscreen. Sometime during that transition, Gary changed (besides starting to get fat), and I saw him for what he is. I don't watch it any more, because you have a misrepresentative panel that includes: Larry Everett - good guy, but at least part of his bread is buttered writing about this game. Gary interrupts him way too much. He doesn't actually know very much about how MMO's actually work, and it shows. Justin Lowe - runs Darth Hater, so...anything he says is always filtered, making his commentary worthless, though sometimes humorous. Ed Park - seems to be the only one who really has any clue about anything, and has a wider view than the other two. He should start distancing himself from Gamebreaker, imo, because even if it gives him more exposure, it's bringing down his credibility. Gary Gannon - talks too much, and interrupts his panelists way too much. He is supposed to facilitate the discussion of his panel, not overrun them. He's also a businessman, and he will (and does) color the shows accordingly. He has people to answer to, now - don't forget that. If you can't see this, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. A lot of people are claiming that this game is in trouble. Maybe, maybe not. We'll see. Nice plug for Gamebreaker TV, btw, and this is far from the first one I've seen in these forums. Perhaps Gamebreaker TV has had a drop in *viewers* too? Which panelist are you, OP? If I had to guess based on writing, I would say Ed Park. Riôt Rofl. You're being paranoid. I'm not affiliated at all with that site. I don't even visit it unless someone links it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordofdamornin Posted June 13, 2012 Share Posted June 13, 2012 Rofl. You're being paranoid. I'm not affiliated at all with that site. I don't even visit it unless someone links it to me. Yet, you link to it, and quote from it's descriptions? Paranoia involves fear, my friend. Perhaps the word you were looking for is *presumptuous.* Riôt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts