Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Server Merge Discussion Thread

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
Server Merge Discussion Thread
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

MeNaCe-NZ's Avatar


MeNaCe-NZ
06.08.2017 , 09:09 PM | #481
Quote: Originally Posted by Ratajack View Post
Since we're imagining a fantasy world, imagine a world in which everyone could fly under their own power. imagine a world in which everyone was force sensitive. Imagine a world in which no one ever had to work, ever got sick, or ever had a bad day.

I could go on, but fantasy is not reality, no matter much some people might wish it were.
Hey if the only issue is the technical points and you've made that point numerous times ... why continue to go on and on about it? We get it already ...

Ratajack's Avatar


Ratajack
06.08.2017 , 09:10 PM | #482
Quote: Originally Posted by MeNaCe-NZ View Post
Well in context of this thread how many people exactly are even implying/stating we should merge regardless of issues with losing personal/guild items, names etc.?

As I see it there are those wanting merges not knowing there are these issues and those that want merges on the condition they are fixed. I can't recall anyone actually being pro merge regardless of the issue? At least no one putting forward a serious discussion point.

Now that being the case and assuming everyone is on the same page around "don't merge until you can fix this" ... why does it kept being brought up?

I think bringing it up once for Bioware to see is all fine and well but some people bring it up every single time anyone says anything to do with merging as though the person who was pro merge did indeed want to merge regardless.

I think that point has been done to death now - don't merge until technical issues are fixed - got it. Now to actually further discussion what more is there than that?
Latency issues if merging between different geo locations - weigh that up against the point you would actually get a much better experience from easier finding group activity (latency isn't a huge deal unless you are talking 300+ for most solo content I've found as an apac player)
The other issue that comes to mind is what to do about the RP players being able to RP if they did indeed end up on a mega server... is this a storm in a tea cup and wouldn't really be that much of an issue at all? Would separate RP instances help? More active moderation.

I think once the technical issues are solved and something could be done about RP is there really that much harm in one server per coast?



I
I'm not going to go back and read through every post in this thread, but there have been posters who have basically said "So what if people lose some things." or "I would support a merge of servers 'X' and 'Y', but ONLY if server 'Y" is the destination server". Why do you think they put that condition in there?

One reason why people keep bringing up all the issues surrounding server merges might well be to keep them visible and not have them get buried under all the repetitive "Merge servers NOW!!!!! I NEED more LFG fodder!!!!!!" demands.

I think the "merge servers" point has been done to death, but people still keep bringing it up.

Those who have concerns regarding server merges have just as much right to keep bringing up those concerns.

Ratajack's Avatar


Ratajack
06.08.2017 , 09:19 PM | #483
Quote: Originally Posted by MeNaCe-NZ View Post
Hey if the only issue is the technical points and you've made that point numerous times ... why continue to go on and on about it? We get it already ...
Yours is not the first post in which someone has basically said "Imagine if everything were sunshine and roses and server merges went perfectly and no one lost anything or was negatively impacted in any way. Wouldn't you want to join the sunshine and roses parade?" People can imagine all they want, but ultimately reality is a far cry from those fantasy imaginations.

Those technical points are not the only concerns held by those who oppose server merges, but they are high on the list of concerns. There have been other concerns raised in this thread and all the other spam "merge servers" threads, but I'm not going to back to quote them so that those in favor of merging servers can just ignore them or dismiss them again. Anyone truly wishing to acknowledge those other concerns can go back and read them for themselves.

Why continue to go on and on about merging servers? People have made their points numerous times. We get it already.

DWho's Avatar


DWho
06.08.2017 , 09:24 PM | #484
Quote: Originally Posted by MeNaCe-NZ View Post
Well in context of this thread how many people exactly are even implying/stating we should merge regardless of issues with losing personal/guild items, names etc.?

As I see it there are those wanting merges not knowing there are these issues and those that want merges on the condition they are fixed. I can't recall anyone actually being pro merge regardless of the issue? At least no one putting forward a serious discussion point.

Now that being the case and assuming everyone is on the same page around "don't merge until you can fix this" ... why does it kept being brought up?

I think bringing it up once for Bioware to see is all fine and well but some people bring it up every single time anyone says anything to do with merging as though the person who was pro merge did indeed want to merge regardless.

I think that point has been done to death now - don't merge until technical issues are fixed - got it. Now to actually further discussion what more is there than that?
Latency issues if merging between different geo locations - weigh that up against the point you would actually get a much better experience from easier finding group activity (latency isn't a huge deal unless you are talking 300+ for most solo content I've found as an apac player)
The other issue that comes to mind is what to do about the RP players being able to RP if they did indeed end up on a mega server... is this a storm in a tea cup and wouldn't really be that much of an issue at all? Would separate RP instances help? More active moderation.

I think once the technical issues are solved and something could be done about RP is there really that much harm in one server per coast?



I
Agreed, no server mergers until the technical issues can be resolved.

As far as latency goes, you would need one server on the West coast to cover the APAC players otherwise their latency would go over 250 ms. Since I have an 80 ms latency from the midwest to West coast I would guess east coast to west coast would be about 100-120 ms. That could be manageable but could also impact PVP (16 man raids might also be affected) if the latency spikes for some reason. It might be better to have east and west coast servers. That is also making the assumption that the server used is upgraded sufficiently to avoid any "Too Many Instruction" errors from increased traffic. At this point I would assume that there is sufficient input bandwidth on existing servers to handle the traffic but that would have to be looked at too. Alternatively, you could have an RP server on the east coast and the main PVE server on the west coast.

As for RP, at a minimum I think they would need some kind of restricted chat to keep out the chat spammers (my favorite is the person who posts hundreds of spaces constantly so you can't read what's in the chat window). The other issue is the abilities that override character control (like the dance bomb, tinsel bomb, snowball cannon, etc). If you had an RP instance I suppose you could make items like that not work in that instance but that would prevent the RPers from using them. I only rarely RP on Ebon Hawk so I'm not really an expert on what constitutes interference. Someone from there would probably be able to give you more examples. More active moderation overall, especially hotspots like fleet and DK could help, especially if the penalties are applied swiftly and publicly (I know Bioware/EA do not like shaming but it might be the most effective way to deter those that might think about causing problems but hadn't yet). Really moderation would help for all the servers.

Ratajack's Avatar


Ratajack
06.08.2017 , 09:33 PM | #485
Quote: Originally Posted by MeNaCe-NZ View Post
That's not true at all - better queue times, more social interaction, better GTN market are a reasons I can think of.

The unknown in this thread is how do people who aren't subbed or aren't view merges? Would they return? Would they sub? None of us know and yet that's probably the most important aspect to BWA because obviously if those few of us who sub and happen to be on the forums are majority happy as we are because we are happy to sub for the game but what about the others?

Ballpark figures if merging lost 5% of players and gained 15% ... smart business dictates merge away ... likewise it could be the other way around in which case avoid merging like the plague.
While I understand the concerns that some have expressed regarding people who are not even playing this game who MIGHT POSSIBLY decide to try (or return to) this game, I think BW should be concerned with those who ARE playing this game NOW, not with some Tom, Dick or Harry who MIGHT play someday in the undetermined future.


Quote: Originally Posted by MeNaCe-NZ View Post
I personally believe the cost is minimal as the servers are no doubt co-located in the same location on the same coast. The hardware already exists, data usage already pays for itself (the more players consuming data the more revenue from said players *hopefully*. This is why I assume they've never cared about merging from a cost perspective and at this time it would have to come down to what benefit would it bring them in regards to attracting more people to stay in the game (or the reverse).
I also believe the cost to maintain those "dead" old PVP servers is minimal, which I why I think the best solution regarding those servers is to label them as "very low population" and to make those players acknowledge that they understand they are choosing to create characters on a "very low population" server. This would mean that those players choosing to remain on those servers would not lose anything or be negatively impacted, unless they chose to be.

