Can we get free transfers off dead servers please?

[SteveTheCynic]

Just now, Darkestmonty said:

because you are from the EU you may know if it is true. That the French server and German server exist in their perspective countries and haven't been merged due to a law requiring MMOs who dedicate servers to a country to be in that country?

It isn't true.  All three EU servers are in Ireland.

[Darkestmonty]

Just now, SteveTheCynic said:

It isn't true.  All three EU servers are in Ireland.

thanks, I keep hearing that rumor in gen chat.

[Stradlin]

7 minutes ago, Darkestmonty said:

I have heard this rumor for years and because you are from the EU you may know if it is true. That the French server and German server exist in their perspective countries and haven't been merged due to a law requiring MMOs who dedicate servers to a country to be in that country?

Seems odd to keep Leviathan separated with their population.

I've heard the same rumor and I have no clue if there is any truth to it. In general French and German localizations eat obscene amount of rescources from Broadsword.

 

French and German servers sit under same roof with Malgus, but localization, support staff etc is different. At least partially. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Stradlin

[SteveTheCynic]

1 minute ago, Darkestmonty said:

thanks, I keep hearing that rumor in gen chat.

No problem.  And it's also worth noting that any such law would be a miserable failure, since the "French" server should, presumably, be simultaneously in France, south [REDACTED](1) and western Switzerland; while the "German" server should be simultaneously in Germany and Austria and eastern Switzerland.

(1) A small country south of the Netherlands whose name is a watchword for bad language ever since it was used for a throwaway joke in a comedy science fiction series.

[SteveTheCynic]

1 minute ago, Stradlin said:

I've heard the same rumor and I have no clue if there is any truth to it.

None at all.

[Stradlin]

10 minutes ago, SteveTheCynic said:

No problem.  And it's also worth noting that any such law would be a miserable failure, since the "French" server should, presumably, be simultaneously in France, south [REDACTED](1) and western Switzerland; while the "German" server should be simultaneously in Germany and Austria and eastern Switzerland.

(1) A small country south of the Netherlands whose name is a watchword for bad language ever since it was used for a throwaway joke in a comedy science fiction series.

 

Servers in themself  aren't really at the heart of this rumor. "Disney requires EA to always provide full localization of SWTOR in three languages" is the gist of it. Servers are just a small part of that. I'm not sure I'd bet much on it being true, but it would explain why they keep supporting German and French versions of the game. Cost of runningf with THREE sets of voice actors must be pretty brutal. German and French VA prolly comes cheaper than English, but still.

 

 

Edited July 28, 2023 by Stradlin

[SteveTheCynic]

Just now, Stradlin said:

"Disney requires EA to always provide full localization of SWTOR in three languages" is the gist of it.

That might or might not be true, but it wouldn't explain why the game launched in 2011 with three languages, seeing as how the Disney transaction hadn't happened yet.

[Stradlin]

* Lucasfilm

9 minutes ago, SteveTheCynic said:

That might or might not be true, but it wouldn't explain why the game launched in 2011 with three languages, seeing as how the Disney transaction hadn't happened yet.

Replace it with Lucasfilm and we're back in Rumoring bsns!

 

[Shayddow]

Quote

Which server is so quiet that a person wanting to do multiplayer content is unable to exactly?

Which server is there no multiplayer content being done on

Leviathan. 

I don't do group content on Shan because I don't have any 80th level characters over there.(i know, you can do it earlier, that's just my personal preference). I've done group content on all the other servers, but waiting for stuff to pop on Leviathan is like watching paint dry.

[WayOfTheWarriorx]

9 hours ago, Stradlin said:

But which server is truly so quiet that things are kinda dysfunctional? Leviathan, the French server. During last season, there were times when GSF is among weekly objectives, I log in to Levi  during peak hours of central EU, queue for GSF and see no game up in 60 mins.

Ofc, these things are never binary in practice. This whole dead vs alive thing....it takes a long time til something is completely "dead". It has turned to bad experiencer for all long before that though. . Usually, almost no activity is "completely dead", things fall apart from the outskirts towards center.  You "lose" few hours of active FP/OPS/PVP queue from both ends of the line. Six months go by and you notice you've lost few more hours. Maybe things aren't completely dead, but activity outside peak hours becomes more and more unusual. Eventually only weekend peak hours are realibly active.When any activity on any server reaches this point, it is fair to call it dead. I know for a fact GSF of SS was there like few years back, during the god awful broken conquest BW had going for a while, which pushed people from multiplayer to single player.

Ofc, silence of a server  has an effect on every imagineable social aspect the game has. Pool of guilds to join, amount of people to talk to, potential for making friends..everything obvious and less obvious suffers.

My response was really about the insinuation that there was any server where they were was literally no group content ever being done by anyone. That''s how your previous comment struck me. But from this response from you it no longer strikes me that you were literally saying there was any server where there was truly never any group content being done by anyone.

Regarding the dead vs. live thingy and "completely dead" - I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Death is very much an all or nothing kinda thing. If you're not "completely dead", than you are totally alive.

There aren't different degrees of death or life. You're either alive or you're dead. Much like The Force, there really is no middle ground there. But, you were just making an analogy, I get that, so point taken.

When it comes to the French/German speaking servers, I don't really think it's realistic to hold them to the same standards as the other servers because they are inherently limited by the population who speak those languages fluently. I think most people will play on a server that speaks their native tongue, or at least a language that they use on a daily basis (certainly there may be some exceptions there, but just generally speaking.). And let's face it, there are a lot more English speaking people and countries than there are with regard to German or French. So it kinda stands to reason that a German/French speaking server would have smaller populations than an English speaking server. Star Wars is an English speaking movie after all and was "born and raised" in the United States.

Certainly Star Wars is a world wide phenomena that crosses all boundaries and has been subbed and subtitled in countless languages, but there are a lot of people who shy away from dubbed/subtitled movies. Additionally, there may be cultural differences that also might effect the way some people in certain parts of the world might perceive Star Wars.

That isn't to say that there aren't enough people speaking those languages who are into Star Wars to fill a server. Certainly there are, and probably than some, but the lowering population in the game crosses all boundaries, languages, and servers. When you have 3 out of 5 servers being English speaking servers, you already have the make up of a greater emphasis on English speakers in the game to begin with. Plus, it's an English speaking game. (Unless they also had voice actors also who did all the lines in the game in French and German as well that I'm unaware of.)

I have been hearing about Leviathan's woes for a long time and I really don't see anyone denying the state of Leviathan. There doesn't seem to be much debate on that. And while I have no way of confirming the state of the things there, I am more comfortable with what people say about it because there seems to be a great consensus on it.

Regarding SS specifically - The issue with whether or not SS is dead remains a question. That really hasn't been quantifiably proven. Now, I'm not saying that I know the answer to that. I'm saying I don't know the answer to that. But, I have to be honest here, when I see just as many people who also play on SS saying that it isn't dead and it doesn't need a merger as I do people saying it does, than I become a little bit suspicious about the claims being made by those saying it's dead and needs a merger.

If I can't confirm it either way, why should I be more inclined to believe those saying it isn't dead and doesn't need a merger than those saying it is and does?

As I've mentioned before, it's because there is no logic or gain to be had by people saying it isn't dead and doesn't need a merger is in fact it is dead and does need one. They play there too, so if it was dead and needed a merger than them saying it doesn't would only perpetuate their own woes when playing on SS.  They'd be speaking against there own self interests.

I'm not saying I think SS is totally fine, it has plenty of people, it has good quece times and group content is as bountiful there as it is on SF. In fact, I don't think that.It's an unfair and unrealistic comparison to make. Compared to SF, all the other serves are less populated, have less activity, have longer quece times and less group content. But that's just a question of simple math.

As someone who only plays on one server (SF), I am no position to make an definitive statements about the state of any other server. But, and you'll forgive me for sounding like a broken record, just because I can't confirm to true state of things on the other servers, that doesn't automatically mean that someone who does play on those servers, whatever they say about them is automatically correct or true.

At the end of the day it comes down to this. Bioware has clearly never had any problems merging servers when they felt it was necessary and it cost the game more than a few players each time they did so. Mergers don't tend to be very popular. They're generally not looked forward to or serve as good advertisement for the game or it's health.

BW/BS has the true numbers, they are the people who are in the best position to know if a server needs a merger or not. If SS is actually dead, than they'll do it. The fact that they haven't done it, said they may need to, or even acknowledged that there is a problem with SS's numbers, is to me, the most accurate accounting of the state of things on SS.

This is just my take on things based on what I have to work with. Doesn't mean I'm right, it's just my opinion.

 

[WayOfTheWarriorx]

15 hours ago, Darkestmonty said:

keeping group content viable in an MMO for all players is more important than a solo only player not wanting to share mission items which respawn every 30 seconds, wanting to save unused character slots across multiple servers "just in case", taking the chance at a character rename, or any other personal reason.

This is objectively false. Solo players wouldn't agree with that statement and you are not in a superior position to make any definitive statements about the standards of things in MMOs that everyone else should have to agree with.

I'm speaking against my own self interest here because I am an end game group content player and I definitely care more about group content than I do about solo playing and story. BW doesn't get Star Wars, they often insult it with their stories IMO.

This game has a much higher proportion of solo players than it does group content players. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't be complaining about the quece times and group content availability on SS.

Those things might not be more important to you (or me for that matter, because I'm with on the group content being more important to me on a personal level), but they aren't more important to everyone else necessarily.

15 hours ago, Darkestmonty said:

This isn't a single player RPG, this is an MMO and if a servers group content is no longer viable, that server should be merged.

It's an MMORPG. MMO stands for Massively Multiplayer Online. It doesn't stand for Group content playing. Just that there are a lot of people playing the game online. Let's not add stuff that isn't there. That's a straw man argument.

RPG stands for Role-Playing game. There is no Role playing going on in group content. And playing the story line IS inherently solo play.

You can play this game without ever doing any group content. You cannot play this game without doing any solo content.

Again, I will remind you, I am a group content player. That's all I personally care about. As far as I am concerned with regard to the story telling in this game, this isn't real Star Wars. But not everyone cares about Lucas's vision like I do and so the story is important to many other players.

Most people who play this game are solo players. Again, if that wasn't the case, we'd be seeing a lot more group content going on, even on SF which doesn't have any problems with group content play.

15 hours ago, Darkestmonty said:

SS probably doesn't need a merge yet, group content is still viable during prime time and in the summer and holidays season, but if free character transfers were available, that would immediately hasten the need for a merger.

Thank you for being honest. My opinion of you just went up considerably.

As far as the free character transfers possibly being a bad thing for SS, I'll be honest with you here, you make a very good point, that is a very valid concern and one with a realistic potential outcome. I really can't argue that logic.

Edited July 29, 2023 by WayOfTheWarriorx

[TrixxieTriss]

1 hour ago, WayOfTheWarriorx said:

Regarding the dead vs. live thingy and "completely dead" - I'm gonna have to disagree with you there. Death is very much an all or nothing kinda thing. If you're not "completely dead", than you are totally alive.

Being a fan of the Walking Dead, I’m going to be a little bit facetious here and suggest we could start calling part dead or completely dead servers, zombie servers 😂

[Darkestmonty]

1 hour ago, WayOfTheWarriorx said:

This is objectively false. Solo players wouldn't agree with that statement and you are not in a superior position to make any definitive statements about the standards of things in MMOs that everyone else should have to agree with.

I'm speaking against my own self interest here because I am an end game group content player and I definitely care more about group content than I do about solo playing and story. BW doesn't get Star Wars, they often insult it with their stories IMO.

This game has a much higher proportion of solo players than it does group content players. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't be complaining about the quece times and group content availability on SS.

Those things might not be more important to you (or me for that matter, because I'm with on the group content being more important to me on a personal level), but they aren't more important to everyone else necessarily.

It's an MMORPG. MMO stands for Massively Multiplayer Online. It doesn't stand for Group content playing. Just that there are a lot of people playing the game online. Let's not add stuff that isn't there. That's a straw man argument.

RPG stands for Role-Playing game. There is no Role playing going on in group content. And playing the story line IS inherently solo play.

You can play this game without ever doing any group content. You cannot play this game without doing any solo content.

Again, I will remind you, I am a group content player. That's all I personally care about. As far as I am concerned with regard to the story telling in this game, this isn't real Star Wars. But not everyone cares about Lucas's vision like I do and so the story is important to many other players.

Most people who play this game are solo players. Again, if that wasn't the case, we'd be seeing a lot more group content going on, even on SF which doesn't have any problems with group content play.

Thank you for being honest. My opinion of you just went up considerably.

As far as the free character transfers possibly being a bad thing for SS, I'll be honest with you here, you make a very good point, that is a very valid concern and one with a realistic potential outcome. I really can't argue that logic.

oh no, a "solo player" who only plays one character on one server may have to encounter other players in an MMO... what, you had to wait a whole 30 seconds for a mission item to respawn, how did you survive that wait time?!!

I have absolutely no sympathy for solo players who play an MMO and are so selfish they can't share tagged mobs, they can't wait 30 seconds for a mission item to respawn, can't be bothered to drop down to a nearly empty instance or in the case of PvP drop down to a completely empty instance where they are often the only person.

You know who I have sympathy for? Players who are sitting in queue for 30 minutes waiting for a Warzone Match, an Arena Match, a GSF Match, Flashpoints, any Operation to form, anyone to group with to kill world boss, anyone to help them with a Heroic they are having issues with.

This game should never adapt to solo players at the cost of group players. Solo players have options, they always will, group players have no options if a servers population is so low that no group content is possible.

Satele Shan isn't quit there yet, but open up free server transfers and Satele Shan will need to be merged soon after.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Darkestmonty

[DWho]

A dead server is one where no one is logging in and playing. The PVP servers prior to the last merge were dead (if you were lucky you saw 5 players on fleet, and might be alone on most planets). SS is nowhere near that. There are still a lot of players playing on that server which makes it not dead. It may be non-viable for a certain type of play-style (someone looking for 100s of warzones a day) but that most certainly doesn't mean it is dead. Those players playing there now have every right to expect to be able to stay if they choose. Those players who want to move from SF to SS should also be allowed to do the same and not be at a disadvantage "financially" compared to those wanting to move in the opposite direction. The only reason to oppose movement in the other direction is a fear that casual group players currently queuing on SF would move to SS because it is more suitable for their preferred playstyle and that group play just isn't that important to them (thus impacting queue times on SF).

[DWho]

11 minutes ago, Darkestmonty said:

Satele Shan isn't quit there yet, but open up free server transfers and Satele Shan will need to be merged soon after.

With reduced cost transfers it will never get there because the poor group players who can't get their 100 warzones a day can still transfer to the "good server" (in fact there is absolutely nothing preventing from doing so now - and most of them have already moved). As long as a server is active during local prime time it should be left alone - it harms no one at all despite the fictitious examples that keep getting posted about GTN prices and "social" play (almost none of the group play is social anymore it's all speed run) and I don't consider fleet/DK trolling to be a positive social aspect of a high population server.

The thing that will happen though, is that when the SF pops start to drop, which they will soon enough, the group players on SF will eye those "few" group players still on SS and want to force them to provide a boost to their group pops on SF and demand a merge. No matter what you do for some of them it's never enough.

[Darkestmonty]

39 minutes ago, DWho said:

With reduced cost transfers it will never get there because the poor group players who can't get their 100 warzones a day can still transfer to the "good server" (in fact there is absolutely nothing preventing from doing so now - and most of them have already moved). As long as a server is active during local prime time it should be left alone - it harms no one at all despite the fictitious examples that keep getting posted about GTN prices and "social" play (almost none of the group play is social anymore it's all speed run) and I don't consider fleet/DK trolling to be a positive social aspect of a high population server.

The thing that will happen though, is that when the SF pops start to drop, which they will soon enough, the group players on SF will eye those "few" group players still on SS and want to force them to provide a boost to their group pops on SF and demand a merge. No matter what you do for some of them it's never enough.

In your mind it is selfish for players to want access to group content outside of prime time hours.

In my mind it is selfish for solo players to dictate that it's acceptable if players can only have access to group content during prime time hours while those same solo players not only have unlimited access access to their solo content 24 hours of the day 7 days of the week, they also have multiple ways to avoid players even on the busiest servers.

You waiting 30 seconds for a mission item to respawn is nothing compared to waiting 30 minutes, an hour, or never having the group content you want show up while logged on.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Darkestmonty

[Stradlin]

On 7/27/2023 at 9:16 PM, DWho said:

And with 2 servers you can have what makes both types of players happy. The busy server makes the "random grouping" players happy and the "slower" server makes everyone else happy.

When deciding where to play, "Join server with lots of multiplayer content vs join a silent server " was a choise nobody got offered. 

 

Also, It def.  involves lots of gore to keep flaying all social aspects of the game to the point where you can conclude busy server means nothing besides "random grouping"

 

Server turning more silent and emptier brings tons of..changes across the entire social aspect of the game.

[DWho]

17 minutes ago, Darkestmonty said:

In your mind it is selfish for players to want access to group content outside of prime time hours.

No, in my mind, I am giving them the opportunity to move to SF if that is what they want.

You, want to force everyone onto SF regardless of what they want.

Once all those players supposedly trapped on SS have transferred to SF, and you still can't get pops outside prime time what are you gong to do, there won't be some massive hidden reserve of group players on SS to merge into SF, just a bunch a people who don't want to be on SF (which is why they stayed on SS) making them much more likely to just quit the game.

And the vast majority of players taking advantage of the low cost transfers won't even be group players moving, they'll be players moving stuff to SF to make a bigger profit on selling stuff or consolidating their stuff in one place. Bioware has made it clear they are open to allowing transfers (they announced back-end maintenance on the Character Transfer system) but are hesitant to do so because they are worried it will spin the economy out of control again on SF if lots of players are allowed to move high value items from SS to SF.

Merging SS and SF will do nothing to expand active random grouping hours on SF and there won't be anyone left on SS that wants to do that content through ransom queues, so merging is pointless. There aren't enough players in the entire game (if you take the negative impacts of lag into account, anyway) to keep any server active much outside "prime" time.

32 minutes ago, Darkestmonty said:

You waiting 30 seconds for a mission item to respawn is nothing compared to waiting 30 minutes, an hour, or never having the group content you want show up while logged on.

This won't be a problem after reduced cost transfers, all those group players for whom it is important will be where they get the best pops in the game (SF in your opinion). Free cost transfers for a month or two (perhaps through December since there is usually an uptick in players on all servers) completely eliminates the "can't get group content" argument from the equation.

[DWho]

21 minutes ago, Stradlin said:

When deciding where to play, "Join server with lots of multiplayer content vs join a silent server " was a choise nobody got offered. 

 

Also, It def.  involves lots of gore to keep flaying all social aspects of the game to the point where you can conclude busy server means nothing besides "random grouping"

 

Server turning more silent and emptier brings tons of..changes across the entire social aspect of the game.

That doesn't in any way invalidate the fact that two servers are always better than one. You've been around enough to see how all of the group related play has become more toxic and unpleasant. It would be nice to go to fleet or DK and not have to turn off chat due to all the garbage being spewed (maybe an automated AI reporting system could help there). I also can't remember the last time I did a Master of Veteran flashpoint where anyone said a word in chat (and I run several a week on SF). On SS I run them with a guild and there is pleasant conversation going on all the time. The whole social aspect of the game certainly seems to have moved into guilds. There was a time when someone could ask a question in chat and it would get answered respectively instead of rudely like it is now.

Reduced cost transfers are offering them the choice, so that argument falls flat as well. And everyone is currently in the same boat as far as transfers go. It costs the same to move from SS to SF as it does from SF to SS, so no one is prevented from moving even now if it is that important to them (not to mention you could always start a new legacy).

It takes a lot of gall (which I assume is what you meant by 'gore") to say that what other players want is unimportant, which is more or less what you have said in all your posts. I am for allowing those "random grouping" players to transfer at reduced cost which solves their problem without impacting others.

Edited July 29, 2023 by DWho

[DWho]

On 7/27/2023 at 2:22 PM, Rujopetteri said:

I tried to ask about this in my previous message but did BW change how merges are done at some point?

As I remember it, If you were subbed at the time of the mergers, you got an extra 12 free slots (it might have been before the merger as well, I don't recall exactly where it came in). If you were preferred or f2p, I think you either got fewer or none at all. I also believe, only the subbed players got the benefit of exceeding the unlocked character slot limit (and while they didn't have any characters inactivated, they could not create any new characters until their character count dropped below the unlocked limit). f2p and preferred I believe had characters locked (inactivated) if they went over. I've been continuously subbed since launch so I'm not sure exactly how the f2p and preferred merger went but it was definitely more restrictive.

[Stradlin]

46 minutes ago, DWho said:

 

It takes a lot of gall (which I assume is what you meant by 'gore") to say that what other players want is unimportant, which is more or less what you have said in all your posts. I am for allowing those "random grouping" players to transfer at reduced cost which solves their problem without impacting others.

 

Different issues of different people aren't often equally  important.

Somebody who  went  skating  on a frozen lake and fell through the ice has more urgent and important temperature-related  issues  than somebody walking on a  street who wishes their scarf were bit more warm. Somebody whose only tennis racket just broke down has a more pressing tennis racket related issue than somebody who wishes their tennis racket had a bit nicer color.  Somebody who can't get their preferred SWTOR content to happen at all has  larger a problem than somebody who worries about some imagined 30 second wait for a mob to spawn sometimes.

 

Some of the issues people have with merges make perfect  sense. Besides having various issues, notion of one day having just one huge mega server has many fascinating aspects to it just as well. 

 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by Stradlin

[Toraak]

I do play on both servers. I mainly play on SF now personally, but I do play on SS every week. However with that being said I know for a fact that some guildies of mine in the past that had transferred a character to SF returned that character to SS within about 2-3 months after the original move. They found SF to be a toxic place to play, and had basically turned off general chat permanently on that server. They also found for the playstyle they did (which was mainly Solo) that they preferred SS by far over SF. 

 

People have different likes and dislikes. Not everyone likes being in a huge Mega guild, and they prefer a smaller group of actual friends to play with rather feeling like just a random number that you feel like in those huge guilds. Servers can also be this way. Not everyone wants to be on a huge server, and prefer a more relaxed, less toxic environment. 

 

While I do believe people should have the OPTION for a free or cheaper transfer if they want to get to the server that gets them the content they want, I don't believe forcing everyone onto 1 US server could cause those that don't want to be around the trolls and toxic people to just leave the game. This would simply be bad for the overall health of the game.

[OlBuzzard]

2 hours ago, Toraak said:

I do play on both servers. I mainly play on SF now personally, but I do play on SS every week. However with that being said I know for a fact that some guildies of mine in the past that had transferred a character to SF returned that character to SS within about 2-3 months after the original move. They found SF to be a toxic place to play, and had basically turned off general chat permanently on that server. They also found for the playstyle they did (which was mainly Solo) that they preferred SS by far over SF. 

 

People have different likes and dislikes. Not everyone likes being in a huge Mega guild, and they prefer a smaller group of actual friends to play with rather feeling like just a random number that you feel like in those huge guilds. Servers can also be this way. Not everyone wants to be on a huge server, and prefer a more relaxed, less toxic environment. 

 

While I do believe people should have the OPTION for a free or cheaper transfer if they want to get to the server that gets them the content they want, I don't believe forcing everyone onto 1 US server could cause those that don't want to be around the trolls and toxic people to just leave the game. This would simply be bad for the overall health of the game.

Agreed ... 

[Char_Ell]

8 hours ago, Toraak said:

While I do believe people should have the OPTION for a free or cheaper transfer if they want to get to the server that gets them the content they want, I don't believe forcing everyone onto 1 US server could cause those that don't want to be around the trolls and toxic people to just leave the game. This would simply be bad for the overall health of the game.

Would you please re-read what you wrote and clarify if you meant to use the word don't or not?  I bolded it.

You seem to be saying that merging Satele Shan and Star Forge would be a bad idea because people would leave the game due to toxic behavior of other players but what you wrote seems to be indicating the opposite.  If you drop the word don't from what you wrote then it makes more sense to me.

[Toraak]

2 hours ago, Char_Ell said:

Would you please re-read what you wrote and clarify if you meant to use the word don't or not?  I bolded it.

You seem to be saying that merging Satele Shan and Star Forge would be a bad idea because people would leave the game due to toxic behavior of other players but what you wrote seems to be indicating the opposite.  If you drop the word don't from what you wrote then it makes more sense to me.

My wording is bad, I was just waking up in truth, but yes I believe the game would lose some (or possibly many) people that won't want to put up with the Troll/Toxic behavior. As I said also, not everyone wants to be on a huge server either.