Bad Days Ahead..........Immediate Responce Required

If they're rage quitting over dead servers then they'd simply find another reason to rage quit. As a sub, we get 600cc. The sale has been on for some time. That's approximately 18 characters that could be transferred. More if you have a longer sub. All without having to pay extra money.

So what happens when a merge occurs? All accts are forced to select a different server home. It's like a transfer. All accts have a name check. In a proper merger, the system would check to see who had the name first. If the transferring person did then they keep it and the one on say...harby would have to change.
Guild ships, strongholds, etc etc all lost.

So now gamer Joe who has been away from the game for 6 months decides to return.
Joe logs in and sees all of his characters need renaming.
His strong hold is gone.
His guild is gone.
His guildships is gone.
His legacy cargo is gone.

What does gamer Joe do? He says eff that and immediately quits.

Now something needs to be done but they need to find a way to preserve stuff. If you log in to find all your stuff deleted then you'd rage quit...or I probably would.

So what will happen with any merger is that they will have email notices sent out for several weeks or a couple months in advance to warn people and list their options. So no merger will happen any time soon. If you want to play with lots of people then find your way over to a populated server.

The game had no LFG queuing system when it launched. There was no queuing system to rely upon at all, let alone heavily. There was an option to show yourself as "looking for group" in the /who lists, but that was it. Groups were formed manually. This required some actual effort on the part of players to find/form a group, though, and we can't possibly expect Johnny to have to advertise in chat that he is looking to join/fill a group.

BW introduced the LFG tool later, in response to the clamoring from the "instant gratification, have to run it NOW, and don't make me form my own groups" crowd.

Oh please, now you're being silly. Standing around on fleet spamming LFG messages for hours on end, unable to do anything in the meantime (like class quests, heroics, dailies, gathering mats, etc.), hoping people on fleet would want to do the FP you did because you had no way of reaching the rest of the server with your LFG requests, was not some sort of character-building, heart-warming, noble struggle worthy of praise and respect. It was just plain boring and a waste of people's time. The Group Finder was a much-needed quality of life improvement for the game, and it was surprising the game launched without one.

To be fair, they are probably on Harbinger because they want the higher population.

Over 2800 views in less than a day. Can we please have a developer respond to this issue one way or another?

This is an important issue to a lot of players. Can you at least respond and acknowledge something? I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

Your analysis of what a server merge would do to an account, sorry, a legacy is ... faulty, but the situation isn't as simple as some would like to think. What I'm about to describe is an *ideal*, not a prediction of what would happen in SWTOR if they merge servers.

OK, so let's take the example of merging servers X and Y. And let's do it by producing server Z from the debris. (Allods Online did this when they merged all the Euro and NA language-specific servers into a Euro cross-language server and an NA English/English server. The two new servers both had names that were not the names of any of the older servers. And when they merged the Euro and NA servers into a single non-Russian(1) server, it had yet another new name.)

Each legacy on Z would be an exact, total copy of the corresponding legacy on X or Y. No changes in legacy storage, stronghold unlockedness and activation, etc. Character name collisions would be resolved in some specific sort of way (either most-recent-login or oldest-character-creation-date or first-login-afterwards, probably - all of these have disadvantages, although the first and last are less problematic than the second).

Legacy name collisions aren't a thing, since legacy names don't have to be unique per server even now.

Guild *contents* (ship, stronghold, placed decorations, bank contents, member list, etc.) are just transferred from X or Y to Z. When Allods did this, colliding guild names acquired a suffix that indicated the server of origin. So the two different Flying Sheep(2) guilds would become Flying Sheep (X) and Flying Sheep (Y).

As far as I can see, the only real issue is character count. So right now, Johnny has 40 characters on X and 30 on Y. Does that mean he has 70 on Z? Do they up the limit per server? Do they simply force him to choose 18 that will be inactive?

But as I said, that's an ideal.

And the programming issue thing arises because a lot of things have been added to the game since the last server merges, and their server-merge program / scripting may well not have been kept up-to-date with those additions.

(1) The developers are a Russian outfit that's now published by my.com outside Russia, and mail.ru inside. I think they are actually part of mail.ru themselves.

(2) A real guild name, thanks. Many of my Pub side characters on Mantle of the Force belong to it.

Over 2800 views in less than a day. Can we please have a developer respond to this issue one way or another?

This is an important issue to a lot of players. Can you at least respond and acknowledge something? I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

Combine that with the many other server population threads like the recent 'combine shadowlands with jc' and some kind of reply is long overdue.

1) Nope we can't do it
course of action- move remaining toons to harbinger
2) Yes we plan on doing it in 2017
course of action - sit tight
3) Stay nebulous and unresponsive
course of action - let sub run out, check in on the guild as a f2p every other month