Quote: Originally Posted by MeNaCe-NZ View Post
If you want down that path I would think one time free transfers off the server per toon also just to returning palyers could clear off them easily - also keep working on the whole guild transfer issue etc. since one day things will merge and might as well get a head start on it.
I'm against free transfers, but if you want to go down that road, then a one time free transfer for every character created before "X date" (whatever date BW wants to set) would be a much fairer way to go. I see no reason why Johnny should have to pay 90 CC per character to move from the cesspool that is Harbinger to a server with a more respectful community, but Billy can transfer from Bastion to Harbinger for free.

Even if BW were to do that, I doubt that we would see a massive migration of players. Many of those remaining on their current server are there by choice, whatever the reasons for that choice might be. Some simply prefer not to be on an overcrowded cesspool of a server. Others do not want to transfer and lose any personal or guild assets.

I highly doubt that free transfers are going to make Johnny suddenly want to play on an overcrowded cesspool of a server or make Billy suddenly be willing to move and lose his guild with all of its guild assets, not to mention all his personal assets.

MeNaCe-NZ's Avatar


MeNaCe-NZ
06.08.2017 , 10:11 PM | #486
Quote: Originally Posted by Ratajack View Post
I'm not going to go back and read through every post in this thread, but there have been posters who have basically said "So what if people lose some things."
Well I've seen none so it certainly isn't a majority view, certainly not one to seemingly get worked up over as though everyone who is pro merge supports such a view as some would seem to be doing.


Quote:
or "I would support a merge of servers 'X' and 'Y', but ONLY if server 'Y" is the destination server". Why do you think they put that condition in there?

One reason why people keep bringing up all the issues surrounding server merges might well be to keep them visible and not have them get buried under all the repetitive "Merge servers NOW!!!!! I NEED more LFG fodder!!!!!!" demands.
Buried under the posts you can't actually quote and thus must be quite rare? Wow, must be a landslide ...
Or instead bury reasoned discussion under sensationalist claims of how no one cares about people losing their stuff?

Quote:
I think the "merge servers" point has been done to death, but people still keep bringing it up.
Might be because ...

Quote:
Just wanna pop in and say, keep the feedback coming! The team has been actively discussing the thread and we appreciate everyone's viewpoints. For the most part the thread has been constructive and devoid of personal attacks, keep that coming!
It would be nice to keep following that constructive part though instead of what is becoming a tired strawman argument of "but our stuffs will be gone" as though everyone in favor of a merge supports people losing their stuff (they don't)

MeNaCe-NZ's Avatar


MeNaCe-NZ
06.08.2017 , 10:14 PM | #487
Quote: Originally Posted by Ratajack View Post
Those technical points are not the only concerns held by those who oppose server merges, but they are high on the list of concerns. There have been other concerns raised in this thread and all the other spam "merge servers" threads, but I'm not going to back to quote them so that those in favor of merging servers can just ignore them or dismiss them again. Anyone truly wishing to acknowledge those other concerns can go back and read them for themselves.
Then let's hear these other concerns. If you don't have any that's fine - your stance on the technical issues has been made perfectly clear. Eric posted in THIS thread for continued constructive discussion so not sure why anyone would need to go read other threads for someone to make a point that hasn't been made here?

Quote:
Why continue to go on and on about merging servers? People have made their points numerous times. We get it already.
Because Bioware are actively discussing merges and in particular noted this thread for people to continue to discuss?

I'm more curious if it's been done to death and everything that's been said has been said before and you are aware of all this ... why are you here posting? Had you not made your point in those other threads that people should supposedly go and read?

MeNaCe-NZ's Avatar


MeNaCe-NZ
06.08.2017 , 10:21 PM | #488
Quote: Originally Posted by DWho View Post
As far as latency goes, you would need one server on the West coast to cover the APAC players otherwise their latency would go over 250 ms. Since I have an 80 ms latency from the midwest to West coast I would guess east coast to west coast would be about 100-120 ms. That could be manageable but could also impact PVP (16 man raids might also be affected) if the latency spikes for some reason. It might be better to have east and west coast servers. That is also making the assumption that the server used is upgraded sufficiently to avoid any "Too Many Instruction" errors from increased traffic. At this point I would assume that there is sufficient input bandwidth on existing servers to handle the traffic but that would have to be looked at too. Alternatively, you could have an RP server on the east coast and the main PVE server on the west coast.
I agree 1 server per coast would have to be a minimum - no 1 mega server for the US.
I don't particularly want to play at 300ms if for whatever reason west merged into east and I'm sure there are people using the east servers who feel the same.

I think the servers themselves probably wouldn't struggle too greatly with current population simply because I'm of the opinion at it's peak servers like Harb housed more population than we have on the entire west coast right now anyway. I could be wrong and the other negative to be considered is if things were to pick back up it's not really that viable to just open a new server and move people off a super populated one to that one ...

Quote:
As for RP, at a minimum I think they would need some kind of restricted chat to keep out the chat spammers (my favorite is the person who posts hundreds of spaces constantly so you can't read what's in the chat window). The other issue is the abilities that override character control (like the dance bomb, tinsel bomb, snowball cannon, etc). If you had an RP instance I suppose you could make items like that not work in that instance but that would prevent the RPers from using them. I only rarely RP on Ebon Hawk so I'm not really an expert on what constitutes interference. Someone from there would probably be able to give you more examples. More active moderation overall, especially hotspots like fleet and DK could help, especially if the penalties are applied swiftly and publicly (I know Bioware/EA do not like shaming but it might be the most effective way to deter those that might think about causing problems but hadn't yet). Really moderation would help for all the servers.
Yeah the chat concept should be global for everyone not just RP.

RP isntances without toys wouldn't work as RPers no doubt want to use them.

RP instances I think is a good idea with rules attached around behavior from there BWA could monitor reports and see what would be required in the monitoring and management of them. It's unlikely any sort of real time moderation would occur thus if a n RP session does get ruined not much can be done besides those players knowing that entire account is perhaps on a 30 day ban from any RP instance as a start and progressing punishments from there ...

I'm guessing with RP instances it's not really as much of a problem as some would lead us to believe and with visible enforcement I think it would be even less than what RPers put up with on RP servers now.

xeoneex's Avatar


xeoneex
06.08.2017 , 10:22 PM | #489
Quote: Originally Posted by RobertFKennedyUS View Post
If BW finds that the cost of merging them is too high, then on the server selection screen they could label low population servers as such and put them at the bottom of the heap with a nice little dividing line from the remaining 3 American servers: Harb, a JC-SL merge, and Ebon Hawk.

Or if they find that having such low populations servers don't justify the cost of maintaining them, they could merge the low pop servers at BW's convenience. It's not reasonable to expect a company to maintain a server that's operating at single digit capacity.
Fair enough but what you propose with all the money spent on legacy cargo slots, as well as strong holds? I mean I personally don't make alot of money to spent millions upon millions unlocking strong holds all over again... I did it once because at the time I had no desire to move servers. It was only after I came into CM stuff that I couldn't sell when I made the hard decision to jump onto a high pop server. I really don't think it's fair for those of us on the low pop servers to have to completely rebuy everything we had simply because BW deems low pop servers unreasonable. Do you think that's fair to drop 10 mil on one of the strongholds to completely unlock, where it took you quite awhile to save that much money in the first place because lets face it, unless you are farming CONSTANTLY, the economy of said servers is non-existant.

Ratajack's Avatar


Ratajack
06.08.2017 , 10:26 PM | #490
Quote: Originally Posted by MeNaCe-NZ View Post
Well I've seen none so it certainly isn't a majority view, certainly not one to seemingly get worked up over as though everyone who is pro merge supports such a view as some would seem to be doing.




Buried under the posts you can't actually quote and thus must be quite rare? Wow, must be a landslide ...
Or instead bury reasoned discussion under sensationalist claims of how no one cares about people losing their stuff?



Might be because ...



It would be nice to keep following that constructive part though instead of what is becoming a tired strawman argument of "but our stuffs will be gone" as though everyone in favor of a merge supports people losing their stuff (they don't)
And ALL of the concerns people have regarding server merges are part of that feedback.

Feedback is not limited only to "merge servers" support.