Server Merges?

[Assist]

It's beginning to be obvious to everyone that they need to do something. Most servers have a couple zones on one continent with platoons and maybe a platoon on each other continent. Wonder why they're letting it drag out rather than doing it sooner ? To me it would make sense to do merges before the transfers and also before the account-wide unlocks. Also the only reason I can see that they pushed the transfers back is that they plan to server merge, but we haven't seen or heard anything since..

Getting a bit bored of the same fights day after day due to 80% of the world with 'No Activity' or 'Enemies Detected'. This game was built for massive warfare, give us servers with the people to produce this massive warfare.

[Thunderhawk]

Being Devil's advocate, not all servers need a merge. I don't know what it's like on other servers as I dont play on them, but my server is normally pop locked on Indar, with heavy battles raging on another (normally Esamir) and a lot of fights on the third (Amerish) so I don't think I would be recommending a Merger into us or us with someone else. (not yet anyway)

[Assist]

Being Devil's advocate, not all servers need a merge. I don't know what it's like on other servers as I dont play on them, but my server is normally pop locked on Indar, with heavy battles raging on another (normally Esamir) and a lot of fights on the third (Amerish) so I don't think I would be recommending a Merger into us or us with someone else. (not yet anyway)

Well, Miller is the largest server I'm fairly sure. Waterson is a fairly populated server and we get a continent locked on pop(for VS) maybe once a week. But that's only one continent, there's three continents.

[Baneblade]

I suspect any such thing is going to be coincided with the other continents releasing.

[Thunderhawk]

I suspect any such thing is going to be coincided with the other continents releasing.

It would at least be justifiable that way, or a pill that is easier to swallow from a PR perspective.

"We are doubling the in game area so it makes sense to merge the servers to make sue of that increased space"

It won't look bad that way, and is the right way to go about it.

[Stellarthief]

According to PSU stats, Miller is by 4% or so the largest server.

I havn't noticed any population imbalances, except since patch when it seems more NC flooded in and VS don't wanna play with the stuttering. Yesterday I logged in to check if issue was solved and population was like 23% VS, 30% TR and 37% NC.

[Lonehunter]

I Just want to be clear Planetside isn't meant to have a major battle raging on every continent or territory. Right now there is always fighting on every continent, even locked ones (on Waterson anyway). It may be small but it's there. We need more continents and no server mergers in my opinion.


Planetside isn't meant to have a major raging battle on every continent. PS1 had like 10 conts, in it's prime 2 maybe 3 would have population locks so they were full of players. It adds another layer of strategy through defense, blitzkrieg, and allows a chance for smaller battles, which any outfit that isn't 100 people is begging for right now.

[VaderShake]

I Just want to be clear Planetside isn't meant to have a major battle raging on every continent or territory. Right now there is always fighting on every continent, even locked ones (on Waterson anyway). It may be small but it's there. We need more continents and no server mergers in my opinion.


Planetside isn't meant to have a major raging battle on every continent. PS1 had like 10 conts, in it's prime 2 maybe 3 would have population locks so they were full of players. It adds another layer of strategy through defense, blitzkrieg, and allows a chance for smaller battles, which any outfit that isn't 100 people is begging for right now.

I never played PS1 but it was my understanding that this was one of the major strategic draws of the game. You have 10 continents and as continents get locked it forces a strategic decision to shift forces and resources to take back the other continents. I think many people are just focused on "winning the map" and not looking at the larger continetal control coming down the road. I look at PS2 as a virtual game of Risk.

I know right now it seems most people are playing on Indar on Matherson, when we get a new continent I am sure thats where the fighting will head to and so on with each new continent and eventually the larger strategy will come to the surface.

Again virtual Risk.

[Stellarthief]

I Just want to be clear Planetside isn't meant to have a major battle raging on every continent or territory. Right now there is always fighting on every continent, even locked ones (on Waterson anyway). It may be small but it's there. We need more continents and no server mergers in my opinion.


