It's pretty clear to me that some do not acknowledge the concerns that many have with regards to server merges, and only see their desires to have the servers merged.

So what you're saying is, you don't have an answer. Good to know.

Lay off with the victim complex, most of us acknowledged literally every other concern including RP griefing, money+time investments, and even freaking name changes.

But when someone says "every new group content player and every stranded veteran group content player should get no group content because of my respawn timers" that's asinine.

If EAWare properly moderated and policed in-game behavior in this game (like Square Enix does with FFXIV and their zero tolerance policy), then I would be far less opposed to the idea of RP servers being merged with non-RP ones.

This is absolutely a necessity...not just for RP servers, but for all of them. Chat has deteriorated to what it is because there is no oversight or accountability...a mistake I believe Bioware must rectify ASAP.

One suggestion for dealing with it was reducing instance size, but as I said, that is a coding issue that won't be solved quickly. With the reduced populations now it is not as big a problem as it was when server populations were much higher. Creating instanced areas for more mission objectives could also be done but once again that is a coding change that is not quick to implement.

 

Respawn timers for some are quite extensive. To give an example maybe people are familiar with since there was a whole thread dedicated to it at one point. The bonus mission in the Heroic Face Merchants on Coruscant is kill 15 Black Sun. The area that is applied to contains 15-20 NPCs that count. On a typical weeknight, even on JC which some would classify a low pop server, there are 4-6 people (most of which refuse to group up) in that area waiting for the mobs to respawn (respawn timer there is something like 2 or 3 minutes). If you are lucky you can get 3 or 4 NPCs per respawn cycle before they are all gone again. So it can easily take you in excess of 20 minutes just to gather those up assuming you are lucky enough to get one set in each spawn cycle. That is one where all of the spawns are close together. Now think about the slave collar mission on Coruscant where the objectives are spread all over a fairly large map and you have to run around trying to find one that hasn't been taken. I have heard a number of people complain that waiting more than 5 minutes for a WZ pop is unacceptable but these same people are fine with someone waiting 15-20 minutes to complete one mission objective (and many missions are affected by high population). Another that comes to mind is Mutations on Taris (the respawn timer there I think is in excess of 5 minutes and requires you to kill 6 - I think - in an area containing only 7). While the heroics are "optional" content they are illustrative to this discussion because due to the CXP payout they are currently heavily played and thus are somewhat indicative of what a higher population server would experience with open world objectives.

Thank you for providing a couple of specific examples of open world objectives, not that it will make a difference to some, of course.

As far as the old PVP servers go. I don't recall anyone saying these should not be merged. It's possible but I don't recall it and those that are "opposed", and I'll use that term lightly, to server merges on those servers have grave concerns about assets as has been said many times so I will not go into it further.

In the interest of fairness, I have said that I do think those "dead" servers are the only ones that should be considered for merges. I also stated that they should be considered for merges ONLY if BW can resolve ALL the issues surrounding those merges, ensuring that no one those servers loses anything or is negatively impacted in any way. Those are just my opinions, though.

So what you're saying is, you don't have an answer. Good to know.

 

Lay off with the victim complex, most of us acknowledged literally every other concern including RP griefing, money+time investments, and even freaking name changes.

 

But when someone says "every new group content player and every stranded veteran group content player should get no group content because of my respawn timers" that's asinine.

I specifically said BOTH play styles need support.

...

(2) Your 66% statistic is made up.

...

If 3 servers merge and all three had a toon named "Nakita" then 2 out of 3 are forced to change their name. 66%.

That is the best case, the west coast, if they merge all the servers it is more like 85%.

And here is more good news, that is a per toon statistic.

It is almost certain that every account will have to rename at least one char.

And don't tell me you have been here since '12; those are the people with the most common names, and every server has someone with the common name that has been here since '12. If anything the older accounts with the better names are most likely to face a conflict.

And that is if they do it by first come first serve. If they do it the way they did last time, by destination, then it is much worse for everyone except the destination server(s).

The only people who will beat the odds are the people with lousy names that no one else has copied.

