VTmoon Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Before you jump on me, here me out. I use to play at POT5 and it was a ghost server so this isn't a thread about it being the best server or anything like that. So, to the meat of the issue. Today while looking at the Conquest tab, I noticed that the only guild that didn't have an @Server name, was Knights of Ren. I thought that it was odd and thought maybe because I was from POT5 and Knights of Ren was from the same server. But after asking everyone who merged from other servers said they see the same only Knight of Ren doesn't have an @ Server. I also remembered I was seeing a lot of planets Conquered by guilds from POT5 which makes no sense since the other servers would have a lot higher conquest numbers. That was when it hit me that before the merger from the last merger the only time a Guild on the conquest tab had an @ server next to it was to indicate where it came from. So the question became did all the other servers merge into POT5 after the hardware upgrade? Someone counter my theory by saying Raptue @ Jung Ma has Tatooine, my only current explanation to this is Tatooine hasn't been the a conquest planet for 3 Conquest week cycles, and the POT5 guild that conquered it last had moved on and conquered a different planet. The last 3 planets of the Rakghoul Resurgence: Alderaan were Taris, Nar Shaddaa, and Alderaan , all those planets are currently conquered by POT5 guilds. So, my question is did POT5 get renamed Star Forge and have the other 4 merged into it, or someone has a different explanation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teekayfourtwo Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 No- at least not from what they claimed, the hardware is new, and the character transfers were more of a character copy like when someone gets on the PTS, so i doubt it. And TBH i dont think the 2-3 year old hardware of POT5 or any other server could support all the players on the star forge, thus why they had many servers (200) when the game dropped, hardware just couldn't support the initial rush of thousands and thousands of players. What's more likely is that the software and programming of POT5 was moved to the new star forge server as a placeholder and that last conquest is a remnant of the bleed through from using that old server data as the new framework. You certainly could be right but that's just my educated guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerfectSquare Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 (edited) I believe it is because a guild only has the @<Old Shard Name> appended if there were name collisions. So, those you see with the old shard names had a duplicate name in the merge (likely large guilds have a presence on multiple servers and use the same name). Those that were still unique names don't. My guild was on Shadowlands and does not have @Shadowlands appended, FYI. We're also certainly not on any conquest leader boards though. Edited November 17, 2017 by PerfectSquare Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VTmoon Posted November 17, 2017 Author Share Posted November 17, 2017 No- at least not from what they claimed, the hardware is new, and the character transfers were more of a character copy like when someone gets on the PTS, so i doubt it. And TBH i dont think the 2-3 year old hardware of POT5 or any other server could support all the players on the star forge, thus why they had many servers (200) when the game dropped, hardware just couldn't support the initial rush of thousands and thousands of players. What's more likely is that the software and programming of POT5 was moved to the new star forge server as a placeholder and that last conquest is a remnant of the bleed through from using that old server data as the new framework. You certainly could be right but that's just my educated guess. Oh I'm not saying they used the old hardware because like you said it probably couldn't handle all the traffic without having lag issues. What I am saying is they upgraded the hardware for all 5 servers (that period between Oct 24th and Nov 8th), when the merger happened instead of creating a 6th server and merging all 5 into it, they instead merged the other 4 into POT5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casirabit Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Guilds that had the same name on different servers kept the name with an (from POT5, from Shadowlands, Ebon Hawk) attached to their names so that guilds did not lose their names unless you were like my guild no one ever used our names so our guild didn't get the attachment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VTmoon Posted November 17, 2017 Author Share Posted November 17, 2017 I believe it is because a guild only has the @<Old Shard Name> appended if there were name collisions. So, those you see with the old shard names had a duplicate name in the merge (likely large guilds have a presence on multiple servers and use the same name). Those that were still unique names don't. My guild was on Shadowlands and does not have @Shadowlands appended, FYI. We're also certainly not on any conquest leader boards though. Unchained Wrath is winning Hoth right now and on the leaderboard they have @ The Shadowlands next to their name. But if you meet a char on the server from their guild they do not have @ The Shadowlands on their guild tag. Like I said I thought the same at first but then thought about it, no way all 29 out of 30 guilds on the leaderboard has duplicate names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teekayfourtwo Posted November 17, 2017 Share Posted November 17, 2017 Oh I'm not saying they used the old hardware because like you said it probably couldn't handle all the traffic without having lag issues. What I am saying is they upgraded the hardware for all 5 servers (that period between Oct 24th and Nov 8th), when the merger happened instead of creating a 6th server and merging all 5 into it, they instead merged the other 4 into POT5. Okay yeah that i can totally see, its almost absolutely not the same physical server but i can see them using that as the framework for the new server on the software side of the equation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenduKundalini Posted November 19, 2017 Share Posted November 19, 2017 At first glance I thought you had no idea the 5 East Coast servers had merged into Star Forge. I get your drift now. Just want to add that before the 5.5 merge Conquest would show random server names back from 2.0. So maybe they do that with POT5 now. As for a guild named Knights of Ren, it's such an obvious name I expect all servers to have a guild called as such. With POT5 being inactive over the last 2 years I'd investigate a bit to see it those are Knights of Ren really from POT5 or from anywhere else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darevsool Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 I would have thought Knights of Ren would be a common guild name too. That guild is a big conquest guild and always has been. The fact that they're on the conquest leaderboard is not a surprise. It is made up of the same people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darevsool Posted November 20, 2017 Share Posted November 20, 2017 Regarding the mechanics of the server merge, I suspect they copied the previous servers to the new hardware going from smallest population to largest. The only thing I have to back up that theory is that I had the toon name DAREV on 7 of the 8 servers between east/west coast locations. Darev (1) from POT5 kept his name. While this toon was the first created, it was not the most used. However, he was the 2nd most used of my toons named Darev. Darev (2) from Ebon Hawk had the most hours played, but I had to rename him since the POT5 Darev already existed. I know that's not how they claimed merges with naming collisions would work. Also, as another wrinkle, I copied my Legacy from TEH to POT5, in effect merging them, and then copied the new merged legacy out to the other 6 servers, so that ALL of the N.A. servers would have essentially the same legacy data. Which, in my case, may have interfered with how they PLANNED on naming conflicts resolving automatically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts