Still haven’t seen a reason to justify a player driven server switch.
Neither.
I would hope Intrepid would allow players to chose a server in the event of a server merger, but other than that, I see no reason - even with the situation the OP is in.
Yeah, most issues are overblown. One player here and there changing server doesn't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of a server. A large guild moving all at the same time could be problematic. .
And how do you allow for one player to transfer servers, without also opening it up to full guilds? The only way to do that will just piss players off.
Additionally, how do you stop players transferring to a new server with an inventory full of rare crafting components that have not been unlocked on the destination server? Again, the only way to accomplish this will just piss players off.
On the short term, both of these scenarios would have an impact, but on the long term, not really. The guild would integrate itself into the power dynamic of the server, the components would be used or sold (or kept until crafting stations of a sufficient level are available). A few months latter no one would care. Big fishes in the small original pond could be displeased not having it easy for a time, but, meh, it makes a good scapegoat excuse on why they aren't on top anymore.
Don't forget my peculiar perspective too... As a mostly solo player, guilds drama and powerplay are a big snooze. As a player with little motivation/interest for gear, big epics showing up a few weeks or month earlier doesn't change a damn thing. And I don't think it's very different for any of the more casual players, which are always ignored and underestimated by forum posters.
On a personal level I don't care either way, I'm unlikely to ever use the service if available and not really affected if some do use it.
The only real solution would be to have only one mega-server. But we aren't there yet for this type of game.
Perhaps if it magically happened just once - but there is no realistic way to make that happen.
If there were server transfers, it would mean there is a singular game economy, rather than individual server economies.
You being a solo player shouldn't affect your opinion on this, honestly. Do you really want to play a game where the most wealthy players are those that pay to have goods transferred to other servers for profit? Because that is what server transfers do.
You being a solo player shouldn't affect your opinion on this, honestly. Do you really want to play a game where the most wealthy players are those that pay to have goods transferred to other servers for profit? Because that is what server transfers do.
Wha? Is that a made up problem are there real cases of games/servers ruined by trans-server economics? Never heard of that being huge thing but I've never looked into that kind of news.
But, as my Bartle achiever score clearly shows (just pulling your leg with this Bartle test ), I'm suffering from a lack of need to compare myself with others. Best item for a slot, first guild to down a boss on my server, richest player on the server, the current Olympics, all these fly wayyyy off my radar. I derive my fun from the doing, not the having (rewards) or the have done (achievements, bragging rights, etc.).
I can understand that for those that have a competitive hedge, those thrill by all this performing side of things, having others entering their arena with gains from outside can feels somewhat unfair. There is a bit of that, true, but I also perceive it as fear of having to deal with changing conditions, an apprehension toward having to adapt to a new environment. As a solo I've already decided to be on the losing end in all this, I'll always get the crumbs falling off. So if the big sharks are local or foreign changes little to me. One of them will profit from me, but I'll always have the deciding power if I part with my gold or not.
Be bold. Be brave. Roll a Tulnar !
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
My issue is more about the lore...
People suddenly showing up with titles and gear from a Winter Dragon that has never appeared on the server.
Yeah, most issues are overblown. One player here and there changing server doesn't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of a server. A large guild moving all at the same time could be problematic. .
And how do you allow for one player to transfer servers, without also opening it up to full guilds? The only way to do that will just piss players off.
Additionally, how do you stop players transferring to a new server with an inventory full of rare crafting components that have not been unlocked on the destination server? Again, the only way to accomplish this will just piss players off.
You could just say they transfer with nothing.
People losing their gear would definitely prevent them from swapping willy nilly, and woke prevent any economic impacts from players swapping.
And would reinforce the fact that you have to know people where you're going(ie. Trying to play with IRL friends)
I agree we will be playing a game where we will lose stuff. But I doubt level 6 metropolises will be lost commonly. When one is lost there will most likely be another one or a few lvl 5s around. Also chances are if its a low pop its not going to be a fresh server, so there will likely be a lot of 50s. I'm personally not really against have 2 "excaliburs" or multiple uniques but it does go directly against stevens vision, at least how he described it in a interview on youtube. He could always change his mind I suppose. Its not just recipes, you would have the gear made from the recipes already, augments on that gear, over enchanting on that gear, maybe higher tier potions, large stock of high grade materials. 1 server could be far ahead of the other giving those players advantages the other server players or vice versa. Just because 2 servers are the same age doesn't mean one server won't be significantly father ahead( which was someone's idea of why server transfers wouldn't work which I do agree is a tough problem to solve even though I personally want transfers. So I don't know how you can "easily ignore" that. I honestly don't like the idea of the reborn concept but that's just me. I also don't really have any idea how to make it work/fair. It's not like WoW where everyone is basically at the same point in gear progression.
