Andryah Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) Bioware justify your reasoning for APAC - Facts dont support your theory. OP.. you are being redundant and argumentative IMO. They have already responded with their reasons. Don't believe me? Check Devtracker. I get that the answer does not satisfy you personally... but it is what it is. Time to /move_forward. Edited March 27, 2013 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yndras Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 Not trying to be a pain but trying to understand your total logic there. You say your going to leave the game if you dont get to merge with the server you want. Yet its ok to leave the other low pop server to dry up and die cause it doesnt affect you if you get to go to the server you want? or am I reading that wrong? YOu are reading it wrong. I chose not to PAY for a REDUCTION in service. If you have TWO low pop servers the smart thing to do is merge them to get a higher pop server. Not merge a low with a high and let the remaining one die off and lose those subs to appease the FEW ( and those are your words since you say you have a low pop server) than to merge two low pops and try and keep all the subs. Yes. the smart thing is to merge with a higher pop server. You are doing a great job of highlighting my points. The higher pop server that would provide the best experience with out a loss in latency is Dalborra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuangTzu Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) IF is was strictly financial, they would just close up APAC and not provide a merger pathway. So, yeah the business decison has a financial element to it (what for profit corporation does not look at the financial end of everything it does???) BUT they also needed to solve the core problem for the APAC player base: low server populations. It is the synthesis of the business need and the customer need that formed the solution they chose. Neither one is considered in a vaccuum. My problem is that they claim that they are doing what we want. They are not they are doing what they want, what is financially best for them. They should just admit that so we can move on. I could accept that reason but they are just lying to us. That makes me angry! Edited March 27, 2013 by ChuangTzu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yndras Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 OP.. you are being redundant and argumentative IMO. They have already responded with their reasons. Don't believe me? Check Devtracker. I get that the answer does not satisfy you personally... but it is what it is. Time to /move_forward. Their reasons do not support the facts displayed in my post. If you dont like it, or dont understand the content and context of the subject, then that is your failing not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infernixx Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 My problem is that they claim that they are doing what we want. They are not they are doing what they want, what if financially best for them. They should just admit that so we can move on. I could accept that reason but they are just lying to us. That makes me angry! You 'do' seem angry, and I suspect that if some BW poster came on and said 'yep, part of our rationale is based in the financial side of things' that you wouldn't simply nod your head and move on. I suspect it'd just make you angrier. So, why would they do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yndras Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 You 'do' seem angry, and I suspect that if some BW poster came on and said 'yep, part of our rationale is based in the financial side of things' that you wouldn't simply nod your head and move on. I suspect it'd just make you angrier. So, why would they do it? Sometimes a rationalisation of the truth is easier to justify than a theory that doesnt support itsself when subjected to scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) My problem is that they claim that they are doing what we want. They are not they are doing what they want, what is financially best for them. They should just admit that so we can move on. I could accept that reason but they are just lying to us. That makes me angry! Stop pretending like it was unanimous on the part of APAC players as to what to do. It was anything but unanimous. The only thing you all agreed on was the APAC server pops were too low and getting lower. The rest was on Bioware to look at all the feedback, look at their internal operations, and look at their telemetry on the APAC servers and make a sound and sensible business decision on how to handle a bad situation. You (collectively) demanded action by Bioware. They took action. You personally do not like their decision. Embrace it or walk away from the game. It's not like you have any other real choice. Making yourself and others more and more angry in the forum is not a choice... it's an emotional tactic of expression (and a very negative one). You can objectively fault them for taking so long to make a decision. The rest is just sour grapes. Edited March 27, 2013 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Sometimes a rationalisation of the truth is easier to justify than a theory that doesnt support itsself when subjected to scrutiny. Irony, irony right there IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vian Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 IF is was strictly financial, they would just close up APAC and not provide a merger pathway. So, yeah the business decison has a financial element to it (what for profit corporation does not look at the financial end of everything it does???) BUT they also needed to solve the core problem for the APAC player base: low server populations. It is the synthesis of the business need and the customer need that formed the solution they chose. Neither one is considered in a vaccuum. So much this ^^ I want to bottle it. Yes, there probably were financial considerations to closing the APAC servers. But Eric flat out stated that in BW/EAs estimation, the population issues wouldn't be solved even if the servers were merged. Added to which, you'd have had people merged into a play style they didn't want. I know people who are determined to QQ will decry the news about the non-viable population as spin, but I can well believe, given the population drift back to the US servers that has been happening anyway, that the APAC servers were terminal. And yes, the fact that they waited half a year to do anything about it may have exacerbated the problem, but they have to deal with the situation now, not the situation 6 months ago. In all likelihood, if they'd gone for a merger, we'd have had a revival of the "APAC Server Problem" thread a few months down track anyhow. And guess what the solution would have been? I spoke for a merger. I'll miss the ping. But I am not willing to call the entire BW/EA team liars simply because their assessment of the situation led to a different solution. To do so would be rude, and stupid, and it won't make a jot of difference anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infernixx Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Sometimes a rationalisation of the truth is easier to justify than a theory that doesnt support itsself when subjected to scrutiny. Ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yndras Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) Irony, irony right there IMO. You have to provide data that contradicts the data i have presented in order for it to apply in your case. you and your fellow cronies have failed to do this. Heck even bioware hasnt fronted up with hard facts. How bout you do that. Dont tell me, show me. Prove me wrong. Edited March 27, 2013 by Yndras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infernixx Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 You have to provide data that contradicts the data i have presented in order for it to apply in your case. you and your fellow cronies have failed to do this. Heck even bioware hasnt fronted up with hard facts. How bout you do that. Dont tell me, show me. Prove me wrong. Your 'data' is anecdotal and far too small of a sample to be anything more than a momentary snapshot. If you were sincere about proving 'data', you'd have to take extensive efforts to measure the numbers on a day to day basis over a period of months, factoring in influences such as the weather, internet connectivity issues and transitory spikes due to new content being introduced, such as the Gree event. Ironically enough, BW already has that data on hand and most likely based their decision regarding APAC on those long term player-number measurements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) Prove me wrong. I don't have to. I take previously posted responses by Bioware at their word. They are certainly more credible to me then some random anquished forum poster demanding different answers. Prove you are right. Prove you are not cherry picking your way to the data view you desire to press your demand. You are the one making baseless demands and accuasations. They have answered the question posed by your thread title. You just don't like the answer... so you think you can convolute your way to a demand that results in a different answer. Edited March 27, 2013 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yndras Posted March 27, 2013 Author Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) I don't have to. I take previously posted responses by Bioware at their word. They are certainly more credible to me then some random anquished forum poster demanding different answers. Prove you are right. Prove you are not cherry picking your way to the data view you desire to press your demand. You are the one making baseless demands and accuasations. They have answered the question posed by your thread title. You just don't like the answer... so you think you can convolute your way to a demand that results in a different answer. If the population were better on the Bastion than it was on MDN, then i would not have bought the issue up. How about you monitor the population like i have, and i have monitored it over a number of months while deciding what to do about population, then decided latency was more important that an extra 10 of 15 people on fleet while i was playing. Bioware has given us nothing but yellow text that "says" we have looked at it. I am saying that i have looked as well, and i cant see what they see. All i see is the same numbers on The Bastion as what i saw on MDN for all those months. Biowares reasoning is a higher population. Wouldnt a higher population BE higher, if it were true? all i can see is a certanty that the LATENCY is higher. Certainly not the population..... Edited March 27, 2013 by Yndras Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infernixx Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 If the population were better on the Bastion than it was on MDN, then i would not have bought the issue up. How about you monitor the population like i have, and i have monitored it over a number of months while deciding what to do about population, then decided latency was more important that an extra 10 of 15 people on fleet while i was playing. Bioware has given us nothing but yellow text that "says" we have looked at it. I am saying that i have looked as well, and i cant see what they see. All i see is the same numbers on The Bastion as what i saw on MDN for all those months. Biowares reasoning is a higher population. Wouldnt a higher population BE higher, if it were true? all i can see is a certanty that the LATENCY is higher. Certainly not the population..... Imagine a small forest. It's tiny, really, in the middle of nowhere. Now, put someone in the middle of that forest and give him a microphone. "Holy cow! This place is enormous! It must go on forever! Trees as far as I can see!" Meanwhile, from the air, the maintainers of the forest can see how truly small and minuscule it is. And they radio down to their man in the forest. "Actually, it's really not that big at all." "You're lying! I'm down here and I'm telling you that it's huge!" Get the picture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) If the population were better on the Bastion than it was on MDN, then i would not have bought the issue up. How about you monitor the population like i have, and i have monitored it over a number of months while deciding what to do about population, then decided latency was more important that an extra 10 of 15 people on fleet while i was playing. Bioware has given us nothing but yellow text that "says" we have looked at it. I am saying that i have looked as well, and i cant see what they see. All i see is the same numbers on The Bastion as what i saw on MDN for all those months. Biowares reasoning is a higher population. Wouldnt a higher population BE higher, if it were true? all i can see is a certanty that the LATENCY is higher. Certainly not the population..... http://www.torstatus.net/the-bastion/history/7d [Note: A super server, so corespoinding torstatus measure represent >3x an APAC Server in terms of total players vs unit of measure] http://www.torstatus.net/dalborra/history/7d#!/master-darnala/history/7d [old small scale server, at least 3x smaller population per torstatus measure increments]. Dude... there is no comparison, not even on Bastion during APAC prime time. MD is a ghost town by comparison, all three APAC servers are actually. All three servers combined would not tick past "LIGHT" on a super server like Bastion. Edited March 27, 2013 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asuka Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Obviously there isn't enough profit to keep the APAC servers in the black and having 1 APAC server isn't cost effective. It is what it is. They deserve credit for offering them at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
river_of_Gem Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 (edited) /Agree. On a happy note.... I know from my experience on Harbinger that most Aussies are not like this vocal demanding minority. So I refuse to let this antagonisitc and vocal minority represent the larger Aussie playerbase (many of which moved to US west servers months ago frankly). And frankly... if the negative ranters decide to unsub rather then take the server merge, I'm not seeing what the negative is to the US servers (or the game as a whole) from that choice on their part. /2-cents I think you have crossed the line of PR speaking, you make it too obvious. Look on Dalbora server general chat, look on the petition to save the APAC server, look on how a lot of big guild master in APAC reply to the event to save the server, and you are saying they are MINORITY ??? I can't believe i quoted a PR guy... but again, you have crossed the line. PS : you are in Harbinger too ? i guess i will never know your toon name or legacy... Edited March 28, 2013 by river_of_Gem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claprica Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 http://www.torstatus.net/the-bastion/history/7d [Note: A super server, so corespoinding torstatus measure represent >3x an APAC Server in terms of total players vs unit of measure] http://www.torstatus.net/dalborra/history/7d#!/master-darnala/history/7d [old small scale server, at least 3x smaller population per torstatus measure increments]. Dude... there is no comparison, not even on Bastion during APAC prime time. MD is a ghost town by comparison, all three APAC servers are actually. All three servers combined would not tick past "LIGHT" on a super server like Bastion. I'm pretty sure Layda had screen shots of actual number on the server, not just server status reports. Those screen shots do tend to indicate that she is correct. Out of curiosity, why are you making such a big deal out of the APAC (posting in every thread) issue when it hardly affects you at all? As far as I can tell most of APAC wants to retain the 1 APAC server, and there are about a dozen or so people that don't want to. The petition to save the APAC server is already at 500+ and when you consider voter apathy, that's pretty telling really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andryah Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) Out of curiosity, why are you making such a big deal out of the APAC (posting in every thread) issue when it hardly affects you at all? I post in a lot of different topics. As a forum member, I am entitled to post in any thread that interests me. And when people like the OP deliberately cherry pick data and demand a resonse from Bioware... I prefer to check and verify. There is too much hyperble and hate around this topic and we as forum members do not have to just forfeit the discussion to the angry people in the forum. And I do have an interest in the topic as it means more Aussie players coming to my home server. I like them, and I always have. Truth be told.. they have been migrating to my server for months now. And the OP posted flash screen shots at one point in time, which frankly is not supported by the torstatus data at a macro level. All three APAC servers combined would not poke above LIGHT on the Bastion super server. I get that people would prefer to stay on a localized server. But first and foremost... APAC players have been demanding a solution to persistent decline in server populations. Bioware looked at all the feedback and data available to them and made a business decision. It's their game, their decision to make. I really do not understand all the immature blustering, anger, and demanding for a different answer from some (not all, but some) forum members. I personally do not believe in being intimidated into being quiet about the topic by such behaviors... so I respond with reasoned and rational reponses, even if it means I get attacked by some (not you) for it. Edited March 28, 2013 by Andryah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astrobearx Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 (edited) I'm pretty sure Layda had screen shots of actual number on the server, not just server status reports. Those screen shots do tend to indicate that she is correct. Out of curiosity, why are you making such a big deal out of the APAC (posting in every thread) issue when it hardly affects you at all? . because she is the ultimate biodrone that is not a insult, btw its a compliment Edited March 28, 2013 by astrobearx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakamp Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Yeah Bioware..... a huge improvement for us. http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm1/hoarus_2008/Screenshot_2013-03-28_00_00_31_340860-1.jpg lol, see by urself in the weekend, we support transfer back to US by freewill would be better, but BW cant do that, so at least , they do merge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotRonin Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Server hosting cost is not an issue. Now that Amazon Cloud has oepned in Sydney, the cost of hosting a virtual server per hour cost less than a cup of coffee. We are talking about sites with lots of bandwidth and lots of CPU usage. Licensing cost could be an issue though, you never know how much LucasArt charges for the APAC zone. I believe the server population in APAC is small enough that EA simply doesn't care if we're all gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infernixx Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 Server hosting cost is not an issue. Now that Amazon Cloud has oepned in Sydney, the cost of hosting a virtual server per hour cost less than a cup of coffee. We are talking about sites with lots of bandwidth and lots of CPU usage. Licensing cost could be an issue though, you never know how much LucasArt charges for the APAC zone. I believe the server population in APAC is small enough that EA simply doesn't care if we're all gone. Yes, because they're doing all of this because they don't want money. Common sense: So rare, it's practically a Super Power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oakamp Posted March 28, 2013 Share Posted March 28, 2013 I As far as I can tell most of APAC wants to retain the 1 APAC server, and there are about a dozen or so people that don't want to. wrong, we want to a freewill transfer back to any server, we dont want to stay in a huge ping lag APAC server, u r minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts