Exocor Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) So, I would suggest to lower the cost of server transfers down to 90cc with release of 5.0! Many guilds - such as mine - have watched the situation on their servers after the last transfer-window had closed. We came to the conclusion, if we stay on our server for the next year, we wouldn't survive. More and more members of our community have disappeared, due to no content and to not enough other intelligent life on our server. Another option is to merge the european servers into one english, one german and one french server. I don't have an impression of the american situation, but the lower populated servers are no good example to allure and keep new subscribers. ~hope for a miracle Edited September 12, 2016 by Exocor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllisonLightning Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 So, I would suggest to lower the cost of server transfers down to 90cc with release of 5.0! Many guilds - such as mine - have watched the situation on their servers after the last transfer-window had closed. We came to the conclusion, if we stay on our server for the next year, we wouldn't survive. More and more members of our community have disappeared, due to no content and to not enough other intelligent life on our server. Another option is to merge the european server into one english, one german and one french server. I don't have an impression of the american situation, but the lower populated servers are no good example to allure and keep new subscribers. ~hope for a miracle I wouldn't mind as long as the caveat for paying 90 CC included a mandatory stay on the destination server for three months. The decreased price allowed people to buy things off low cost GTN servers and transfer them back to their native server which wasn't pretty, a cheap transfer price should facilitate someone who has chosen a new home server, not someone looking to game the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmorrisson Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 (edited) Players were using the 90cc transfers for inexpensive name changes (If destination server has same name then a name change is forced). This really wasn't an issue until spaces were allowed in names. Then there was a rush on server transfers just to get a name change at a low cost. Edited September 12, 2016 by jimmorrisson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsetso Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 they could make special transfers which could be used only on low pop servers(one way ticket), but then they'll have to admit that there are low pop servers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlasmaJohn Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 I wouldn't mind as long as the caveat for paying 90 CC included a mandatory stay on the destination server for three months. The decreased price allowed people to buy things off low cost GTN servers and transfer them back to their native server which wasn't pretty, ... A cooldown wouldn't solve this issue. Somebody using transfers to move mules around can easily work around this. They either need enough of a stable to rotate through or just delete them and create a fresh one that's not locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TUXs Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 I wouldn't mind as long as the caveat for paying 90 CC included a mandatory stay on the destination server for three months. The decreased price allowed people to buy things off low cost GTN servers and transfer them back to their native server which wasn't pretty, a cheap transfer price should facilitate someone who has chosen a new home server, not someone looking to game the system. Honest question... Why does it matter? Who cares if people pay Bioware to move toons around to make extra fake in-game credits? What negative impact does that really have? I don't see any negative impact at all. If someone wants to pay $1.80 (90cc x2) to make an extra million in-game credits, who the hell cares? The in-game economy is a distant second to player enjoyment...and very few players enjoy dead servers. Would you be equally against a global GTN? Meaning all servers would utilize the same GTN? Credits are easy to make...keeping people playing on dead servers, isn't. I'm fine with a cooldown of sorts, but I don't quite understand the need for even that. If Bob wants to pay Bioware $1 each time he swaps to a different server, let him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exocor Posted September 12, 2016 Author Share Posted September 12, 2016 *push* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightSaberzFan Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 The 90cc server transfer is dead. They have pretty much said so. It was there for almost a year, then extended it. It is still cheaper then what is was originally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadDutchman Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 90CC was too little, it came with all sorts of issues. Now I think 1000CC is too high. I think 500CC would be just right. Fixes the cheap rename issue and the other "temporary resident" issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKilltech Posted September 12, 2016 Share Posted September 12, 2016 how about we get rid of the antique idea of having to split up the population onto completely separate servers instead? i mean what's the point of this? it merely limits with whom you can play and prolongs all queuing for no real reason. i mean there would still be instances of planets that are bound to different regional servers for performance reasons and that players can freely switch between. yeah it's a bit of technical work that needs to be done to make it happen but if this game isn't going to shut down anytime soon it's a viable investment that is likely to prolong SWTORs