People with forced name changes are likely to quit.

So in the end this is a feature that will be expensive to implement and cost subs.

XServer is better.

 

Alternatively, what if RP had their own instance and secluded chat from the rest of the server? In the RP instance, you would only see chat from that instance, not like it is now where you see everything...would that help? Basically, you'd be on the same server as others, but you'd be separated by your instance choice. If you elected to go to the PvP or PvE instance, you'd see that chat but not RP chat.

The problem with that is it's too easy to swap just to harass someone on their own server someone really has to go out of their way to troll but if it's 2 clicks away...... Also it won't do anything for those who end up in a 'rp flashpoint'

I do have a question for the RPers...

 

As long as you're segregated on your own server, doesn't that impact your ability to draw in new RPers? If it were an instance that I could load into, like a PvP instance, wouldn't that increase exposure to RP and potentially enlarge the RP playerbase?

 

I understand the fear of griefing...but that's why I think we need better policing of chat...I just don't quite understand how isolating RPers helps RP grow and attract new RPers. It doesn't effect me in the least, just as many people despise PvP, I have no desire to RP...but I would be curious to observe an RP server/setting...I just won't create or move a character to experience it.

 

So...how does segregating your community help in the long run exactly?

Speaking only from personal experience, I decided to roll on EH when I did because it was labelled an RP server. I was on Shadowlands to start, and wanted to actually watch scenes and if I said something in character, the group was just like "what are you doing?" So I swapped when I saw it was an RP server, even though I had never really RP'd before that. It was the idea of being in a community that was full of RPers that caught my interest and drew me in. I am very much an advocate for it to get the official label back.

As far as chat, it's also very easy to lose emotes in the slew of chat, like on Korriban on Ebon hawk for example, when people sit at the academy entrance and just duel and use say to talk to each other out of charcter.

In the end we are all going to meet when it comes to FP and PvP, they have to do something, it is either XServer or Merge.

What I would like to see is:

1. Ignore be account wide or at least legacy

2. Ignore works on all queues including PvP

Ignore is their excuse for not policing behavior, fine, make it actually work.

In the end we are all going to meet when it comes to FP and PvP, they have to do something, it is either XServer or Merge.

 

What I would like to see is:

1. Ignore be account wide or at least legacy

2. Ignore works on all queues including PvP

 

Ignore is their excuse for not policing behavior, fine, make it actually work.

I agree that ignoring one character should ignore that player's entire legacy and that ignore lists should prevent players from being grouped with anyone on their ignore lists for ANY AND ALL queues and types of activities.

That said, ignore lists are only so big, and they do nothing for certain types of "less than desirable behavior".

I guess the question I have is that if Bioware were to remove the impediments to characters moving servers (to a bigger server for better group content pops, better markets, more people around) would that fix the pop rate for group content. Or is there a sizeable enough community that believes the pop times they get are adequate, that they can do the group content they want to do, and prefers for whatever reason the server they are on.

In the end I am starting to think this is the real issue with server mergers, that there may not be enough population that wants to be on large servers and wants better access to group content to get to where some group players want to get. This is obviously bad for group content players and maybe time and effort is better spent trying to get cross-server to work or find some other way to let people get together for group content (short term transfers - transfer for a day or week or something like that for those that get an urge to binge on group content and are on a lower pop server but don't want to make a permanent move). Right now it is relatively cheap to transfer a character and if legacy transfer could be implemented, would enough people move to say Harbinger to get pop times where people want them? Allowing people who made a "mistake" and created a character on a low pop server could also be addressed relatively simply with a free character transfer.

I am not against server mergers if the technical issues we have been discussing in this thread could be worked out. It just seems that to work them out may take longer than some of the merge server people want to wait.

 

And don't tell me you have been here since '12; those are the people with the most common names, and every server has someone with the common name that has been here since '12. If anything the older accounts with the better names are most likely to face a conflict.

 

And that is if they do it by first come first serve. If they do it the way they did last time, by destination, then it is much worse for everyone except the destination server(s).

 

The only people who will beat the odds are the people with lousy names that no one else has copied.

 

 

 

People with forced name changes are likely to quit.

 

So in the end this is a feature that will be expensive to implement and cost subs.

 

XServer is better.

I agree with this, I have been around since the servers were first turned on. I have the name Aayla Secura on my server and 3 variations of the name too, just because I can. If I am forced to move servers I will lose those names and I enjoy having them. I know I will loose them because I have gone to other servers to try and get the names and I can't. Is it really a big deal if I lose those names, not really no. However, to some people it is a very big deal, such as it is a name they use in multiple games they play. Cross server ques is a much better solution than server merges. Cross server gives everybody what they want. Assuming they can work out the technical issues with it that is.

2. Ignore works on all queues including PvP.

There is no chance of this ever happening. It would open the door to so much abuse especially in ranked. It would give players a lot of control over team makeup. And you could potentially shut someone out of the queues entirely.

I guess the question I have is that if Bioware were to remove the impediments to characters moving servers (to a bigger server for better group content pops, better markets, more people around) would that fix the pop rate for group content. Or is there a sizeable enough community that believes the pop times they get are adequate, that they can do the group content they want to do, and prefers for whatever reason the server they are on.

 

In the end I am starting to think this is the real issue with server mergers, that there may not be enough population that wants to be on large servers and wants better access to group content to get to where some group players want to get. This is obviously bad for group content players and maybe time and effort is better spent trying to get cross-server to work or find some other way to let people get together for group content (short term transfers - transfer for a day or week or something like that for those that get an urge to binge on group content and are on a lower pop server but don't want to make a permanent move). Right now it is relatively cheap to transfer a character and if legacy transfer could be implemented, would enough people move to say Harbinger to get pop times where people want them? Allowing people who made a "mistake" and created a character on a low pop server could also be addressed relatively simply with a free character transfer.

 

I am not against server mergers if the technical issues we have been discussing in this thread could be worked out. It just seems that to work them out may take longer than some of the merge server people want to wait.

I understand that concerns that both sides have regarding server merges.

I also understand that while it may bring its own set of problems, a cross server queuing system would address many of the concerns held by both sides and may be the best option, provided that BW can make it work.

I'm seeing a lot of posts saying something like "Imagine if BW could merge servers perfectly", "Don't you think BW would have a system in place to merge servers perfectly" or "BW wouldn't merge servers unless they could do it perfectly".

Well, before we talk about server merges as if "merges will perfect and seamless" was a foregone conclusion, IMO, the focus should be on ensuring that BW resolves ALL of the issues, whether those issues are technical or non-technical, surrounding server merges.

Talking about mergers as if they were a foregone conclusion before ensuring ALL the issues surrounding those mergers are resolved is putting the cart before the horse.

I'm not sure whether it would be "easier" or "cheaper" to resolve ALL the issues surrounding server merges or to resolve the issues surrounding cross server queuing, but that is a decision probably best left up to BW.

It may be that BW decides that neither is truly feasible and continues to leave the decision of server and server population up to the individual player. Again, that decision is best left up to BW.

YES!!! Now we are thinking this through as a group. You are 100% correct about this, and Blizzard has a system for that, which I forgot to mention. They have a cross game communication that players from any blizzard game can not only message each other, but now they have added voice chat with it so you don't even need TS or mumble. It is called battlenet. When you install one of their games, it also installs battlenet.

I believe Bioware has one too and SWTOR does their billing through it now. Origin... So all they need to do is install origin with SWTOR, and if you get in a cross server group with some cool players you can add them to your Origin friend's list. That would be even better because you could see them online if they are playing Mass Effect, and be like "hey bro, wanna throw down in EV with us?" And your friend would be like "yeah I do, let me switch games!" And then you would be like "Cool, but Keith and Eric are running with us, so we are probably going to wipe, cause Keith is healing on his OP again!"

Ok, I just checked my Origin account and you can text and voice chat with friends on Origin, just like Blizzard does with battlenet. Also, you can install SWTOR from the games list in Origin and buy the expansion for the Eternal Empire content. So this game is linked with Origin now therefore, the Devs would just have to write a little bitty bit of software to allow an Origin overlay in game and BAM, problem solved. Now they could do cross server queues and we could hook up with, and form groups cross server! That would really enhance ranked PVP. There really isn't a great deal of hard core Ranked PVP players out there so this would really open up the competition across the servers. This cross server group queue with cross server origin text and voice chat might even lead to RANKED GSF!!!!

I'll change my official religion to Jedi if that happens 😊

https://www.jedichurch.org/

This isn't a joke, this is a real life church and real people, they list Jedi as their religion on official government census and other legal forms.

Insaneeeeeeeeeeee

I understand that concerns that both sides have regarding server merges.

 

I also understand that while it may bring its own set of problems, a cross server queuing system would address many of the concerns held by both sides and may be the best option, provided that BW can make it work.

 

I'm seeing a lot of posts saying something like "Imagine if BW could merge servers perfectly", "Don't you think BW would have a system in place to merge servers perfectly" or "BW wouldn't merge servers unless they could do it perfectly".

 

Well, before we talk about server merges as if "merges will perfect and seamless" was a foregone conclusion, IMO, the focus should be on ensuring that BW resolves ALL of the issues, whether those issues are technical or non-technical, surrounding server merges.

 

Talking about mergers as if they were a foregone conclusion before ensuring ALL the issues surrounding those mergers are resolved is putting the cart before the horse.

 

I'm not sure whether it would be "easier" or "cheaper" to resolve ALL the issues surrounding server merges or to resolve the issues surrounding cross server queuing, but that is a decision probably best left up to BW.

 

 

It may be that BW decides that neither is truly feasible and continues to leave the decision of server and server population up to the individual player. Again, that decision is best left up to BW.

My guess would be that it's cheaper and easier to resolve the technical issues surrounding merges rather than around cross-server. This is purely guesswork mind you, but wouldn't you agree the idea behind both cross server and merge would be similar? In cross server, you'd be "moving" servers to some temporary host in live-game, playing with 3-15 other people who have also moved servers in live-game, each of you will have a temporary inventory that needs to be moved back to your origin server correctly, instantly, in live-game. Since merges also involve the movement of players and player data to a new location, but will be done when the game is offline, not live, wouldn't they be easier to do, even if you introduce the "don't lose any player data" qualifier (because obviously crosserver will need that exact same qualifier too)?

Again, purely speculation, but I think it's at least justifiable speculation.

Also, while crossserver would be great for PvP and Flashpoints, it wouldn't do much for the Operations crowd (SM, HM or NiM, whichever). Most players make their SM/HM PuG groups using chat LFG because it makes it easier to do a sort of "vetting" before letting the other player into the group if needed, and is just overall more convenient since GF queues take way too long. NiM obviously just can't be pugged at all, anyone who wants to do NiM needs to either be merged into an NiM active server, or transferred to one, and there is no HM PuG option either, so those will need to be moved/merged too.

I guess one way to make the GF Op be a bit more reliable, is put a restriction on who can queue up for them. PvP for example doesn't allow players below a certain valor rank to queue for Ranked. Make some similar system for PvE, and it'll make GF significantly more reliable and everyone would use it enough for the Ops community to benefit from crossserver.

There is no chance of this ever happening. It would open the door to so much abuse especially in ranked. It would give players a lot of control over team makeup. And you could potentially shut someone out of the queues entirely.

That ignore function would cut both ways.

The elitist who places all the "bads" on his ignore list is just as likely to "lock himself out" of PVP queues as the casual who places all the elitists on his ignore list. In either of those two cases, the elitist or the casual can remove some of those on their ignore list to open up their queuing possibilities again. That choice would be up to that individual player. Is it more important to that player to get queues or to not be grouped with the "bads" or the "elitists"?

I think the only ones who would really have to be concerned are the individuals who's behavior is so toxic that they end up on multiple ignore lists. That is only my opinion, of course. YMMV

Of course, I'm guessing that we already have some PVE'ers who are on too many ignore lists due to their toxic bahavior, causing them to have what they feel are excessive queue times and subsequently demanding server merges for more LFG fodder.

That's not true at all - better queue times, more social interaction, better GTN market are a reasons I can think of.

No, he was right about Shadowlands, we're good. You're welcome to absorb JC if you like though. We don't need em.

That's just a flat out lie.

You're flat out lying when you say he's flat out lying. JC is fine as it is. If I start having trouble getting pops, I'll decide whether moving using the 90cc transfers makes sense. Right now it's not a problem for me at all.

My guess would be that it's cheaper and easier to resolve the technical issues surrounding merges rather than around cross-server. This is purely guesswork mind you, but wouldn't you agree the idea behind both cross server and merge would be similar? In cross server, you'd be "moving" servers to some temporary host in live-game, playing with 3-15 other people who have also moved servers in live-game, each of you will have a temporary inventory that needs to be moved back to your origin server correctly, instantly, in live-game. Since merges also involve the movement of players and player data to a new location, but will be done when the game is offline, not live, wouldn't they be easier to do, even if you introduce the "don't lose any player data" qualifier (because obviously crosserver will need that exact same qualifier too)?

 

Again, purely speculation, but I think it's at least justifiable speculation.

I have no experience, but it seems to me (in my admittedly limited knowledge and thinking) that while it may be similar and both would require "moving bits of data" that cross serve queuing would involve moving far less data.

it seems to me that with cross server queuing, there is really no need to worry about moving cargo holds, legacy cargo holds, strongholds, guilds and guild assets. Again, I cannot say with certainty, but it seems to me that with cross server queuing, only the character along with their skills, inventory, stamped outfits (maybe even just the active outfit), companions, etc. would need to be "moved" and then "moved back" to the original server.

I cannot think of any reason why anything that cannot be accessed by a character in a WZ or FP would need to be "moved", and even some of those things that can be accessed in a WZ or FP now with dingle server queuing (such as vanity pets, mounts, all stamped outfits) could possibly be disabled if using the LFG tool to make "data transfer" easier. Sure, it might mean that Johnny could not pull out that taunling pet in that FP, or change outfits 17 times, but IMO, that is a small price to play for the increased queue pops.

Of course, BW would need to ensure that even the minimum, limited data was moved with no loss.

Also, while crossserver would be great for PvP and Flashpoints, it wouldn't do much for the Operations crowd (SM, HM or NiM, whichever). Most players make their SM/HM PuG groups using chat LFG because it makes it easier to do a sort of "vetting" before letting the other player into the group if needed, and is just overall more convenient since GF queues take way too long. NiM obviously just can't be pugged at all, anyone who wants to do NiM needs to either be merged into an NiM active server, or transferred to one, and there is no HM PuG option either, so those will need to be moved/merged too.

 

I guess one way to make the GF Op be a bit more reliable, is put a restriction on who can queue up for them. PvP for example doesn't allow players below a certain valor rank to queue for Ranked. Make some similar system for PvE, and it'll make GF significantly more reliable and everyone would use it enough for the Ops community to benefit from crossserver.

Regarding OPS, I have no real answer other than to say that is one of those issues that BW would need to factor into their decision as to whether to implement server merges, cross server queuing or neither, if they choose to leave the choice of server and server population up to the individual player.

Of course if there are more than 2 servers merged it might mean 2-4 people with the same name. In that case there would be a need for some other option, not sure what.

As far as that goes, if it got to that point, I think the fairest thing to do is whoever used the name first get's to keep it as is. Just because someone else might have used it on a different server, there will still be one of them who had the name first.

Wherein you have to worry about 2-4 people with the same name, that get's tricky. People would be very set in wanting to keep the name they've been using and you really can't blame them, whom ever may have had the name first or second of third. etc.

The "first come first serve" option, giving the person who had the name first first dibs on the name seems pretty cut and dry. But each subsequent user with the same name gets harder and harder to find acceptable alterations to them. I don't imagine you would be able to make them all happy though. Some of them would just have to suck it up unfortunately. Even if you could make the names look virtually the same by some nuance, say by using letters with symbols over them, i.e. ā, ä, ǟ, ḑ, ē, ī, ļ, ņ, ō, ȯ, ȱ, õ, ȭ, ŗ, š, ț, ū, ž.

Grim

Grīm

This could lead to confusion, people mistaking dealings with one of them from the other.

"Grim's such a nice guy!"

"Grīm's a total moron!"

[i wish I could say only one of them is true and that it was the more favorable one]

It's doable of course, but there would be some unhappy people over it.

You're flat out lying when you say he's flat out lying. JC is fine as it is. If I start having trouble getting pops, I'll decide whether moving using the 90cc transfers makes sense. Right now it's not a problem for me at all.

There's no point in arguing with that guy... he calls everyone who disagrees with him on any point (even if they have actual evidence to back up said point) liars. Best to just ignore him like a lot of us are doing.

I think the only ones who would really have to be concerned are the individuals who's behavior is so toxic that they end up on multiple ignore lists. That is only my opinion, of course. YMMV

This would affect bad players much more than it would affect toxic ones. If ignore lists respected who you were on a team with, there are a few players I would make sure are never on my team again. If a player has a reputation for being terrible at pvp, he is going to be on a lot of people's ignore lists and not ever able to get a queue pop. This becomes a bigger issue in solo ranked as it is a smaller pool of people queuing, and a bigger incentive to not have terrible players on your team to protect your rating.

Also at a certain point queues would just shut down because the system could not resolve ignore list conflicts.

Its a total non-issue as it is now as you still can't see chat from someone you are ignoring. If you can't handle someone on your ignore list being on your team, thats your problem.

This would affect bad players much more than it would affect toxic ones. If ignore lists respected who you were on a team with, there are a few players I would make sure are never on my team again. If a player has a reputation for being terrible at pvp, he is going to be on a lot of people's ignore lists and not ever able to get a queue pop. This becomes a bigger issue in solo ranked as it is a smaller pool of people queuing, and a bigger incentive to not have terrible players on your team to protect your rating.

 

Also at a certain queues would just shut down because the system could not resolve ignore list conflicts.

 

Its a total non-issue as it is now as you still can't see chat from someone you are ignoring. If you can't handle someone on your ignore list being on your team, thats your problem.

"It's ok for ignore lists to work for PVE content, but as a PVP'er, no one should be able to prevent me from being grouped with them, no matter how toxic (or bad) I am, If they can't handle me, that's their problem."

As far as that goes, if it got to that point, I think the fairest thing to do is whoever used the name first get's to keep it as is. Just because someone else might have used it on a different server, there will still be one of them who had the name first.

 

Wherein you have to worry about 2-4 people with the same name, that get's tricky. People would be very set in wanting to keep the name they've been using and you really can't blame them, whom ever may have had the name first or second of third. etc.

 

The "first come first serve" option, giving the person who had the name first first dibs on the name seems pretty cut and dry. But each subsequent user with the same name gets harder and harder to find acceptable alterations to them. I don't imagine you would be able to make them all happy though. Some of them would just have to suck it up unfortunately. Even if you could make the names look virtually the same by some nuance, say by using letters with symbols over them, i.e. ā, ä, ǟ, ḑ, ē, ī, ļ, ņ, ō, ȯ, ȱ, õ, ȭ, ŗ, š, ț, ū, ž.

 

Grim

Grīm

This could lead to confusion, people mistaking dealings with one of them from the other.

 

"Grim's such a nice guy!"

"Grīm's a total moron!"

[i wish I could say only one of them is true and that it was the more favorable one]

 

It's doable of course, but there would be some unhappy people over it.

If they do a cross server queue, the names are not an issue. If you get in a group away from your home server your name is displayed as Grim(*). Where the (*) represents the other server's name in the programing logic, but is always displayed as (*) to all players. So you could have 1 Grim and 7 Grim(*)'s in an 8 man ops run, but when you return to your home server you are the only Grim again.