Bioware Please Merge Servers

[forestguard]

Nah too high for F2P an preferred. It should stay as it is for them.

 

I think the 7 suggestion is actually lower than what Pref can have right now. They can have 8 active, if I recall correctly from my last sub lapse. .....but that's beside the point

Edited April 13, 2017 by forestguard

[Pliskie]

Yeah, I think things have come along way since 2012 with what they can now do. I'm sure they wouldn't do mergers without working all of that out first. Maybe that's the delay. But some communication would be good.

I did notice they are doing backend server maintenance on Jung Ma and will do some on other East Coast ones too later on.

I wonder if they are prepping a test run for it because that's what they did with the original mergers. I know there have been some server issues, but they are game wide and not just east coast. Seems funny they would only mention east coast. Maybe all servers will be merged there.

 

Your idea implies that BW continued working on the "merge server" problematic which I doubt they did. They added more systems to the game which made it harder to merge servers, not less. The pack viewer, the legacy storage, the strongholds are server bound and only CM unlocks are account based. That is not making me optimistically. The maintenance on Jung Ma could be just a faulty part, don't cling on such a fading possibility of a test run. You will only get disappointed, I am afraid.

 

Also you misunderstood RobertFKennedy. He wants to merge the servers at the current state of the merge process and let fate decide what happens. Then he wants to call the already overworked CS in to restore what was lost. I shudder o think about the result of that. Just remember that you cant play chars when you logged out in a stronghold when the owner is not online. Now imagine that simple little bug (CS has to restore the char in fleet which can take days as they are just a handfull people, not CS fault at all) by the amount of players which would get merged. If everything went bad (possible bug: which stronghold would the database set as main) all players still in game will be affected. They will be locked out of their possible favourite chars for weeks maybe months. I cant imagine they are still very willing to give BW their money for playing a less developed, less liked char. Especially Raiders will get ballistic if their mainchar is locked and they are somewhere in the 3426 position of submitting a ticket. Can FTP/Pref even submit a ticket? Roberts suggesting is so undefendable that I dont even want to discuss it any further, sorry.

 

Also I have trouble to imagine that "landlord" players want to be reduced to 52 chars per server. I can only speak for myself, even when I dont have those 390 chars, I would already lose out because I am definitive over 52 chars. But I have invested in those chars, in nearly all of them. I like a lot of armors in this game but seem to run out of chars who can wear them so well, yes... new char. Unlock armor account wide, put armor on new char and enjoy. I paid BW for this "right", I unlocked the chars and the armors with RL money and I am far from alone. People like me have a far bigger need of whatever they like (armors, weapons, dyes, weapon enhanchements) then a person with 1 main and 7 alts. But that decision was made based on the 390 char limit. So personally I lose out in a merger case done with the char limit suggested. Why should I feel inclined to spend more money on this game when I cant use stuff I paid with RL money for without hopping through burning rings? Why should other players who even invested more should be inclined to keep their subs plus pay extra on CM? We paid our dues, we paid for that right to have so many chars. Is my playstyle worth less then your PvP centered one like you seem to suggest with supporting a lower limit then the current one, Icey? So personally I will say no to BW when they do something like that, hence you lose at least one player in that process. I dunno how many "landlords" are around (I suspect a lot due their normal long time commitment not even the Galactic Command could break), only BW do have the numbers. The roleplayers would be also negavively impacted, some made wonderfull stories around their armors and how they aquiered them. But I absolutly could imagine, that a merge could end badly in the here suggested way. Worst case scenario: Harbinger and TRE might end on the same level as Progenitor or JC today and what have you guys won then? Just consider how few players of the first mergers are still here in comparison to newly aquiered players never walking through a merger. The game is five years old, sorry it is no spring chicken. New players will still join but not in the amounts we had there anymore. I fear that a merge now with all those problems will just end the game way faster then it must end without a merge. This is why the suggested ideas here get my no, cross faction in the opposite gets my full support.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Pliskie

[xordevoreaux]

Just for a moment, without arguing which server gets folded into which, just Imagine a server merge of Jung Ma folded into Shadowlands.

 

So there you have -- again, not the point just a number -- let's say 100 people on Jung Ma.

What are they doing? They're minding their own business. Farming. Doing story. Very little contact with anyone else.

 

So now imagine that there is -- again, just a number for the sake of argument -- 1000 people on Shadowlands, and some of them like to do PVP, and are salivating at the idea that there will be more people on the server once Jung Ma is folded into Shadowlands.

 

1000 people on Shadowlands + 100 (mostly) loners from Jung Ma does not result in more bodies to kill in PVP.

So, for the PVPr's, simply wanting to move people from underpopulated servers to their server won't result in more people to kill.

 

People are very much creatures of habit and will continue to do what they were doing before. Some people may have even gone to Jung Ma to be alone.

 

Server merges from dead servers to more populated ones will not result in more PVP numbers, certainly not significantly enough for the PVP'rs to notice.

[Icykill_]

I think the 7 suggestion is actually lower than what Pref can have right now. They can have 8 active, if I recall correctly from my last sub lapse. .....but that's beside the point

 

When I let mine lapse after Xmas it would only let me have 2 unlocked in preferred.

[Andryah]

Your idea implies that BW continued working on the "merge server" problematic which I doubt they did. They added more systems to the game which made it harder to merge servers, not less. The pack viewer, the legacy storage, the strongholds are server bound and only CM unlocks are account based. That is not making me optimistically. The maintenance on Jung Ma could be just a faulty part, don't cling on such a fading possibility of a test run. You will only get disappointed, I am afraid.

I agree with Pliskie.

 

As for what they are doing backend on Jung Ma, and apparently other east coast servers a bit later... sounds more to me like they are addressing some configuration issues or modifications.

 

Also you misunderstood RobertFKennedy. He wants to merge the servers at the current state of the merge process and let fate decide what happens. Then he wants to call the already overworked CS in to restore what was lost. I shudder o think about the result of that. Just remember that you cant play chars when you logged out in a stronghold when the owner is not online. Now imagine that simple little bug (CS has to restore the char in fleet which can take days as they are just a handfull people, not CS fault at all) by the amount of players which would get merged. If everything went bad (possible bug: which stronghold would the database set as main) all players still in game will be affected. They will be locked out of their possible favourite chars for weeks maybe months. I cant imagine they are still very willing to give BW their money for playing a less developed, less liked char. Especially Raiders will get ballistic if their mainchar is locked and they are somewhere in the 3426 position of submitting a ticket. Can FTP/Pref even submit a ticket? Roberts suggesting is so undefendable that I dont even want to discuss it any further, sorry.

 

Indeed that was his position as he reaffirmed it when questioned about it. If the studio went the route he wants, we would literally see gridlock in CS for weeks, or even months, due to backlog over all the issues people report from such a merge. Of course, he does not care now.. but he will care greatly when he has an issue with the merge and finds out he is number 25,564 in the queue at CS.

Edited April 13, 2017 by Andryah

[xordevoreaux]

If the studio went the route he wants, we would literally see gridlock in CS for weeks, or even months, due to backlog over all the issues people report from such a merge. .

 

Only subscribers can submit support tickets and use the forums. BW just has to wait until the drop in subscribers goes below their pain level for handling the resulting CS tickets.

Edited April 13, 2017 by xordevoreaux

[Ratajack]

Only subscribers can submit support tickets and use the forums. BW just has to wait until the drop in subscribers goes below their pain level for handling the resulting CS tickets.

 

F2P and preferred may not be able to submit in game tickets or post in the forums, but they can still tie up customer service via phone calls.

 

If most of the F2P and preferred players do not contact customer service via phone and tie them up that way, instead choosing to simply leave the game, wouldn't that at the very least negate the purpose of merging servers, if not leave the remaining servers in a worse situation with regards to population?

[Savej]

Just for a moment, without arguing which server gets folded into which, just Imagine a server merge of Jung Ma folded into Shadowlands.

 

So there you have -- again, not the point just a number -- let's say 100 people on Jung Ma.

What are they doing? They're minding their own business. Farming. Doing story. Very little contact with anyone else.

 

So now imagine that there is -- again, just a number for the sake of argument -- 1000 people on Shadowlands, and some of them like to do PVP, and are salivating at the idea that there will be more people on the server once Jung Ma is folded into Shadowlands.

 

1000 people on Shadowlands + 100 (mostly) loners from Jung Ma does not result in more bodies to kill in PVP.

So, for the PVPr's, simply wanting to move people from underpopulated servers to their server won't result in more people to kill.

 

People are very much creatures of habit and will continue to do what they were doing before. Some people may have even gone to Jung Ma to be alone.

 

Server merges from dead servers to more populated ones will not result in more PVP numbers, certainly not significantly enough for the PVP'rs to notice.

 

Jung Ma to S/L won't do too much. But there are ppl that don't transfer and don't restart that aren't playing much that will start playing more if there's a merge. And there are people that transferred off S/L or JM that will give ithe merged server another look if it gets any merge. No matter what S/L's activity will get a very noticeable bump. Just like Jung Ma's activity went up after Ven Zallow(a dead server at the time) was merged to it a few years ago.

[Ratajack]

Jung Ma to S/L won't do too much. But there are ppl that don't transfer and don't restart that aren't playing much that will start playing more if there's a merge. And there are people that transferred off S/L or JM that will give ithe merged server another look if it gets any merge. No matter what S/L's activity will get a very noticeable bump. Just like Jung Ma's activity went up after Ven Zallow(a dead server at the time) was merged to it a few years ago.

 

Is the slight (likely temporary) jump in activity worth the forcing the headaches and nightmares of a server merge upon the myriad number of people who would be affected?

 

IMO, it is not.

 

IF/when BW can resolve ALL the roadblocks and issue surrounding server merges (and that includes accounting for those players who simply prefer a more respectful and mature server and do not want to play on a cesspool server), then server merges may well be a viable answer. Until that time, however, I do not think that server merges will "solve" the population issue and will ultimately only exacerbate it.

[Solo-Jo]

From what i can see all this merge sever noise is coming from primarily PvPer's.....

So instead of tring to force a merge on others why don't you guys all get together decide on what sever you all want to gather on, transfer there, and pvp all together as much as you want.

[dr_mike]

F2P and preferred may not be able to submit in game tickets or post in the forums, but they can still tie up customer service via phone calls.

 

We had folks bragging a few months ago about how they were filling out ticket after ticket trying to clog up their CS folks on trivial matters. For some people, they see this as an acceptable behavior.

 

And a friendly reminder that preferred and f2p folks are able to submit tickets via emails to the support address. There are also avenues of support like the EA forums and reddit that are staff monitored.

[Ratajack]

I agree with Pliskie.

 

As for what they are doing backend on Jung Ma, and apparently other east coast servers a bit later... sounds more to me like they are addressing some configuration issues or modifications.

 

 

 

Indeed that was his position as he reaffirmed it when questioned about it. If the studio went the route he wants, we would literally see gridlock in CS for weeks, or even months, due to backlog over all the issues people report from such a merge. Of course, he does not care now.. but he will care greatly when he has an issue with the merge and finds out he is number 25,564 in the queue at CS.

 

I would not be surprised if that particular poster expected the other servers to be merged into the server he is on and therefore be able to avoid all the headaches and nightmares that others would have to suffer.

 

Why would someone who is willing to just "let the chips fall where they may and let customer service try to deal with the fallout" not simply transfer to a more populated server if they are willing to risk losing a lot, or even almost everything, anyway?

[TUXs]

From what i can see all this merge sever noise is coming from primarily PvPer's.....

So instead of tring to force a merge on others why don't you guys all get together decide on what sever you all want to gather on, transfer there, and pvp all together as much as you want.

You're mistaking players who do group activities (PvP, PvE and GSF) for PvPers. Queues only apply to group activities - it's natural that players who rely on queues, might also PvP...PvP is just another type of group activity...and all group activity would benefit from a larger population.

 

So, instead of demonizing a playstyle that you just seem to want to berate, think.

[Ratajack]

We had folks bragging a few months ago about how they were filling out ticket after ticket trying to clog up their CS folks on trivial matters. For some people, they see this as an acceptable behavior.

 

And a friendly reminder that preferred and f2p folks are able to submit tickets via emails to the support address. There are also avenues of support like the EA forums and reddit that are staff monitored.

 

Exactly. Even if BW "waits until the number of subscribers falls below the pain threshold", that still will not prevent customer service from being inundated and overwhelmed by the deluge of requests for "restoration of lost assets".

[Ratajack]

You're mistaking players who do group activities (PvP, PvE and GSF) for PvPers. Queues only apply to group activities - it's natural that players who rely on queues, might also PvP...PvP is just another type of group activity...and all group activity would benefit from a larger population.

 

So, instead of demonizing a playstyle that you just seem to want to berate, think.

 

Even if the "total population" is larger, the queue times may still not be what many seem to consider acceptable or reasonable.

 

If (and I am not saying that they do not, only asking "If" ) the majority of players on lower population or "dead" servers do not use the LFG tool and do their group activities with friends or guild mates, how much of an affect would they have on queue times if they do not use the LFG tool in the first place?

 

How much of an affect will merging servers have on queue times for someone who queues at 3 AM server time? How much of an affect will merging servers have for the person who queues during ANY off peak time?

 

Yet, I see posters who queue at very off peak hours server time saying that a "reasonable" queue time is 5 minutes or less, implying that anything longer is unreasonable. How can anyone expect a 5 minute queue at 3 AM server time?

[Savej]

Is the slight (likely temporary) jump in activity worth the forcing the headaches and nightmares of a server merge upon the myriad number of people who would be affected?

 

IMO, it is not.

 

IF/when BW can resolve ALL the roadblocks and issue surrounding server merges (and that includes accounting for those players who simply prefer a more respectful and mature server and do not want to play on a cesspool server), then server merges may well be a viable answer. Until that time, however, I do not think that server merges will "solve" the population issue and will ultimately only exacerbate it.

 

Jung Ma's bump lasted years. IMO merges are needed for the health of the game. I don't think you care about the health of the game; I'm not sure what your motivation here is but there are no healthy mmos with mostly dead and dying servers.

[Ratajack]

Jung Ma's bump lasted years. IMO merges are needed for the health of the game. I don't think you care about the health of the game; I'm not sure what your motivation here is but there are no healthy mmos with mostly dead and dying servers.

 

I do not feel that forcing a myriad number of players to suffer the headaches and nightmares that a server merger would cause if healthy for the game, especially when those players who wish to play on more populated servers already have the option to do so.

 

Now, as I said, IF BW resolves ALL the roadblocks and issues surrounding server merges (including accommodating those players who prefer more respectful and mature communities over the cesspool that is Harbinger), server merges become a more viable solution.

[Kirameki]

Or do it like some other game has done (not going to mention which one for that would be against some rule:rolleyes:). Not a merge but server groups. So server A, B and C make up group 1 and D, E, F group 2, so on and on. So this way you won't screw up loads of players who don't want their guild& character names by people asking for a merge.

 

Or let those that are on a low populated server transfer for free and slowly close down the dying server.

[Ratajack]

Or do it like some other game has done (not going to mention which one for that would be against some rule:rolleyes:). Not a merge but server groups. So server A, B and C make up group 1 and D, E, F group 2, so on and on. So this way you won't screw up loads of players who don't want their guild& character names by people asking for a merge.

 

 

 

Cross realm zones are not universally liked, to say the least. If you read the forums for that "other game", you would see that many people detest cross realm zones.

 

Cross realm zones bring with them their own set of problems, among them the lack of behavioral accountability.

 

Unless I m mistaken, the engine can not even handle cross realm queuing. I doubt very much that it could handle cross realm zones.

 

Or let those that are on a low populated server transfer for free and slowly close down the dying server.

 

How do you define "low population"? How would you determine which servers are eligible for "free transfers"?

 

Why should the person who wishes to play on a more populated server be able to transfer for free, but the person who wishes to move from the cesspool that is Harbinger to a server with a more mature, responsible and respectful community be required to pay to do so?

 

Since subscribers get a minimum of 500 CC's per month, and server transfers are only 90 CC, I would say that they have pretty much given subscribers at least 5 free server transfers per month.

[Icykill_]

Or do it like some other game has done (not going to mention which one for that would be against some rule:rolleyes:). Not a merge but server groups. So server A, B and C make up group 1 and D, E, F group 2, so on and on. So this way you won't screw up loads of players who don't want their guild& character names by people asking for a merge.

 

Or let those that are on a low populated server transfer for free and slowly close down the dying server.

 

I'm sorry I don't understand the concept of what you are saying. Can you explain it a bit more.

[casirabit]

When I let mine lapse after Xmas it would only let me have 2 unlocked in preferred.

 

It is 8 now. My best friend had a preferred account about a month ago until she decided to resub.

[casirabit]

It is just not names that is going to create a problem. A lot of us have guilds and we were here from the last merger and it was a damn headache just to get the guild banks back. It took some guilds months to get them back. Now add guild strongholds and guild ships on top of that.

 

Then there are people who say we dont' care, just do it anyways. Until they can do it properly there should be no mergers and properly is transferring guilds in tact with their assets not forcing them to restart and then having to fight again for what they already have.

 

Then consider the personal strongholds and the outfit organzier. Nope until this is able to be done without headaches then no.

 

It is easy for some to say merge anyways and let the chips fall where they may. That is a very selfish attitude as they are only thinking about what they want and not the headaches most of us would have to endure.

[Icykill_]

It is 8 now. My best friend had a preferred account about a month ago until she decided to resub.

 

Oh, I didn't know. Thanks for the info.

[Icykill_]

It is just not names that is going to create a problem. A lot of us have guilds and we were here from the last merger and it was a damn headache just to get the guild banks back. It took some guilds months to get them back. Now add guild strongholds and guild ships on top of that.

 

Then there are people who say we dont' care, just do it anyways. Until they can do it properly there should be no mergers and properly is transferring guilds in tact with their assets not forcing them to restart and then having to fight again for what they already have.

 

Then consider the personal strongholds and the outfit organzier. Nope until this is able to be done without headaches then no.

 

It is easy for some to say merge anyways and let the chips fall where they may. That is a very selfish attitude as they are only thinking about what they want and not the headaches most of us would have to endure.

 

I would hope that things have gotten better since 3-4 years ago and they would have "real" systems in place to make it automatic and not need to contact CS.

If they are still in the Stone Age it's a massive problem to merge like that and I would have great reservations about it.

There is the issue that they have demonstrated their willingness to do it in the past with servers that have 10 times more population than some of these low pop servers.

I've tried to steer this topic in the direction of getting Bioware to address those past merge issues so if they merge again (which IMO they will eventually based on past experience), they fix those issues before trying it. If we had a united front here saying make damn sure you fixed all those technical issues before even attempting it, they may see a community that wants cohesion in the game to suit all players and the health of the game.

All they see now is a divided community at odds with itself and the health of the game. People are squabbling and attacking others for no reason except to troll. I'm sure the Devs skim a few pages and then relegate it to the ignore column because of the behaviour in the thread.

That doesn't mean they ignore the topic, they just ignore the thread. Which means any posts with good ideas to help with a merge or concerns about a merge will go unheard. The worst case is they merge and not address any issues people have with the merge because they haven't seen them or any of the ideas to over come or fix the way they do it.

(Not aiming this at you Casirabit)

IMO, some of the people here who are just trolling and using the argument against mergers as a method to do their trolling are doing that side of the discussion a real disservice.

[Savej]

It is just not names that is going to create a problem. A lot of us have guilds and we were here from the last merger and it was a damn headache just to get the guild banks back. It took some guilds months to get them back. Now add guild strongholds and guild ships on top of that...

 

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).

Edited April 14, 2017 by Savej