lifetime by quite a bit. as for ambiguous character name they should change it that different toons can have the same name. possibly requiring only the combination of char and legacy name to be unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightSaberAddiCt Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 how about we get rid of the antique idea of having to split up the population onto completely separate servers instead? i mean what's the point of this? it merely limits with whom you can play and prolongs all queuing for no real reason. i mean there would still be instances of planets that are bound to different regional servers for performance reasons and that players can freely switch between. yeah it's a bit of technical work that needs to be done to make it happen but if this game isn't going to shut down anytime soon it's a viable investment that is likely to prolong SWTORs lifetime by quite a bit. as for ambiguous character name they should change it that different toons can have the same name. possibly requiring only the combination of char and legacy name to be unique. If they tried that on the hero engine, it would be a lagfest, total cluster **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merovejec Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 EU servers should definitely be merged, while for example Progenitor is still doing fine, TOFN is dead. They should only keep 3 servers in EU, as the player population is going down rapidly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nepochop Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Another option is to merge the european servers into one english, one german and one french server. I don't have an impression of the american situation, but the lower populated servers are no good example to allure and keep new subscribers. ~hope for a miracle Yup many many people are waiting for this, they left their guilds on the deserted servers waiting for a server merge in the future since trasfering guilds was not possible. It would mainly help out the dead servers and people that came back after a long time to find themselves to be alone on fleet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GythralSWTOR Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 Restrict the token offer to PvP/RP servers (that way they dont have to admit that a server is dead) & it limits the siphoning off of goods on the PvE servers that are generally populated Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icykill_ Posted September 13, 2016 Share Posted September 13, 2016 So, I would suggest to lower the cost of server transfers down to 90cc with release of 5.0! Many guilds - such as mine - have watched the situation on their servers after the last transfer-window had closed. We came to the conclusion, if we stay on our server for the next year, we wouldn't survive. More and more members of our community have disappeared, due to no content and to not enough other intelligent life on our server. Another option is to merge the european servers into one english, one german and one french server. I don't have an impression of the american situation, but the lower populated servers are no good example to allure and keep new subscribers. ~hope for a miracle Merging soon is the only ethical way forward. But Bioware are unlikely to do so. While ever people pay to transfer, wether it's 10cc, 90cc, or 1400cc, Bioware won't merge or give free transfers. They are milking the community for everything till the cow dies. They know which servers are dead or dying. But they also know people are willing to pay to transfer from them. It comes down to basic accounting. While ever people pay to transfer and they make more money from people transferring, than it costs to keep dead servers online, they will not merge them or give free transfers. But I'm willing to bet that if the cost of keeping those dead servers operating became more than they make from transfers, then they'd close them. The process will probably start with giving everyone free transfers, but only to designated ones. Once that process starts, you will know that server will be closed. Lots of people will take advantage of it too, so it will eventually make it easier to merge the servers. With even less people on the dead servers, there will be less resistance from the people who hate the idea of merges. Plus if they stuff up the merges with technical issues like guild bank/ship transfers/merges, it will effect a lot less people. Bioware or should I say EA do not care about their customers. EAs track record has shown they will milk things till they die. Knowing this, the only recourse for the players is to circumvent it. The best way to force their hand and actually "act", not "be" ethical as we know they aren't, is to stop letting them milk you. Anyone who wants off a server because it's dying has to make a decision. Do you pay them more money for a service that should free and would show they care. Or do you protest the situation by forcing their hand? I know it sucks to be on a dead server, maxed out everything, have tonnes of credits, heaps of toons, etc. my only suggestion is "if" they drop the transfer price, then transfer 1 toon with everything so that you keep all achievements, legacy, etc. then refuse to transfer more. Start new toons on your destination server instead of paying to transfer them all. But don't delete your old toons because when that tipping point happens and they have to merge or close, they should allow you to transfer all of your other "old" toons across, even if you have maxed out slots. This is what happened when they closed our APAC severs and merged with the West Coast ones. Anyway, be smart about paying for something that should essentially be free. We're all subscribers who post here, not F2P, so this should not be a feature we shouldnt have to pay for when a server is dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts