is it time for one US Megaserver ?

[blacksilverlord]

-1 Opposed.  Merging both US servers is virtually always because some player from Satele Shan thinks their server stinks compared to Star Forge and wants to transfer to Star Forge without paying for it AND changing all their toon names, so they selfishly want Star Forge players to pay the price for them.  -1 Nope.  Never.

Edited January 17, 2023 by blacksilverlord

[xordevoreaux]

At the end of the day it won't matter, Bioware will do what Bioware will do.

[illgot]

4 hours ago, blacksilverlord said:

-1 Opposed.  Merging both US servers is virtually always because some player from Satele Shan thinks their server stinks compared to Star Forge and wants to transfer to Star Forge without paying for it AND changing all their toon names, so they selfishly want Star Forge plays to pay the price for them.  -1 Nope.  Never.

do you even know how retaining your name works on a server merge?

Here is what you said translates to:

"I would rather see the game lose thousands of players because of dead servers than merge servers and take the chance I could lose my name."

Edited January 11, 2023 by illgot

[Advocatis]

I’ve seen two or three server merges in another game.  I was not playing SWTOR when I got merged into Satele Shan, that’s just where I was when I restarted the game in 2021.  It suits me because I play a small number of characters almost entirely solo.

It’s fundamentally impossible to please everyone when servers merge.  Some players want name retention based on levels and time played, others want earliest creation date regardless of play (or even being active).  Others want the receiving server to retain names, with the players being transferred (willingly or not) getting the brunt of any adaptation from the move.  Still others support or oppose the move and don’t care what business case may be made.

SWTOR adds another wrinkle to the dissatisfaction story by allowing so very many alts.  In the end, BW will do what is best for their business with whatever rules they decide on, and players will adapt or leave.

[SteveTheCynic]

12 hours ago, Advocatis said:

Others want the receiving server to retain names, with the players being transferred (willingly or not) getting the brunt of any adaptation from the move.

SWTOR's solution to that in 2017, shared with the other game where I've seen merges (Allods Online),was to create a new, empty server into which everyone on the merged servers was transferred.  (E.g. Mantle of the Force, Darth Nihilus and the other one were all transferred into the new, empty, server The Leviathan.)  That way, everyone is a "player being transferred".

[Advocatis]

2 hours ago, SteveTheCynic said:

SWTOR's solution to that in 2017, shared with the other game where I've seen merges (Allods Online),was to create a new, empty server into which everyone on the merged servers was transferred.  (E.g. Mantle of the Force, Darth Nihilus and the other one were all transferred into the new, empty, server The Leviathan.)  That way, everyone is a "player being transferred".

The other game I was referring to merged the server names as Server1 (Server2), with the server name retention based on their criteria of population or historical/game lore significance.  They told the players that however the server name was chosen, it was functionally new and everyone came in as equals.  That’s essentially the same process as you described, except for an arbitrary server name convention that attempted to retain the old names.

The second and subsequent mergers dropped the old parenthetical names in favor of new parenthetical names.  When I re-started SWTOR, I was mostly just curious if my old characters were still around.  Then I found I had years of new content to play.

[OlBuzzard]

20 hours ago, xordevoreaux said:

At the end of the day it won't matter, Bioware will do what Bioware will do.

In the end BW will do what is necessary.  I get that!   And yet ...  I'm also glad that we are able to discuss this matter.   Hopefully, this will help avert a few difficulties along the way!  (Hopefully)!

[Char_Ell]

On 12/22/2022 at 4:53 PM, illgot said:

With transfers being 50% I don't think it matters what any of us want. I think mergers are already being planned.

Going back a ways to the post that revived this thread on December 22.  I am not seeing any indication that BioWare is planning on merging servers.  One of Keith's statements from his December 20 blog post leads me to believe server merges are not actively being considered (emphasis added).  If BioWare thinks they can grow SWTOR's player base in 2023 with these technical updates then why would they be considering a server merge?  Unless BioWare has a way to allow for server merges that mitigates most of the big negatives that came with previous merges (forced name change, character slot concerns)?  However this would be pure speculation since as far as I know BioWare has not revealed any technology updates that would mitigate server merge concerns. 

Quote

Moving servers entirely to the cloud in the near future will enable us to improve the game experience for our players and create opportunities to increase the player base over time.

How realistic BioWare Austin's goal to increase SWTOR's player base over time is certainly up for debate and remains to be seen.  I understand 50% off character transfers can be interpreted as a prelude action to a server merge.  It may also be interpreted as a way for BioWare to provide greater incentive to players that are not happy with their current server's population to transfer to a server that has a higher population and thus reduce population complaints.

[illgot]

2 hours ago, Advocatis said:

The other game I was referring to merged the server names as Server1 (Server2), with the server name retention based on their criteria of population or historical/game lore significance.  They told the players that however the server name was chosen, it was functionally new and everyone came in as equals.  That’s essentially the same process as you described, except for an arbitrary server name convention that attempted to retain the old names.

The second and subsequent mergers dropped the old parenthetical names in favor of new parenthetical names.  When I re-started SWTOR, I was mostly just curious if my old characters were still around.  Then I found I had years of new content to play.

I was playing an MMO that did that with player names. You had an old server name attached to character ID. I can't remember which game that was but thought that was a decent solution. Another game gave each account a unique ID so it would be "illgot@account ID". Players names were not unique but the account ID that followed the name was. You could always check a players account ID to make sure they were who you thought they were.

Edited January 12, 2023 by illgot

[OlBuzzard]

1 hour ago, illgot said:

I was playing an MMO that did that with player names. You had an old server name attached to character ID. I can't remember which game that was but thought that was a decent solution. Another game gave each account a unique ID so it would be "illgot@account ID". Players names were not unique but the account ID that followed the name was. You could always check a players account ID to make sure they were who you thought they were.

While I understand where you are coming from ... that seems a bit cumbersome to me!   Not trying to be too argumentative ...  just seems ..well ... wrong!
Sorry ... I really don't have a better explanation.  Not trying to be evasive.  Just doesn't seem like it would ... Heck!  I can't seem to be able to type out what's running through the back of my mind right now (Which amounts to nothing more than red flags waving around).  I know ... I know!  That's not good enough.  Not being fussy!  (But probably living up to just being an old dude!)

😉

[illgot]

57 minutes ago, OlBuzzard said:

While I understand where you are coming from ... that seems a bit cumbersome to me!   Not trying to be too argumentative ...  just seems ..well ... wrong!
Sorry ... I really don't have a better explanation.  Not trying to be evasive.  Just doesn't seem like it would ... Heck!  I can't seem to be able to type out what's running through the back of my mind right now (Which amounts to nothing more than red flags waving around).  I know ... I know!  That's not good enough.  Not being fussy!  (But probably living up to just being an old dude!)

😉

Each account had their own random ID. Character names were not unique but the ID that followed was unique and something assigned by the company. I don't remember the format but you would /tell OlBuzzard@GoldPlatinum153. Every character on your account would be @GoldPlatinum153 so if someone tried to impersonate you, your friends could look up that persons account name and double check.

Think of our current system. We had massive issues with scamming on Star Forge with a certain player copying well established players names. They would use a character boost, take a well established trader name like "illgot" and create a new character named "ilIgôt". This new character would then set up trades with people for hypercrates and insert a single cartel pack because they shared the same icon. They scammed a lot of people doing this, so much so that Bioware changed the icons of the hypercrates and cartel packs so they were different. Once caught this player would delete that character and get a refund on their character boost because they did not level or finish any quests. They would then copy another traders name and repeat. Eventually they became so well known they changed their legacy name multiple times because we kept track of them on our friends lists when they popped up trying to scam people.

With an account ID attached to each of your characters people can check to make sure they are dealing with the person they intended and at the same time character names were no longer unique.

Yes you could see a hundred Legolas running around with the exact same character name but the account name following their character name would be unique.

I don't think you ever saw their account name unless you were /telling them or looking at your friends list. I can not even remember which game had this function.

Our current naming system leads to many characters using names like "Õl'BÜzzÅrÐ" which in it's own way is cumbersome when you try and /invite or /tell without them actively posting in chat.

Edited January 12, 2023 by illgot

[OlBuzzard]

2 hours ago, illgot said:

Each account had their own random ID. Character names were not unique but the ID that followed was unique and something assigned by the company. I don't remember the format but you would /tell OlBuzzard@GoldPlatinum153. Every character on your account would be @GoldPlatinum153 so if someone tried to impersonate you, your friends could look up that persons account name and double check.

Think of our current system. We had massive issues with scamming on Star Forge with a certain player copying well established players names. They would use a character boost, take a well established trader name like "illgot" and create a new character named "ilIgôt". This new character would then set up trades with people for hypercrates and insert a single cartel pack because they shared the same icon. They scammed a lot of people doing this, so much so that Bioware changed the icons of the hypercrates and cartel packs so they were different. Once caught this player would delete that character and get a refund on their character boost because they did not level or finish any quests. They would then copy another traders name and repeat. Eventually they became so well known they changed their legacy name multiple times because we kept track of them on our friends lists when they popped up trying to scam people.

With an account ID attached to each of your characters people can check to make sure they are dealing with the person they intended and at the same time character names were no longer unique.

Yes you could see a hundred Legolas running around with the exact same character name but the account name following their character name would be unique.

I don't think you ever saw their account name unless you were /telling them or looking at your friends list. I can not even remember which game had this function.

Our current naming system leads to many characters using names like "Õl'BÜzzÅrÐ" which in it's own way is cumbersome when you try and /invite or /tell without them actively posting in chat.

Hmmm...  Solid points! I do see your points (particularly regarding the protection of account ID's).  

But I still don't like the idea of a merger of the servers for one mega US server!  Other points have been equally well presented (most have better than what I do).   I'm not opposed to change when needed and/or warranted.  IF, and when, the time comes for that move to be necessary AND if someone from the team presented the appropriate reasoning behind that move ...  I might go along with it.
I'm not trying to be obstinate, just looking at as many sides of this subject as I can.  I do hope this makes sense.

[WayOfTheWarriorx]

18 hours ago, illgot said:

I was playing an MMO that did that with player names. You had an old server name attached to character ID. I can't remember which game that was but thought that was a decent solution. Another game gave each account a unique ID so it would be "illgot@account ID". Players names were not unique but the account ID that followed the name was. You could always check a players account ID to make sure they were who you thought they were.

What would stop someone wanting to troll or screw up some other player they had a beef with from making a character with the same name [as you wouldn't see the account ID in chat], making the character the same class and spec and making it look exactly like the other player and than doing things to piss off other players and than the 'real' player getting the flak for it?

In essence, someone could make a doppelganger of another players character to mess with other players.

And than the real player catching the flak for the doppelganger would say -

"No! It wasn't me! Someone else must of made a character with the same name, look, class, and spec to mess with me!! I don't suck! I didn't say that! I didn't do that! I swear! It was a doppelganger!"

Sure, pal, sure it was. Take a long walk off a short pier.

As toxic as some players are in this game, that could and most likely would happen.

To say nothing of just genuine confusion based on just recognizing a name. People won't be checking IDs for everyone who ever says anything in chat or is toxic. But they will still recognize the names they see and chat and make a whole lot of assumptions.

No one will be checking everyone's ID. Maybe in trade situations they would, but not generally speaking.

The IDs could solve some of the name problems, but could create others at the same time.

The great thing about server transfers is it solves all the problems of those that wish to leave a server, and causes no problems to anyone else in the process. - Win/Win or Win/Lose.

It's kinda hard to empathize with people who have the choice of solving their own problems without creating problems for others [transfers] but instead would rather solve their own problems by causing problems for others in the process [mergers].

Star Forge doesn't need any help. It gains nothing of any consequence by a merger, it only gets a myriad of problems.

Edited January 13, 2023 by WayOfTheWarriorx

[OlBuzzard]

4 hours ago, WayOfTheWarriorx said:

What would stop someone wanting to troll or screw up some other player they had a beef with from making a character with the same name [as you wouldn't see the account ID in chat], making the character the same class and spec and making it look exactly like the other player and than doing things to piss off other players and than the 'real' player getting the flak for it?

In essence, someone could make a doppelganger of another players character to mess with other players.

And than the real player catching the flak for the doppelganger would say -

"No! It wasn't me! Someone else must of made a character with the same name, look, class, and spec to mess with me!! I don't suck! I didn't say that! I didn't do that! I swear! It was a doppelganger!"

Sure, pal, sure it was. Take a long walk off a short pier.

As toxic as some players are in this game, that could and most likely would happen.

To say nothing of just genuine confusion based on just recognizing a name. People won't be checking IDs for everyone who ever says anything in chat or is toxic. But they will still recognize the names they see and chat and make a whole lot of assumptions.

No one will be checking everyone's ID. Maybe in trade situations they would, but not generally speaking.

The IDs could solve some of the name problems, but could create others at the same time.

The great thing about server transfers is it solves all the problems of those that wish to leave a server, and causes no problems to anyone else in the process. - Win/Win or Win/Lose.

It's kinda hard to empathize with people who have the choice of solving their own problems without creating problems for others [transfers] but instead would rather solve their own problems by causing problems for others in the process [mergers].

Star Forge doesn't need any help. It gains nothing of any consequence by a merger, it only gets a myriad of problems.

In the end ... seems like there is always someone who will try to abuse just about any system out there.  IMO that is why these "gray areas" leave a lot of distrust on the behalf of so many.  You can't blame folks for feeling that sense of wariness.  I really think this is where a lot of players are at right now!

And yes ...  I like your analysis:  "it's kinda hard to empathize with people who have the choice of solving their own problems without creating problems for others [transfers] but instead would rather solve their own problems by causing problems for others in the process [mergers]."

That's a good way to put it!  While I can see both side of this whole transfer vs merger discussion ...  IMO right now the best answer is individual transfers.  If things really are THAT bad on SH ...  then perhaps BW should consider a discounted pricing for transfers over an extended period of time ???????  (just asking).

[illgot]

13 hours ago, WayOfTheWarriorx said:

What would stop someone wanting to troll or screw up some other player they had a beef with from making a character with the same name [as you wouldn't see the account ID in chat], making the character the same class and spec and making it look exactly like the other player and than doing things to piss off other players and than the 'real' player getting the flak for it?

In essence, someone could make a doppelganger of another players character to mess with other players.

And than the real player catching the flak for the doppelganger would say -

"No! It wasn't me! Someone else must of made a character with the same name, look, class, and spec to mess with me!! I don't suck! I didn't say that! I didn't do that! I swear! It was a doppelganger!"

Sure, pal, sure it was. Take a long walk off a short pier.

As toxic as some players are in this game, that could and most likely would happen.

To say nothing of just genuine confusion based on just recognizing a name. People won't be checking IDs for everyone who ever says anything in chat or is toxic. But they will still recognize the names they see and chat and make a whole lot of assumptions.

No one will be checking everyone's ID. Maybe in trade situations they would, but not generally speaking.

The IDs could solve some of the name problems, but could create others at the same time.

The great thing about server transfers is it solves all the problems of those that wish to leave a server, and causes no problems to anyone else in the process. - Win/Win or Win/Lose.

It's kinda hard to empathize with people who have the choice of solving their own problems without creating problems for others [transfers] but instead would rather solve their own problems by causing problems for others in the process [mergers].

Star Forge doesn't need any help. It gains nothing of any consequence by a merger, it only gets a myriad of problems.

If you started to /tell them it would pop up OlBuzzard@goldplatinum153 if they were on your friends list. You could add people to your friends list and they would list the account name.

Account names are what legacy names in swtor used to be, unique, only they were never displayed over your character but could he seen on the friends list, when you /tell someone or examined them.

Edited January 14, 2023 by illgot

[TrixxieTriss]

On 1/13/2023 at 4:01 AM, Char_Ell said:

Moving servers entirely to the cloud in the near future will enable us to improve the game experience for our players and create opportunities to increase the player base over time.

Knowing what they mean by this is probably more important than server mergers.

How will they implement it?

Where will the cloud server(s) be geolocated?

Will all the servers be in one location?

If they move or combine locations, how will they account for player lag?

I’m surprised more people havent been clamouring for this info because it has the potential to cause bigger problems than just mergering servers. 

[SteveTheCynic]

9 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Knowing what they mean by this is probably more important than server mergers.

True.

9 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

How will they implement it?

With a bit of luck, they'll do it like GW2 did it.

9 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Where will the cloud server(s) be geolocated?

Probably a bit all over, where the cloud provider has datacentres.

9 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Will all the servers be in one location?

Unlikely.

9 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

If they move or combine locations, how will they account for player lag?

By routing players to the "nearest" one, I'd hope.

9 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

I’m surprised more people havent been clamouring for this info because it has the potential to cause bigger problems than just mergering servers. 

Good point.  I guess I kinda presumed it would be done the sane way.  Perhaps I'm wrong.

[Char_Ell]

14 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Knowing what they mean by this is probably more important than server mergers.

How will they implement it?

Where will the cloud server(s) be geolocated?

Will all the servers be in one location?

If they move or combine locations, how will they account for player lag?

I’m surprised more people havent been clamouring for this info because it has the potential to cause bigger problems than just mergering servers. 

You could try asking Jackie.  She seems responsive to you.

My server lag on current 64-bit client PTS, which Keith Kanneg says is on AWS, is about 10ms lower than Satele Shan and Star Forge.  It would be interesting to know what Asia Pacific players like you are seeing for their server lag on 64-bit PTS.  Regardless, PTS is just one server.  All we know is BioWare plans to move production servers to AWS in "near future" (makes me think 3-6 months).  Other than that we've no idea if they will incorporate other changes, specifically server merges, in the plan to move servers to AWS.

[OlBuzzard]

17 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Knowing what they mean by this is probably more important than server mergers.

How will they implement it?

Where will the cloud server(s) be geolocated?

Will all the servers be in one location?

If they move or combine locations, how will they account for player lag?

I’m surprised more people havent been clamouring for this info because it has the potential to cause bigger problems than just mergering servers. 

Funny thing...
These are some of the same questions that I asked earlier.  How this cloud idea will be executed?  Will it help resolve some issues or create yet more?
IN THE PAST:  When these gray areas came up either on PTS or other parts of the forum board our concerns were largely ignored.  Somehow, I don't think that's entire the case today (after the 7.0 debacle).  Then again IMO this is one of the primary reasons we are continuing this discussion (at least for me it is).

AGAIN... for me these gray areas are what creates a lot of apprehension.  And (truthfully) you really can't blame folks for that.  If you are a PvP player, the size or numbers of players to draw from on any given part of the day is important.   Let's face it not everyone's schedule is centered around US PST (Pacific Standard Time).  The same thing is also true regarding RPG.  I've seen first hand what can really be a raw deal for them.  No one wants that (trust me).

All in all.  Yes BW will do what they are going to do.  I get that.  But something also tells me that they are listening as well.  Now is the time for us to continue the dialogue.  Who knows...  Perhaps at some point in time (hopefully in the near future)...  a member of their staff will take the time to discuss the upcoming changes in this matter with the community.  Am I being a bit overly optimistic or perhaps even a bit naive in this matter?   Perhaps .. perhaps not.  For now, I am saying no! 

There's old saying:  "Aim at nothing ...  and you WILL hit it every time."
Soooo ... here's my best shot at trying to help sort this out.

BTW...  I do appreciate the fact that those of you who have much better comprehension of the tech side of things are chiming in as well  (It helps to keep folks like me in line when we need it).  😉

Edited January 14, 2023 by OlBuzzard

[DWho]

17 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Knowing what they mean by this is probably more important than server mergers.

How will they implement it?

Where will the cloud server(s) be geolocated?

Will all the servers be in one location?

If they move or combine locations, how will they account for player lag?

I’m surprised more people havent been clamouring for this info because it has the potential to cause bigger problems than just mergering servers. 

Looking at these one at a time, my opinion is the following

1) Implementation

There are a couple ways to implement the cloud servers themselves. They could merge all five servers into one, maintain the geographic distribution of servers, or leave them the way they are (5 servers). If they merge them all into one server, the people not on the continent where the physical cloud servers are, will see a lag increase as there is just that much more internet to go through to connect and access the data. If they maintain the current geo-locations (US and Europe) lag probably will not change, or at least the average lag across all players will not change as some players will see improved performance and some degraded performance based on where they are located. If they leave things as they are (5 "cloud" servers), there won't be any change much like maintaining only two geo-located servers. One thing to keep in mind about cloud servers is that they are not necessarily the same hardware all the time and their locations could move around (for example during physical server maintenance - repairing components, etc).

2) Geo-location

Most likely they would be in North America, though they could maintain European "cloud" servers as well. The hitch there is each one of those servers would be a different instance (not to be confused with in game instances) and thus would have an incremental cost increase associated with them.

3) Performance

Performance of the new "cloud" servers will be entirely related to where you are compared to where the physical servers are. The amount traffic and quality of the internet that you have to go through will determine what performance issues you see. It is extremely unlikely that the cloud servers (connected physical server farms) will be on a dedicated high quality connection. There is also a small but not insignificant amount of processing overhead required to operate "cloud" servers that you don't have with dedicated servers.

4) Cost

Cost savings is the main reason to go to the "cloud". Your hope as a business is that the cost of maintaining servers is reduced and that performance is not significantly degraded. If you had one server farm located in a location near you, you would see little change or perhaps even a little improvement due to better hardware. If there are several server farms (the most common reason to go to the cloud in the first place) you will see a decrease in performance in some regions and an increase in performance in others. All in All you hope it is a wash. This allows you to allocate your resources in a different manner (in the case of Bioware, those saving could either be re-invested in the game or go to corporate profits)

Cloud Servers and 64-bit architecture (which is basically a requirement to use cloud servers in the first place) are cost saving measures for Bioware, how they choose to use those savings is unknown (though they have indicated they hope it will improve the game, which is at least somewhat positive news).

[OlBuzzard]

@DWho I like the way you broke this down!  Makes sense!  I hope that they don't merge everything into one big one ...  Or two perhaps (One for US ...  the other for all other overseas locations).   IMO that would be counterproductive in the long run.  (Unless this game really is headed for maintenance mode).

Time will tell.  Hopefully we can get some solid input from the team.  (The sooner ... the better).

[CrazyTough]

I think it would be nice to see the US servers combined into 1 server. I am hoping that the 64 bit upgrade is being done because the dev team would like to have everyone on one server and run smoothly.

At this point in this game I see no advantage for having 2 servers. If it can run smoothly it is a win win for everyone. I have been using the same names for years also but you can use special characters to get around that issue. Honestly name changes should not be the hold up for this to happen. There are many ways around that. Between being able to use two separate names and special characters there really is not any excuse for not getting the name you want.

I vote YES for 1 US server.

Edited January 14, 2023 by CrazyTough

[WayOfTheWarriorx]

On 1/13/2023 at 12:35 PM, OlBuzzard said:

That's a good way to put it!  While I can see both side of this whole transfer vs merger discussion ...  IMO right now the best answer is individual transfers.  If things really are THAT bad on SH ...  then perhaps BW should consider a discounted pricing for transfers over an extended period of time ???????  (just asking).

Well, if their analytics show a problem with population there, a discount on transfers would be welcome. On the other hand, they might not want to make it too tempting, lest lots of people transfer off SS and thereby the loss of a bulk of players might make it worse [assuming its that bad.]

[WayOfTheWarriorx]

21 hours ago, TrixxieTriss said:

Knowing what they mean by this is probably more important than server mergers.

How will they implement it?

Where will the cloud server(s) be geolocated?

Will all the servers be in one location?

If they move or combine locations, how will they account for player lag?

I’m surprised more people havent been clamouring for this info because it has the potential to cause bigger problems than just mergering servers. 

Welcome back Trixxie and Happy New Year!

Grim <3's the Trixxie.

[TrixxieTriss]

16 hours ago, Char_Ell said:

You could try asking Jackie.  She seems responsive to you.

My server lag on current 64-bit client PTS, which Keith Kanneg says is on AWS, is about 10ms lower than Satele Shan and Star Forge.  It would be interesting to know what Asia Pacific players like you are seeing for their server lag on 64-bit PTS.  Regardless, PTS is just one server.  All we know is BioWare plans to move production servers to AWS in "near future" (makes me think 3-6 months).  Other than that we've no idea if they will incorporate other changes, specifically server merges, in the plan to move servers to AWS.

I’ve not checked out the PTS for a while. But I can tell you my server Lag from Australian East coast to SF or SS is 230-250ms & 320-340ms to DM.

If they decide to locate a Cloud Hub in APAC or even the US west, it would reduce my lag. But if the decided to locate it in Europe, the game would be nearly unplayable for anyone from my region.