servers Consolidate Shards

[lordporkbone]

Just wondering if anyone would be interested in consolidating shards so only the two most popular ones Excelsior and Everlasting remain. Increasing population would be hugely beneficial for being able to complete certain raid type content on a regular basis.

 

Of course, the sacrifice would likely be toon names but overall the benefits outweigh the sacrifice by several orders of magnitude.

[Perma-Newbie]

I could see consolidating Torchbearer and Indomitable, but leave Everlasting and Excelsior alone.

 

Edit:  I'm not suggesting they actually consolidate, only responding to the original post from the guy on Excelsior.

Edited August 10 by Duuk

[Rudra]

33 minutes ago, lordporkbone said:

Just wondering if anyone would be interested in consolidating shards so only the two most popular ones Excelsior and Everlasting remain. Increasing population would be hugely beneficial for being able to complete certain raid type content on a regular basis.

 

Of course, the sacrifice would likely be toon names but overall the benefits outweigh the sacrifice by several orders of magnitude.

Or, you know, if you want to play on a more populous server, use the double arrow icon at the top of the character select screen when you have your desired character chosen and simply transfer to the server you want. You can always transfer back later if you want. (I don't remember how many times per week this can be done though.)

[Apogee]

3 hours ago, lordporkbone said:

Just wondering if anyone would be interested in consolidating shards so only the two most popular ones Excelsior and Everlasting remain. Increasing population would be hugely beneficial for being able to complete certain raid type content on a regular basis.

 

Of course, the sacrifice would likely be toon names but overall the benefits outweigh the sacrifice by several orders of magnitude.

 

Personally, I enjoy playing on a less crowded server and I am very fond of my character names.  If such a merge were forced upon me I would stop playing altogether.  I have seen posts from many others expressing the same or similar sentiment.  If you want to play on a more populated server then transfer yourself, leave my server alone please.

[lordporkbone]

i play on the most populated server, but it still feels empty to be honest. names are just names, you'll live lol

[Luminara]

Trying to force people to play with you by deleting their names, wiping out their bases, uprooting established sub-communities and imposing long queues during primetime play hours probably won't have the outcome you desire.

[honoroit]

It would be good to merge servers.

 

If not, a server atop them where we're playernameA@excelior, playernameA@torchbearer works too, but is implementation as opposed to merge.

 

You'd be pissy about renaming collisions, threaten to explode, realize it's an awesome MMO without a sub, and settle back into playing again I suppose.

 

Maybe the 100-150 people on smaller servers really just like playing with the same people for years. I can respect that but don't share the sentiment.

 

The encounters on excelsior are polite and functional, but end the instant a tf completes, with the same text said every time.

 

And we all pretend to get angry about dfb badges.

 

For YEARS.

 

But the powers look cool.

 

I'd also put 4x xp on redside, BUT you can't null.

 

Yours,

 

 

Figs, player community expert 

Edited August 6 by honoroit

[Glacier Peak]

The Homecoming Team have stated they are not merging shards.

 

Indomitable just completed a Minotaur defeat last night at +4 Level Shift and 11 players. We do daily MSRs or Hamidon raids. We do daily Incarnate trials or giant monster hunting. We don't have lag like more populated servers, there's plenty of player names available, there's 100% more XP, and we do weekly themed Taskforces and Strikefirces, badge runs, and have themed SGs. Plenty of end game content being run on Indomitable, so the reasoning behind this suggestion is flawed.

Edited August 6 by Glacier Peak

[Bionic_Flea]

6 hours ago, lordporkbone said:

Just wondering if anyone would be interested in consolidating shards

 

Not me, sorry.  It's all working fine now.  People can choose their level of population.

[Lunar Ronin]

6 hours ago, lordporkbone said:

Just wondering if anyone would be interested in consolidating shards so only the two most popular ones Excelsior and Everlasting remain. Increasing population would be hugely beneficial for being able to complete certain raid type content on a regular basis.

 

Of course, the sacrifice would likely be toon names but overall the benefits outweigh the sacrifice by several orders of magnitude.

 

Well, that would be one way to get me to leave.  Not everyone wants to play on heavily populated shards.

[Lunar Ronin]

56 minutes ago, Glacier Peak said:

The Homecoming Team have stated they are not merging shards.

 

Indomitable just completed a Minotaur defeat last night at +4 Level Shift and 11 players. We do daily MSRs or Hamidon raids. We do daily Incarnate trials or giant monster hunting. We don't have lag like more populated servers, there's plenty of player names available, there's 100% more XP, and we do weekly themed Taskforces and Strikefirces, badge runs, and have themed SGs. Plenty of end game content being run on Indomitable, so the reasoning behind this suggestion is flawed.

 

The OP doesn't care about any of that.  Lordporkbone already stated that he or she plays on Excelsior, and just incredibly selfishly wants to force everyone on Torchbearer, Indomitable, and Reunion to move to Excelsior or Everlasting so he or she would have even more people to play with.

 

It doesn't work that way.  People who still play on Torchbearer, Indomitable, and Reunion today intentionally chose to play on those shards, and do not want to play on Excelsior or Everlasting.  I played on Excelsior for years, and left for Indomitable because I found the player base on Excelsior increasingly toxic.  Not to mention the heavy lag and shard issues from playing on a heavily populated shard that the lower population shards just don't have.

[honoroit]

*grumble mumble, i like my cave. mumble grumble: any change is bad*

 

^ skill issue.

 

 

-- Figs, marine biologist (famous)

 

 

[Oubliette_Red]

9 hours ago, lordporkbone said:

Just wondering if anyone would be interested in consolidating shards so only the two most popular ones Excelsior and Everlasting remain. Increasing population would be hugely beneficial for being able to complete certain raid type content on a regular basis.

 

Of course, the sacrifice would likely be toon names but overall the benefits outweigh the sacrifice by several orders of magnitude.

 

Please explain how this would be beneficial.  Past Protectorite and current Torcher, I've not heard any tales of endless failed Trials due to lack of players, for instance, the multi-League SNS would like to refute your comment.

 

5 hours ago, lordporkbone said:

i play on the most populated server, but it still feels empty to be honest. names are just names, you'll live lol

 

This sounds like a you problem.

 

Edited August 6 by Oubliette_Red

[Lunar Ronin]

2 hours ago, Lunar Ronin said:

I played on Excelsior for years, and left for Indomitable because I found the player base on Excelsior increasingly toxic.

 

33 minutes ago, honoroit said:

*grumble mumble, i like my cave. mumble grumble: any change is bad*

 

^ skill issue.

 

Thank you for proving my point.

[Apogee]

7 hours ago, lordporkbone said:

i play on the most populated server, but it still feels empty to be honest. names are just names, you'll live lol

 

And yet, I would still stop playing if I lost my names, as would others.  People play on the less populated servers for a reason.  Your suggestion would simply drive those players away from the game altogether, resulting in no benefit for the effort.

[Greycat]

11 hours ago, lordporkbone said:

Just wondering if anyone would be interested in consolidating shards so only the two most popular ones Excelsior and Everlasting remain. Increasing population would be hugely beneficial for being able to complete certain raid type content on a regular basis.

 

 

Not just no, but f*** no.

[Rudra]

8 hours ago, lordporkbone said:

i play on the most populated server, but it still feels empty to be honest. names are just names, you'll live lol

A character's name is as much a part of the character's concept from a player as their character's appearance, origin, and power choices. So no, names are not just names in this game. Names are part of what makes any given character that character.

 

Edited August 6 by Rudra
Edited to correct "they" to "their".

[Tanaxanth]

Reunion (which has the lowest pop) beat Minotaur two days after Lab opened. 

Weekly does Hami and MSR.

 

So the argument that a "full server" of people are needed to complete things seems weak.

 

Edited August 6 by Tanaxanth
Added qualifier in second sentence for clarity, and spelling

[honoroit]

what about things like LFG queue? would you be enraged if there was merged queue for these?

[Rudra]

1 minute ago, honoroit said:

what about things like LFG queue? would you be enraged if there was merged queue for these?

The servers are not linked in that way. So you can't have a merged LFG. That would require merging the servers.

[honoroit]

25 minutes ago, Rudra said:

The servers are not linked in that way. So you can't have a merged LFG. That would require merging the servers.

 

perfect! let's merge the servers!

 

(imagine you ACTUALLY transfer to a new server which hosts instances, then transfer back when you exit - if the servers 'don't work that way', if the problem visibility of the queue?  is /ah cross server?)

 

-- Figs, solutions expert

Edited August 6 by honoroit

[Rudra]

6 minutes ago, honoroit said:

perfect! let's merge the servers!

How about "no" for the reasons already given.

[lemming]

1 hour ago, honoroit said:

 

perfect! let's merge the servers!

 

(imagine you ACTUALLY transfer to a new server which hosts instances, then transfer back when you exit - if the servers 'don't work that way', if the problem visibility of the queue?  is /ah cross server?)

 

-- Figs, solutions expert  <editor comment, no>

AH is cross server along with some channels (Though not LFG) , but your suggestion of having people transfer by using LFG, no.   There's a reason we have a limited number per time period and it's not instant.  Plus the fact you lose your base and a few other connections.   So, not even close.

[Oubliette_Red]

19 hours ago, Greycat said:

 

Not just no, but f*** no.

 

Not just f*** no, but /jranger

[shortguy on indom]

• INCREASING THE NUMBER OF SERVER-TRANSFER-TOKENS MAY HELP THE OP TO FIND CURRENT RAIDS ON OTHER SERVERS?
• 5 -  TOKENS ARE NOT ENOUGH SOMETIMES IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT "CERTAIN SOMETHING" IN A 'RIGHT NOW' TIMEFRAME.