We're playing a game where we commonly lose stuff - especially various forms of Node progression.
Server merge razing all Nodes to Stage 0 would be due to a World Event rather than due to a Siege.
Just because you have recipes unlocked does not mean that you have unlocked the resources to use those recipes.
So, yes, everyone will be progressing the reborn world from whatever Levels they were at before the merge.
Which means it should go faster than everyone starting over from Level 1.
Legendary items from the previous worlds should not be an issue because that's baked into the lore of the new world rising from the ashes of the old world.
2 completely different worlds coming together is merely your hyperbole, so that is easily ignored.
Highly unlikely that everyone will be starting on the reborn server at Level 50.
Same as your assertion that unique items will now be doubled. There is no way for you to know whether people on those particular servers have the same unique items, but...even if they were doubled, that's fine because it is a reborn world for all, so the lore is inherently different.
It's like traveling the multiverse to a parallel world - yes, there might be two instances of Excalibur on the new world. That becomes part of the new lore on the reborn world.
We'd have to see what kind of rewards the "survivors"/reborn characters receive from participating in the
server merge World Event.
People will be disgruntled about server merges in any case.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Losing Stage 6 Metropolises is part of the game.
It's also unlikely that server merges will happen often.
There will probably be a lot of max characters. There will probably be a lot of newbies and people in-between as well. Likely newbies would flock to a reborn server, too.
I think we don't know what Steven's vision is for server merges.
We have some idea of what he doesn't want for transfers of individual characters.
Again, servers being the same age is mostly irrelevant.
What matters is what has and has not been unlocked on the server.
But... I'm going to end here because it seems like you don't really know the overall Ashes design well.
Wha? Is that a made up problem are there real cases of games/servers ruined by trans-server economics? Never heard of that being huge thing but I've never looked into that kind of news.
Yeah, most games have a universal economy due to server transfers.
In most games, it isn't an issue. If you don't have resources that are available on one server and not on another, it isn't really an issue.
I could say the same about how you respond to my comment. you ignore the points I actually make and focus on w.e you think I'm saying. You seem angry I'm not agreeing with you or something in some passive aggressive way. Acting like i have no idea about AoC. I was just responding to your comments but I was trying to be respectiful.
Obviously losing a stage 6 metropolises is part of the game, but you will still have other high level cities to go to. Resetting everything to 0 doesn't sound appealing at all.
I never said server merges will happen often, I said level 6 metropolises wont be lost OFTEN, you have to announce your siege days in advance and at a specific time. After a successful defense, there is a Cooldown period where the city can't be sieged again. There are obvious advantages to defending, so defense will win majority of the time, and when they do happen to fall there are multiple other nodes you can travel to and become a citizen.
There will be a lot of max characters on old realms, whether there will be a lot of newbies and newbies flocking to reborn server could go ether way but I doubt it. I personally would go to a fresh realm over your reborn realm if I was a new player just starting out.
When I talked about Stevens vision it wasn't about server merges, it was about legendries actually being legendary and one of a kind. Having multiple one of a kind legendries goes directly against that.
yes we do have some idea of what he doesn't want for transfers of individual characters. I was just saying I personally want them.
You took everything I said and twisted it then said I don't know the overall ashes design well. But yea I also don't want to talk to you anymore.
Nodes not being permanent I'd just a part of the game. It may well be that a server has jo high level nodes for you to move to.
This is all just a part of the game, there will be times when you need to level a node in order to have a home.
I agree nodes aren't permanent and they will be lost. . But in general defending is always easier then attacking. In ashes they need to bring sieges, break down walls, make it to the throne room. I forget exactly but I believe you need to channel the throne for a long period of time. All while the defenders are respawning nearby. Its been a little bit since I seen Steven talking about it. What are the advantages to attacking? You might be right and its obvious but I honestly must of missed it. I think you can lengthen the defenders respawn time by taking objectives if I remember correctly.
0
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
edited February 2022
I don't like making people pay for server transfers as a way to discourage it. Rather than preventing people from abusing that privilege, instead it ends up being an advantage you can pay for. It's literally pay-to-win.
