masterceil Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Here I was getting excited and I just realized this was a troll necro. Son of a smurf..... Yeah, hate it when gilded threads get bumped for that very reason. Think something new's goin' on, but nope -.- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmbuddah Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 no need to get all riled up I was just curious, I thought it was for this update. and speaking of old relevant issues, is there ever going to be optimization to graphics so I don't have fractured crap all over my screen?? Yeah I just saw the darkside version of Anarchy in Paradise, and honestly, that was a damned mess. I was thinking to myself, HOW DID THAT get through QA?! I honestly thought it was for this update too, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fushnchips Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 These old topics should have been locked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRandomWolf Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 Thank you for breaking the launcher and stealing all of my time and funds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkside Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 I saw the topic, and I saw it was dev commented, and I got so excited....until I saw the date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Machinder Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 It quite possible Bioware has agreed to long term payment commitments on these servers, so they really have no incentive to do anything since they have to pay for them anyway. And until someone can come up with a solution to guild assets, legacy bank assets/merges, naming conflicts, they will continue to stand pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christie_Swift Posted April 10, 2017 Share Posted April 10, 2017 We really need a new server merger... I can't get anything done and it doesn't inspire me much to keep playing. I can't afford to transfer 30+ characters and I'm definitely not going to start from complete scratch. Why hasn't this been a discussion? We should merge all servers into a newly named region specific server. Why revive one of the oldest thread of the game? Whining in different ways seem a bit desperate. I'm sure Devs know all about it. This confuses the heck out of players and reading something meant for 2012 in 2017 does not help your cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xoza Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 (edited) Yes, I necro'd the thread. While I found various ideas across multiple subforums, there really wasn't a specific place anyone, especially devs I wouldn't think would turn much attention to except for one of their own announcement threads. I apologize if I've caused any confusion. True, I could transfer all my characters within a few months. However, I have a guild with some great members, completed strongholds, guild bases and ship that I have a hard time justifying abandoning. Company budgeting is based on money coming in, not how many servers are on the shelf. If they were to reduce servers that would actually help in cutting spending. Maintaining 2-4 servers is cheaper than 17 servers, even if they were to 'raid' the servers together to perform in essence as one larger unit, they could still reduce redundancy. Name conflicts - Will always be something people will complain about, but they've already expanded naming capability and it wouldn't be hard to do the same thing they did last time prioritizing subs of length and leveled characters. Guild Transfers - Are you talking about name conflicts? If you look in Conquest, you'll notice all guilds have an @<server> name. This can be used to sort out duplicate names. Active guilds could keep their name. Population Differences - If we're all on a single server, I don't see how this is an issue. This would also be the solution to 'cross server queueing', since it'd be a consolidation and we'd all end up on one of two servers with increased population expanding shared activity and interests. Population on any server now is handled by phases, they've even added now the PvE/P phases now so multiple servers are actually redundant anyway. Strongholds, Outfits, Mail - All of which would transfer... Server Character Number Limits - Could be handled one of two ways. They could increase the cap based on your characters and how many character slots you've purchased, or if they really want to restrict it, offer a system where you could archive or deactivate a character until you've decided which ones you don't want anymore. The endgame idea is to bring all players to a single server per coast. It's not about time differences, it's about consolidation. No, i'm not a troll, this has been something my community and I have talked about for a few years, even thinking about moving when the price dropped, but we've done so much work and it still doesn't solve the issue for everyone else. Again I apologize for any confusion I may have caused, hate me all you want. Edited April 11, 2017 by Xoza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveTheCynic Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 Name conflicts - Will always be something people will complain about, but they've already expanded naming capability and it wouldn't be hard to do the same thing they did last time prioritizing subs of length and leveled characters. Did you stop to think about *why* people complain about name conflicts? Did you think that maybe the character's name, like your name in the real world, is part of their identity? (OK, I understand that some people make a habit of legally changing their name over and over again, and for them, I agree, their name is probably not really part of their identity, but they are definitely in the minority.) The key point on name conflicts is that it isn't about whether I can create a new unique name easily, but the fact that I have a substantial chance of losing the name. Guild Transfers - Are you talking about name conflicts? If you look in Conquest, you'll notice all guilds have an @<server> name. This can be used to sort out duplicate names. Active guilds could keep their name. Name conflicts, yes (I note in passing that the @thing is only shown on the conquest-related displays, and doesn't show on e.g. character nameplates) but also the likely loss of stuff - guild bank tabs, guild bank contents, stronghold, stronghold room unlocks, ship, ship deck unlocks, decorations, etc. - in the guild when the merger takes place. Previous merges, apparently, did not handle guilds well, and the suspicion is that it will handle the updated material in guilds even worse. Population Differences - If we're all on a single server, I don't see how this is an issue. This would also be the solution to 'cross server queueing', since it'd be a consolidation and we'd all end up on one of two servers with increased population expanding shared activity and interests. Population on any server now is handled by phases, they've even added now the PvE/P phases now so multiple servers are actually redundant anyway. "Multiple" servers are NOT redundant. If you want a truly single server, I propose we put it in the data centre in Ireland, to give the Europeans a break. And we allow /report for anyone complaining about people recruiting in French or German. No, it would make sense for there to be *at least* five servers: US-East, US-West, EU-En, EU-Fr, EU-De. Strongholds, Outfits, Mail - All of which would transfer... There is absolutely NO guarantee of that. Outfits already don't survive server transfers, and nor does mail. The endgame idea is to bring all players to a single server per coast. It's not about time differences, it's about consolidation. There is more to this world than the US, you know. One per coast, one per language in Europe? (Hint: I'm not playing on a 150+ms ping just for your convenience.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackSilverRoar Posted April 11, 2017 Share Posted April 11, 2017 (edited) Why revive one of the oldest thread of the game? Whining in different ways seem a bit desperate. I'm sure Devs know all about it. This confuses the heck out of players and reading something meant for 2012 in 2017 does not help your cause. OMG, ikr, common sense. The merge servers Now whiners are so pitifully desperate, they ignore all reason and anything that comes close to a sane argument from the vast majority of players who dissent and bring a logical perspective to why a server merge is at best a bad pipe dream. Rehashing outdated threads and their incessant whining and trolling the forums with continual: WAH~~, merge servers Now threads - they aren't to be taken seriously. Edited April 11, 2017 by Willjb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts