Bioware Please Merge Servers

[Ratajack]

Before the shutdown of a server, just make sure your guild bank was empty. How hard was that, really? For merges now there needs to be coding for the new services. But at the time (4+ years ago) merges were way way overdue and waiting the extra time just for something players could -easily- work around wasn't necessary.

 

As for names - why do people that happened to initially pick harbinger or red eclipse get to keep their cool names while everyone else has to rename if they want to keep playing on an active server? How is that fair to those that also subbed from day one and went out of their way to lock in names they like to play with? The "fairness" thing goes both ways. When your only defensive argument revolves around "luck" then you aren't talking about fairness, you're talking about false entitlements. Sure you might quit if you lose the name you had from day 1 (unlikely if there's some sort of seniority with who keeps the names as there was with the prior merges and purge) but then there's someone else that has already quit and might be waiting to come back because that person couldn't keep playing his name. No matter how you spin it name conflicts are not an argument against merges (and with a little coding they don't have to be an issue at all but I'm done making suggestions about naming systems).

 

In addition, as has been stated previously, the two previous merges were not done in the same manner.

 

The initial server merge saw some servers classified as "origin servers" and other servers classified as "destination servers". The "origin servers" were shut down and the players on those servers were forcibly moved to a "destination server" determined by the "origin server" on which they were located. In that round of server merges, naming conflicts were decided by the player on the destination server getting to keep their name, even if the character from the "origin server" was created first or a higher level.

 

The second round of server merges were done differently. There were no "origin servers" or "destination servers". All of the servers were closed and everybody's characters were moved to a new, upgraded server, even if those servers had the same names of some of the servers that were closed. This meant that no one was "on the server first" so there had to be another way to resolve naming conflicts. It was this second round of server merges that saw multiple criteria, such as character creation date, character level, whether a character had to change names in the first server merge, etc. (I do not remember exactly what the hierarchy of those criteria was, though) used to determine naming priority.

 

If BW were to merge servers a third time, I would expect that based on prior merges, the resolution to naming conflicts would be based on how those merges took place.

 

If come servers were closed and merged into existing servers, I would expect that the player on the "destination server" would get to keep their name, as was the case in the first server merge.

 

If, on the other hand, all servers were closed and new hardware put in place, so that all servers were "origin servers" and the new servers were "destination servers", then I would expect a scenario similar to the second round of merges with regards to resolving naming conflicts. I do not foresee new hardware being put in place, though, as the new upgraded servers put in place during the second merger were designed to handle a higher population load, and I doubt that even serer merges would result in a need for servers with higher capacities than the servers in place now have.

 

Naming conflicts are only one of the issues surrounding server merges, though. The issue surrounding guilds and guild assets, legacy storage vaults (in some cases multiple legacy storage vaults across multiple servers), personal strongholds and decorations, etc. still need to be resolved before server merges should be considered a viable option, IMO.

[casirabit]

Before the shutdown of a server, just make sure your guild bank was empty. How hard was that, really? For merges now there needs to be coding for the new services. But at the time (4+ years ago) merges were way way overdue and waiting the extra time just for something players could -easily- work around wasn't necessary.

 

Okay, let me explain this in terms you will understand.

 

When they did the mergers 4 years ago. We empty everything out of the guild banks and gave them to officers to hold. We followed the damn instructions they asked us to follow. We created a new guild, got in touch with them to restore our guild bank. Simple right? Sure it was it took them 3 months to get our guild bank back for us and thankfully we had some good officers to hold the stuff but so you see we damn well follow the instructions and empty the damn bank but we still had to fight with them for 3 months to get the guild bank back.

 

We are on Ebon Hawk and our main concern is the blasted headaches we had to go through with just getting our guild bank back last time, now add to that guild strongholds, guild ships, etc. Now if they are able to transfer guilds intact and their items then fine but if you expect us to believe that we have to rely on them to restore our items again, well I have a bridge in Arizona I can sell you.

 

So until they can do transfer guilds in tact with the items I will continue to say no mergers. The headaches we had to endure the first time was enough, thank you very much.

Edited April 14, 2017 by casirabit

[fushnchips]

Okay, let me explain this in terms you will understand.

 

When they did the mergers 4 years ago. We empty everything out of the guild banks and gave them to officers to hold. We followed the damn instructions they asked us to follow. We created a new guild, got in touch with them to restore our guild bank. Simple right? Sure it was it took them 3 months to get our guild bank back for us and thankfully we had some good officers to hold the stuff but so you see we damn well follow the instructions and empty the damn bank but we still had to fight with them for 3 months to get the guild bank back.

 

That was 4 years ago maybe they have some Improvements and are capable of doing a full merge without an issue.

[casirabit]

That was 4 years ago maybe they have some Improvements and are capable of doing a full merge without an issue.

 

And if you believe that there is a bridge in Arizona I can sell you.

[fushnchips]

And if you believe that there is a bridge in Arizona I can sell you.

 

do you come with the bridge ?

[casirabit]

do you come with the bridge ?

 

No on the half chance you are being polite.

Edited April 14, 2017 by casirabit

[PoshTS]

Probably a good idea to merge JC and Shadowlands, but I couldn't say for sure what JC is like right now bc I left the server and took my friends with me to Harb.

 

I don't want all the bad imps from SL coming to crap up JC. We have enuff terribad pugs filling those extra 4 slots that I would rather at least be the bad pugs that I am familiar with. If anything just give us what is left of Jung Ma since I was born there.

[Ratajack]

That was 4 years ago maybe they have some Improvements and are capable of doing a full merge without an issue.

 

Do you really believe that?

 

Yes, that was over 4 years ago, and anything is possible. IMO, the evidence, however, points to no "improvements" having been made.

 

If they had made "improvements" and could transfer guilds and guild assets intact, don't you think they would be offering paid guild transfers?

[Andryah]

That was 4 years ago maybe they have some Improvements and are capable of doing a full merge without an issue.

 

Maybe pigs can fly too.

 

Point is.... 4 years later, we have seen absolutely no signs whatsoever that they have made improvements in this context at all. If they had.. then people choosing to transfer characters to a different server would also be able to move an entire guild and it's assets too. Yet.. you cannot.

 

Further.. what people keep ignoring, willfully or just out of spite is that there are far more guild assets at stake now then 4 years ago. 4 years ago it was a guild name, roster, and cargo hold. Now.. it's guild strongholds and guild ships as well... which are large investments of time and resources by guilds.... and in a merge.. POOF... gone.

[Andryah]

do you come with the bridge ?

 

Stop it.

 

Casirabit is one of the more fair minded and constructive players in forum discussion.

 

Just stop it. Just because you disagree with her views is no reason to call her out as a troll. You owe her an apology.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Andryah

[TUXs]

That was 4 years ago maybe they have some Improvements and are capable of doing a full merge without an issue.

I hope this is the case...I think our populations are far too spread out right now, which creates dead servers for many players.

[Andryah]

We are on Ebon Hawk and our main concern is the blasted headaches we had to go through with just getting our guild bank back last time, now add to that guild strongholds, guild ships, etc. Now if they are able to transfer guilds intact and their items then fine but if you expect us to believe that we have to rely on them to restore our items again, well I have a bridge in Arizona I can sell you.

 

So until they can do transfer guilds in tact with the items I will continue to say no mergers. The headaches we had to endure the first time was enough, thank you very much.

 

Happily, regardless of the nonsense begin presented by some (ie: EH and all other servers are dead and only the Harbinger is worthy of players) EH will likely still be here when they finally shut off the servers at end of life. It has persistently been the second largest server population in NA since the last great merge 4 years ago.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Andryah

[casirabit]

Happily, regardless of the nonsense begin presented by some (ie: EH and all other servers are dead and only the Harbinger is worthy of players) EH will likely still be here when they finally shut off the servers at end of life. It has persistently been the second largest server population in NA since the last great merge 4 years ago.

 

Yes I love Ebon Hawk. Sure we have our share of rude people but for the most part we have some great people that make our server great. I was cautious when we left Lord Adraas but Ebon Hawk has proved to be a wonderful server.

[Talon_strikes]

Happily, regardless of the nonsense begin presented by some (ie: EH and all other servers are dead and only the Harbinger is worthy of players) EH will likely still be here when they finally shut off the servers at end of life. It has persistently been the second largest server population in NA since the last great merge 4 years ago.

Honey, it's not nonsense. It's fact that the only populated servers are The Harbinger (US), The Ebon Hawk (US), and The Red Eclipse (EU). It's unnecessary for almost all the other servers to exist considering the game's population. Harbinger--the largest server in the game--can barely hold a 2nd instance Imp side at PRIME TIME.

 

[TUXs]

Honey, it's not nonsense. It's fact that the only populated servers are The Harbinger (US), The Ebon Hawk (US), and The Red Eclipse (EU). It's unnecessary for almost all the other servers to exist considering the game's population. Harbinger--the largest server in the game--can barely hold a 2nd instance Imp side at PRIME TIME.

 

Exactly! Pointing out the fact that we have a population that would entirely fit on ONE server, doesn't mean it's a good idea to have only ONE server...but it is a fact. We need a consolidation, not down to one, but a serious reduction, because it would be best for this game long term.

