Server Merges?

Assist · 2013-02-05, 09:11 AM

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 · 2013-02-05, 09:14 AM

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 · 2013-02-05, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by 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)

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 · 2013-02-05, 09:30 AM

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

Thunderhawk · 2013-02-05, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

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 · 2013-02-05, 09:57 AM

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 · 2013-02-05, 10:15 AM

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 · 2013-02-05, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2013-02-05, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2013-02-05, 10:34 AM

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

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 · 2013-02-05, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Stellarthief

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 · 2013-02-05, 11:00 AM

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 · 2013-02-05, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

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 · 2013-02-05, 11:16 AM

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

Qwan · 2013-02-05, 11:21 AM

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.