Planetside isn't meant to have a major raging battle on every continent. PS1 had like 10 conts, in it's prime 2 maybe 3 would have population locks so they were full of players. It adds another layer of strategy through defense, blitzkrieg, and allows a chance for smaller battles, which any outfit that isn't 100 people is begging for right now.

Spreading out so many battles like that is boring. Whats the point of having so much battle space? So you can play player versus conquest point? Going around ninjaing undefended bases is boring. The point of the game is to fight each other. If you add too much content this makes it impossible to have great fights.

As it is now in many cases large parts of the continents are already unused. At certain times, even on miller, I have gone around and solo taken places without resistance. Or gone with my outfit from place to place taking without resistance. Very fun let me tell you.

Each server is a bit different, especially as some have according to PSU much smaller populations. There needs to be more incentive to utilize all of the continents/maps and not just zerg. vs. zerg so some decent sized battles can be done. But that's really not the case in my experience atm. It's mostly either very large battles or battles against no one.

I had the same problem in GW2. Important to take keeps and towers there in WvW, even if no one around. Very fun to knock down doors, kill some NPCs and take a keep to help your war effort. What's the point of PvP without the 2nd P?

*edit in response to VaderShake. I am all for strategic, making tactical decisions where to fight, when, how. But in PS2 whats the point? What's the point at all right now winning the map or not? Do I get a big xp bonus for locking, do I get any added benefit for winning the war in my way? I ask honestly, whats the reward for being strategic other than "winning"? I have not had a continent lock for my side or against me yet while I have been online. In an MMOFPS there needs to be some tangible incentive for furthering the warfront otherwise it's just fights like an FPS. Kill or be killed.

[Boomzor]

Miller here, yeah, we're in no need of more players atm so my view is slightly slanted.

The thing with more continents in PS1 was that if you got kicked off one (or all trends pointing to that end result rather), you could always make a mess on another continent controlled by the empire that previously did the ass kicking, in an attempt to relieve pressure on the original continent.

Like this
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YyRRefGeo0A/Tb6ZePINW2I/AAAAAAAAA1I/0HDbDAufCcY/s1600/Number%252520Puzzle%252520Wall%252520Panel%2525201-15.jpg

You need at least one empty space to allow the other pieces to slide around.

Also, I'm suspecting the server transfer token you need to buy for station cash will be the only tool SoE will provide for you when it comes to server merges.

[Baneblade]

Spreading out so many battles like that is boring. Whats the point of having so much battle space?

I think you missed his point. He wasn't saying that the current fights should be spread out among 10 continents. In PS1 there was only one continent you couldn't lose: Sanctuary. In PS2, you lose territory (temporarily) and never actually get forced off the continent. In PS1, you had a win condition to achieve, in PS2, its all transient.

[PTG HooT]

The problem at the moment is no one is on any other continent than Indar on Woodman.

Only people on the others are a zerg from TR or VS steamrolling around.

Everyone else is on Indar playing Merry Go Round at the flipping Crown..

[Stellarthief]

I think you missed his point. He wasn't saying that the current fights should be spread out among 10 continents. In PS1 there was only one continent you couldn't lose: Sanctuary. In PS2, you lose territory (temporarily) and never actually get forced off the continent. In PS1, you had a win condition to achieve, in PS2, its all transient.

Yeah. i played ps1 i know this. but ps2 doesn't seem to work like this. Also seems intentional rather than incomplete. my point was more that ps2 is a more action oriented game than ps1 with more quick action and concentrated fights. spreading them out without a design change would make it worse. i mean that in ps2 there has to be a point to winning the maps if you want to add more of them. I have yet to feel a point in ps2 to winning the map. ps1 it was tangible.

[Baneblade]

Actually, PS2 seems a lot less concentrated. It almost seems directionless.

[Qwan]

I dont know guys Woodman seems to be doing fine, havent heard anyone complaining about not finding a fight. I believe the Dev's are doing there thing monitoring fights and stuff. So if they do transfer you how will this be done. I live on the east coast and play on the Euro server, I have no lag issues at all and the time I get off work works fine with my outfits play time.

[Stellarthief]

Because there is no point to map conquest. but battles all appear at the same areas in big concentrations. you don't have many spread out medium battles across all continents most of the time. that's what i meant.

[Assist]

I Just want to be clear Planetside isn't meant to have a major battle raging on every continent or territory. Right now there is always fighting on every continent, even locked ones (on Waterson anyway). It may be small but it's there. We need more continents and no server mergers in my opinion.


Planetside isn't meant to have a major raging battle on every continent. PS1 had like 10 conts, in it's prime 2 maybe 3 would have population locks so they were full of players. It adds another layer of strategy through defense, blitzkrieg, and allows a chance for smaller battles, which any outfit that isn't 100 people is begging for right now.

Planetside 1 wasn't meant to have raging battles on every continent. From the way the developers talked about the game, Planetside 2 is meant to. I think the main reason they got rid of the lattice system was they were expecting major battle fronts, but that's just not happening. More continents will just remove any major battles. Unfortunately the vehicle and base design speaks more to what I'm saying than what you are stating. Liberators are not meant for any small scale fights, either are the MBT's. They're made for large battles, they're made to be countered by large battles. Bio Labs are not meant to be taken with a small group. Unfortunately a small group can work their way to one and take it right now, but it's very obvious due to their size and design that massive battles are designed to take place at them. A lattice system would certainly make that happen, but so would simply increased players on each continent and I think PS2 really shined its first month because of this.

I'd bet my house that when I log on today there's going to be platoons on Indar and maybe a platoon of enemies on Esamir or Amerish.

[Assist]

I suspect any such thing is going to be coincided with the other continents releasing.

I sincerely hope not. Given the amount of bugs that have been introduced with this last patch, I can't imagine them adding a continent and server merging at the same time. We'd end up with half the characters gone missing and the other half being mutated dinosaurs.

[Baneblade]

Banebladesaurus Rex? I can work with that. As long as my camos remain.

Do you think dinosaurs can handle the new SMG?

[QuantumMechanic]

So aside from Miller, most all servers reach medium population during primetime, and are at low population at all other times. Some servers are at low population 24/7.

I was recently convinced that SOE has no plans to do any server merges yet, because somebody tweeted Smed about it and his reply was, "We have plans for low population servers". Sorry, I don't have a reference link to that tweet right now.

Due to my schedule, I can't play during primetime hours. I usually start gaming around 11:30 PM or so, just as it's winding down. So I pretty much stuck with a low population experience. Connery (most populated US West server) is so desolate post-midnight on weeknights that I just gave up playing, and I only log in on weekends now.

And what about SOE's "plans for low population servers"? I'm guessing they are going to try to incentivize new players to roll there, with XP or resource boosts. And I don't see that making any significant difference.

[Sledgecrushr]

With a universal character system we definitely would not want server mergers.

[Assist]

And what about SOE's "plans for low population servers"? I'm guessing they are going to try to incentivize new players to roll there, with XP or resource boosts. And I don't see that making any significant difference.

I'm worried this is their plan as well. Unfortunately I think they believe that all the new-player oriented updates coming in February will bring in more players which will fill the servers.
Which means server merges are even farther off :\

[Neutral Calypso]

Things have gotten interesting on Connery. VS and NC joined forces in an effort to oust TR from Indar. TR has made it a point of pride to own Indar in perpetuity for the past few months or so. And we have lately been fighting and fighting and FIGHTING to keep ownership of that Continent (sometimes by a thin little thread).

[Hamma]

If we do see a merge I don't think it will be until Server Transfer Tokens are released.

[Shamrock]

It is absolutely imperative that they keep the pops up and stable or initiate merge's, my last experience of this was Warhammer online, EA took an eternity to merge servers after the pops began to drop and I think they actually made more people quit altogether as a result.

As for plans for low pop servers the only viable plan is injecting more population, and this means more marketing muscle to bring in new players; which im all for if this is the case, its the primary reason why I don't mind the e-sports angle if it gets more FPS players aware of PS, SoE should be as aggressive with its marketing push as its budget allows.

The high pop servers are just a legacy of PS1, most of the vet outfits from Werner went to Miller, Emerald to Mattherson, Markov to Connery; so when new players logged in for the first time they saw these were already high pop and it just snow-balled from there (I suspect the reason to not keep the original names was an attempt to spread the pop more evenly, but I might be tin-foiling :) )

[EVILoHOMER]

Yeh when I quit in December the population already declined massively, it was so populated at launch and then they stupidly opened more servers and it watered it down. Then come December like the population halved from the launch population, which is expected. However we still had loads of servers from when it was packed and now in peak time most of them are pretty empty. People generally tend to naturally merge to the biggest servers, which there is like 3 or 4 of.

Planetside 2's biggest problem and why I quit is population spread during non peak times. A lot of my time playing isn't during the peak and even Miller late at night or during the day is empty, I could go round capturing bases on my own sometimes.

They need to ditch servers altogether really from the players side and merge the population together so during the day has just as big battles as peak time in the evening.

[EVILPIG]

I'll say it again. Add 3 more conts soon and fold all regional servers so we have 1 West, 1 East, 1 Euro. Keep adding conts and there will be fighting all over Auraxis.

[Neutral Calypso]

Wicked swine has a point.

[Badjuju]

It is absolutely imperative that they keep the pops up and stable or initiate merge's, my last experience of this was Warhammer online, EA took an eternity to merge servers after the pops began to drop and I think they actually made more people quit altogether as a result.

As for plans for low pop servers the only viable plan is injecting more population, and this means more marketing muscle to bring in new players; which im all for if this is the case, its the primary reason why I don't mind the e-sports angle if it gets more FPS players aware of PS, SoE should be as aggressive with its marketing push as its budget allows.

The high pop servers are just a legacy of PS1, most of the vet outfits from Werner went to Miller, Emerald to Mattherson, Markov to Connery; so when new players logged in for the first time they saw these were already high pop and it just snow-balled from there (I suspect the reason to not keep the original names was an attempt to spread the pop more evenly, but I might be tin-foiling :) )

I'm on one of the highest pop servers (US) and I am about ready to take an undetermined hiatus. For a large scale MMO it is relatively dead most of the day, and just ok during peak hours. If I was a new player and tried the game today I doubt I would remain more than a few days. I spend most my time looking for a good fight and rarely find one.

If it wasn't for some epic battles that took place in the first few weeks and the nostalgia of PS1 I would be long gone by now.

[Hamma]

Wicked swine has a point.

He does - but sadly that will take to long.

[capiqu]

At US east Matterson your empire is either kicking ass or getting it kicked. Populations fluctuate too much. For my last 3 play sessions the NC have had 40% plus world pop prime time. Kind of hard to have a fair fight when the VS and Tr also have to take on each other . So Soe cannot be hands off it needs to take steps to balance out populations.
I do not think these transfer tokens are the answer. Server mergers may turn out to be only a temporary solution as well and one I hope would not be needed. My preference being game growth and larger player base.
I also believe that Soe should not allow a particular server to lose say 20%,40% or any large number of its population to transfers to other higher populated servers. Soe needs some control.
So maybe after a servers population dips under a certain number then that server could become an open server allowing players from other servers to log into it. So it may display something similar to this, TR open spots 32, VS 26 and NC 12. With exp incentives of course.
So If my TR outfit is in Waterson and I see that there are 32 TR spots opened on Helios then I could take a few of my squads to Helios to help the TR there.
This would only be used to assure a certain number of players on any giving time on a server and once the server pop reaches its normal number the server locks up again. Any migrant characters will return to their original servers once they log off.
This would allow players and outfits the chance to play on other servers in a controlled way with no server losing its population to permanent transfers.