[casirabit]

Exactly! Pointing out the fact that we have a population that would entirely fit on ONE server, doesn't mean it's a good idea to have only ONE server...but it is a fact. We need a consolidation, not down to one, but a serious reduction, because it would be best for this game long term.

 

Tux, most of us have agreed that some servers need closing but that is not enough for some people. Some people want everyone on Harbinger and they don't care about anything else other than what they want.

 

Why in the world would a roleplayer want to go to Harbinger? There is nothing wrong with Ebon Hawk but you say that and you are told you are wrong. Interesting to be told that I am wrong when I play there and even group up in heroics with people around the area.

 

But that isn't enough for some people. They want what they want and they will not listen to anyone that has a different point of view. They stomp their feet like a two-year old child that wants their way. Lucky for them they are not my child as they would be sitting in a corner until they learn they don't get everything they want.

[Savej]

...

If we wanted to play on Harbinger, we would already have moved. Forcing this move on us is just going to cause people to move away from the game. And it's not going to bring people back, or suddenly make thousands of new players want to play.

 

Weren't you complaining 2 seconds ago about people repeating their arguments 300x? Which part of "merged servers is good for the health and perception of the game overall" do you need me to repeat for the 300th time?

[TUXs]

Tux, most of us have agreed that some servers need closing but that is not enough for some people. Some people want everyone on Harbinger and they don't care about anything else other than what they want.

 

Why in the world would a roleplayer want to go to Harbinger? There is nothing wrong with Ebon Hawk but you say that and you are told you are wrong. Interesting to be told that I am wrong when I play there and even group up in heroics with people around the area.

 

But that isn't enough for some people. They want what they want and they will not listen to anyone that has a different point of view. They stomp their feet like a two-year old child that wants their way. Lucky for them they are not my child as they would be sitting in a corner until they learn they don't get everything they want.

Don't fret and don't let them bother you. You're right, they're wrong. It's not as simple as "one server to rule them all"...they just don't get it. I hope you try to explain it to those who don't, because you are right...if they still don't get it, just let it go...we can all be ignorant at times.

[Andryah]

Honey, it's not nonsense. It's fact that the only populated servers are The Harbinger (US), The Ebon Hawk (US), and The Red Eclipse (EU). It's unnecessary for almost all the other servers to exist considering the game's population. Harbinger--the largest server in the game--can barely hold a 2nd instance Imp side at PRIME TIME.

 

 

It's an alternative fact on your part, and you know it.

 

There are 3 dead servers in NA... Jung Ma, PoT5, and Bastion. That's it. And I think we can all agree these three are essentially dead.

 

Does that mean then need to be shuttered? Not sure really, as there is no harm in them staying online if the remaining players actually like it there and do not want to move. Given everyone can transfer for very low cost.. it is logical to assume that those remaining on these servers have reasons for staying and I would not lobby to destroy their server under their feet.

 

The rest of the NA servers are of varying sizes and community styles and are still active. The current "canary" in the NA server farms is Begeren Colony, which has always been one of the smaller servers in the land, but it's culture is RP and it's located in the west coast, so it still has a following. But Begeren Colony is not dead.. just small.. as always.

 

One of the actual negative aspects of merging entire servers is that you destroy established communities to some degree in the process. This is as serious in my view as the destruction of guilds that merges currently would cause. Each server, big or small, has it's own particular social culture to some degree. Why destroy that for all players, when any player that seeks a bigger server can easily move themselves?

Edited April 14, 2017 by Andryah

[Andryah]

Which part of "merged servers is good for the health and perception of the game overall" do you need me to repeat for the 300th time?

 

That's a false flag argument.

 

I really disagree with those who feel that the studio must constantly tune the server populations "by force" through forced merges... to keep an all servers "busy" perception, especially when "busy" is a very subjective term amongst the player base. It leaves little or no "head room" for the normal peaks and valleys of active player populations that is common in MMOs.

 

Now.. the core issue here really is some players and the studio (and other players) not agreeing on what a "proper server model" is for an MMO. Some players demand very high population counts.. because they rely on random group queuing. Others do not, and never will.. because they rely on actual friends and guild mates for grouping in most cases, and as such are largely immune to actual population activity on their server. From the studio's perspective, it costs them almost nothing to keep a server online (given their current operating model), and if they pul the plug on a server, it's permanent and may in fact drive some good players away in the process (because they did not want their server unplugged).

Edited April 14, 2017 by Andryah

[kvandertulip]

They stomp their feet like a two-year old child that wants their way. Lucky for them they are not my child as they would be sitting in a corner until they learn they don't get everything they want.

 

What do you think the reaction from the other side would be if they announced server mergers today? Please don't be a hypocrite.

[casirabit]

What do you think the reaction from the other side would be if they announced server mergers today? Please don't be a hypocrite.

 

I don't have a problem if they can merge servers right, that is guilds intact with all their items not having to fight for months to get their items back. Read up and you see where I stated this and also I am on Ebon Hawk so if they merge servers more than likely the roleplay servers would be merged into Ebon Hawk.

 

 

http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=915434&page=60

Edited April 14, 2017 by casirabit

[Savej]

That's a false flag argument.

 

I really disagree with those who feel that the studio must constantly tune the server populations "by force" through forced merges... to keep an all servers "busy" perception, especially when "busy" is a very subjective term amongst the player base. It leaves little or no "head room" for the normal peaks and valleys of active player populations that is common in MMOs.

 

Now.. the core issue here really is some players and the studio (and other players) not agreeing on what a "proper server model" is for an MMO. Some players demand very high population counts.. because they rely on random group queuing. Others do not, and never will.. because they rely on actual friends and guild mates for grouping in most cases, and as such are largely immune to actual population activity on their server. From the studio's perspective, it costs them almost nothing to keep a server online (given their current operating model), and if they pul the plug on a server, it's permanent and may in fact drive some good players away in the process (because they did not want their server unplugged).

 

"constantly tune server populations"... and you're the one talking about "false flag arguments" ? It's been over four years since the last merges and we've had servers on life support (that are now dead) for much longer than a year. You say it's only 3 servers in the US, I disagree, but 3 servers in NA (there are plenty of dead servers in EUR, too) is just under 40% of the existing NA servers - how is that not "a lot"? BW, through Eric and at least 2 past producers separately have admitted that server populations have been having problems and all have "promised" solutions like "better than x-server" but they have so far done NOTHING. Your argument is not that you don't want servers "constantly tuned" it's that you don't want them tuned at all. And there were people on these boards saying exactly the same thing before the first merges, btw, "we don't need merges", "I always find things to do with my guild", "bw pls don't take away my names", "but I like not having dirty euphemisms in fleet chat", etc..

 

Proper server size is one that accommodates lfg qs for core activities. If not 24/7 (ideal) then at least during prime time. Unless all you want to do is play wzs at max level and run veteran flashpoints, the current game doesn't do that at all on all but a few servers. Events are ghost towns - getting in pug groups for things like the XenoAnalyst fight is much harder than it used to be even though the fight itself is easier than ever. Things like HM/Master fp qs, Uprisings (HM/Master and otherwise), Operations, Ranked PVP and GSF are just very hard to get into unless you know exactly how to spam fleet or you're in a large guild with lots of currently active players. That's not healthy and there's no good reason for that situation to remain.

 

Ask any 10 mmoers and a majority will tell you the game with dead servers (and no x-server) isn't worth trying or going back to. That's not a "false flag" that's just how this industry works. In the very old days, it was nice being on lighter population servers in some games because there was actual competition for kills and hunting areas in games that hadn't invented instances. Those days are over - it's easy now to quickly go from 1-70 in this game and eventually get the best gear possible without ever waiting in line or otherwise interacting with anyone if you don't want to, even on Harbinger.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Savej

[TUXs]

Does that mean then need to be shuttered? Not sure really, as there is no harm in them staying online if the remaining players actually like it there and do not want to move.

Yes they do. They DO do harm...in perception and retention.

 

3 years ago, Pot5 was the largest PvP server this game had. We had 3 instances of Pub Fleet any night of the week, 4 on weekends. With new attention on PvP, starting in 5.2, it is a tragic mistake to have Pot5 open like it currently is. IF a player comes back to check out the "PvP update", they'll see within minutes just how dead the game is and they'll never give SWTOR another look.

 

Perception is reality to these players. They are NOT going to pay $1 extra to a dead game. Leaving the dead servers open DOES do harm.

[CrazyCT]

Weren't you complaining 2 seconds ago about people repeating their arguments 300x? Which part of "merged servers is good for the health and perception of the game overall" do you need me to repeat for the 300th time?

 

The part where it does any good for the game would be nice. Are server merges going to suddenly make everyone come back to the game, or a few thousand people suddenly want to play? Is the "perception" that game has closed 16 servers going to make shareholders want to invest in the future of the game? Is it going to make any significant difference to the queues by adding a small percentage to a much busier server?

 

Or is it going to piss off a good few subscribers, players who aren't even going to bother sending in tickets to have all their stuff back, essentially making the merge pointless, when the people you are trying to force onto your serer just walk away instead.