I'm in favor of not allowing it at all. Now, what I would like, however, is the ability to store the appearance of a character you made so that you can reuse it without going through all of the time and effort to recreate it. If the character creator is as robust as we've been led to believe it will be, redoing it by hand might be a nightmare.
That way if you do want to swap servers and essentially play the same character in a new place, it makes it a bit easier. (No guarantee that you'll get the name you want, though.)
I've done this sort of thing in the past. Many times in many games. For one reason or another, I had to abandon the character I was playing and start again from scratch so that I can be on a different server. One common situation is that I find out that some friends play the same MMO that I do, but not the same server. So I make a new character to play with them, and I spend so much time over there that I basically abandon the original. And it's really not that big of a deal.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Acting like i have no idea about AoC. I was just responding to your comments but I was trying to be respectful.
You took everything I said and twisted it then said I don't know the overall ashes design well. But yea I also don't want to talk to you anymore.
You use way too much hyperbole for my tastes.
I didn't say you have no idea about Ashes.
You say I ignored stuff you said and also say that I took everything you said and twisted it. Both of those can't be true.
It's OK if we don't agree.
Again, you don't seem to have enough of a grasp of how the game works for us to have a meaningful conversation. There's nothing aggressive at all about that.
It just is what it is.
Now, what I would like, however, is the ability to store the appearance of a character you made so that you can reuse it without going through all of the time and effort to recreate it. If the character creator is as robust as we've been led to believe it will be, redoing it by hand might be a nightmare.
Totally agree. This is a feature FFXIV has used quite well. Saves a lot of back and forth when trying to get the exact look you want.
1
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
For sure. Save avatar appearance template is a great feature!!
hyperbole-exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.
You don't seem to understand the definition so I linked it for you. I've made a few assumptions sure, based off of what I do know about the game. Quote a hyperbole I made please. You have watched all the interviews Steven Sharif(AoC creative director, founder of Intrepid Studios) has taken part in with streamers right? There's tons of info about the direction they are going with AoC. Your the one that doesn't seem to grasp or know the overall design of Ashes.
Never said it wasn't or inferred otherwise. Of course losing stage 6 metropolises will happen. Just not resetting every single node to 0 because of some "event".
Again, servers being the same age is mostly irrelevant.
What matters is what has and has not been unlocked on the server.
Servers being the same age being irrelevant is exactly what I said. I then gave examples of how different 2 servers could be before merging. With your idea, or from what I can gleam from it is both servers are being erased, and all characters are essentially being put on a fresh server with all their previously earned equipment/inventories. So all content is now available again, while players already own different rewards from some of the content that was completed on the original server. One server could have unlocked far more content then the other, giving that server a advantage after the merge, EVEN IF THEY ARE THE SAME AGE.
you would have the gear made from the recipes already, augments on that gear, over enchanting on that gear, maybe higher tier potions, large stock of high grade materials. 1 server could be far ahead of the other giving those players advantages the other server players or vice versa. Just because 2 servers are the same age doesn't mean one server won't be significantly father ahead
This will piss off more people than just not offering transfers would. It would be a bad decision to offer transfers with this as a condition.
I mean if you get nothing but kept your levels it would still save quite a bit of time if you really wanted a new server for w.e reason. Think its 45 days at 4-6 hours a day to hit 50 which was a vague estimate. Which would be 180-270hrs. could be faster or longer.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
This will piss off more people than just not offering transfers would. It would be a bad decision to offer transfers with this as a condition.
I mean if you get nothing but kept your levels it would still save quite a bit of time if you really wanted a new server for w.e reason. Think its 45 days at 4-6 hours a day to hit 50 which was a vague estimate. Which would be 180-270hrs. could be faster or longer.
Sure, some people may look at it like that, but most will just compare it to server transfers in other games (as well they should), and not be happy with it.
This will piss off more people than just not offering transfers would. It would be a bad decision to offer transfers with this as a condition.
I mean if you get nothing but kept your levels it would still save quite a bit of time if you really wanted a new server for w.e reason. Think its 45 days at 4-6 hours a day to hit 50 which was a vague estimate. Which would be 180-270hrs. could be faster or longer.
Sure, some people may look at it like that, but most will just compare it to server transfers in other games (as well they should), and not be happy with it.
yea true. it would be lacking compared to other games.
0
Options
TheCouchNerdMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
I'd vote no for server transfers as I just don't see how they could handle the different progression, both story wise and content wise. Only way I'd think it could work is if they stripped the character of all gear, achievements and resources, which kind of makes it pointless as you could just reroll then.
The transfer would just end up being a paid level boost, which kind of makes it unfair to new players starting out there as you'd be max level.
No I'd say make server choice a permanent choice that you make and if you want to play on a different server just re-roll there.
Server mergers are a different thing though but I'll leave that up to Intrepid Studios to figure out if it's needed.
Server transfers would also contribute a lot to the death of certain servers, with individuals and large groups deciding to relocate to apparently greener pastures, leading to the overpopulation of some and the death of many others.
Server transfers would also contribute a lot to the death of certain servers, with individuals and large groups deciding to relocate to apparently greener pastures, leading to the overpopulation of some and the death of many others.
And if they simply all reroll on another server? As devastating for the server they left. Almost as disruptive to the server they moved to, almost like a mini-server launch, except with people already organized.
On the other hand, a dying server could gain more by being open to a one way transfer or merger.
Comments
Neither.
I would hope Intrepid would allow players to chose a server in the event of a server merger, but other than that, I see no reason - even with the situation the OP is in.
On the short term, both of these scenarios would have an impact, but on the long term, not really. The guild would integrate itself into the power dynamic of the server, the components would be used or sold (or kept until crafting stations of a sufficient level are available). A few months latter no one would care. Big fishes in the small original pond could be displeased not having it easy for a time, but, meh, it makes a good scapegoat excuse on why they aren't on top anymore.
Don't forget my peculiar perspective too... As a mostly solo player, guilds drama and powerplay are a big snooze. As a player with little motivation/interest for gear, big epics showing up a few weeks or month earlier doesn't change a damn thing. And I don't think it's very different for any of the more casual players, which are always ignored and underestimated by forum posters.
On a personal level I don't care either way, I'm unlikely to ever use the service if available and not really affected if some do use it.
The only real solution would be to have only one mega-server. But we aren't there yet for this type of game.
If there were server transfers, it would mean there is a singular game economy, rather than individual server economies.
You being a solo player shouldn't affect your opinion on this, honestly. Do you really want to play a game where the most wealthy players are those that pay to have goods transferred to other servers for profit? Because that is what server transfers do.
Wha? Is that a made up problem are there real cases of games/servers ruined by trans-server economics? Never heard of that being huge thing but I've never looked into that kind of news.
But, as my Bartle achiever score clearly shows (just pulling your leg with this Bartle test
I can understand that for those that have a competitive hedge, those thrill by all this performing side of things, having others entering their arena with gains from outside can feels somewhat unfair. There is a bit of that, true, but I also perceive it as fear of having to deal with changing conditions, an apprehension toward having to adapt to a new environment. As a solo I've already decided to be on the losing end in all this, I'll always get the crumbs falling off. So if the big sharks are local or foreign changes little to me. One of them will profit from me, but I'll always have the deciding power if I part with my gold or not.
People suddenly showing up with titles and gear from a Winter Dragon that has never appeared on the server.
You could just say they transfer with nothing.
People losing their gear would definitely prevent them from swapping willy nilly, and woke prevent any economic impacts from players swapping.
And would reinforce the fact that you have to know people where you're going(ie. Trying to play with IRL friends)
I agree we will be playing a game where we will lose stuff. But I doubt level 6 metropolises will be lost commonly. When one is lost there will most likely be another one or a few lvl 5s around. Also chances are if its a low pop its not going to be a fresh server, so there will likely be a lot of 50s. I'm personally not really against have 2 "excaliburs" or multiple uniques but it does go directly against stevens vision, at least how he described it in a interview on youtube. He could always change his mind I suppose. Its not just recipes, you would have the gear made from the recipes already, augments on that gear, over enchanting on that gear, maybe higher tier potions, large stock of high grade materials. 1 server could be far ahead of the other giving those players advantages the other server players or vice versa. Just because 2 servers are the same age doesn't mean one server won't be significantly father ahead( which was someone's idea of why server transfers wouldn't work which I do agree is a tough problem to solve even though I personally want transfers. So I don't know how you can "easily ignore" that. I honestly don't like the idea of the reborn concept but that's just me. I also don't really have any idea how to make it work/fair. It's not like WoW where everyone is basically at the same point in gear progression.
It's also unlikely that server merges will happen often.
There will probably be a lot of max characters. There will probably be a lot of newbies and people in-between as well. Likely newbies would flock to a reborn server, too.
I think we don't know what Steven's vision is for server merges.
We have some idea of what he doesn't want for transfers of individual characters.
Again, servers being the same age is mostly irrelevant.
What matters is what has and has not been unlocked on the server.
But... I'm going to end here because it seems like you don't really know the overall Ashes design well.
Yeah, most games have a universal economy due to server transfers.
In most games, it isn't an issue. If you don't have resources that are available on one server and not on another, it isn't really an issue.
In Ashes though, it will be an issue.
Obviously losing a stage 6 metropolises is part of the game, but you will still have other high level cities to go to. Resetting everything to 0 doesn't sound appealing at all.
I never said server merges will happen often, I said level 6 metropolises wont be lost OFTEN, you have to announce your siege days in advance and at a specific time. After a successful defense, there is a Cooldown period where the city can't be sieged again. There are obvious advantages to defending, so defense will win majority of the time, and when they do happen to fall there are multiple other nodes you can travel to and become a citizen.
There will be a lot of max characters on old realms, whether there will be a lot of newbies and newbies flocking to reborn server could go ether way but I doubt it. I personally would go to a fresh realm over your reborn realm if I was a new player just starting out.
When I talked about Stevens vision it wasn't about server merges, it was about legendries actually being legendary and one of a kind. Having multiple one of a kind legendries goes directly against that.
yes we do have some idea of what he doesn't want for transfers of individual characters. I was just saying I personally want them.
You took everything I said and twisted it then said I don't know the overall ashes design well. But yea I also don't want to talk to you anymore.
Nodes not being permanent I'd just a part of the game. It may well be that a server has jo high level nodes for you to move to.
This is all just a part of the game, there will be times when you need to level a node in order to have a home.
I agree nodes aren't permanent and they will be lost. . But in general defending is always easier then attacking. In ashes they need to bring sieges, break down walls, make it to the throne room. I forget exactly but I believe you need to channel the throne for a long period of time. All while the defenders are respawning nearby. Its been a little bit since I seen Steven talking about it. What are the advantages to attacking? You might be right and its obvious but I honestly must of missed it. I think you can lengthen the defenders respawn time by taking objectives if I remember correctly.
I'm in favor of not allowing it at all. Now, what I would like, however, is the ability to store the appearance of a character you made so that you can reuse it without going through all of the time and effort to recreate it. If the character creator is as robust as we've been led to believe it will be, redoing it by hand might be a nightmare.
That way if you do want to swap servers and essentially play the same character in a new place, it makes it a bit easier. (No guarantee that you'll get the name you want, though.)
I've done this sort of thing in the past. Many times in many games. For one reason or another, I had to abandon the character I was playing and start again from scratch so that I can be on a different server. One common situation is that I find out that some friends play the same MMO that I do, but not the same server. So I make a new character to play with them, and I spend so much time over there that I basically abandon the original. And it's really not that big of a deal.
I didn't say you have no idea about Ashes.
You say I ignored stuff you said and also say that I took everything you said and twisted it. Both of those can't be true.
It's OK if we don't agree.
Again, you don't seem to have enough of a grasp of how the game works for us to have a meaningful conversation. There's nothing aggressive at all about that.
It just is what it is.
Totally agree. This is a feature FFXIV has used quite well. Saves a lot of back and forth when trying to get the exact look you want.
You don't seem to understand the definition so I linked it for you. I've made a few assumptions sure, based off of what I do know about the game. Quote a hyperbole I made please. You have watched all the interviews Steven Sharif(AoC creative director, founder of Intrepid Studios) has taken part in with streamers right? There's tons of info about the direction they are going with AoC. Your the one that doesn't seem to grasp or know the overall design of Ashes.
you said it twice now
sure, both those things can't technically be true if your going to take it word for word. But here are some examples.
Never said it wasn't or inferred otherwise. Of course losing stage 6 metropolises will happen. Just not resetting every single node to 0 because of some "event".
Again, I never mentioned the would happen often if at all. Regardless if they do or not has nothing to do with anything with our conversation.
Servers being the same age being irrelevant is exactly what I said. I then gave examples of how different 2 servers could be before merging. With your idea, or from what I can gleam from it is both servers are being erased, and all characters are essentially being put on a fresh server with all their previously earned equipment/inventories. So all content is now available again, while players already own different rewards from some of the content that was completed on the original server. One server could have unlocked far more content then the other, giving that server a advantage after the merge, EVEN IF THEY ARE THE SAME AGE.
This will piss off more people than just not offering transfers would. It would be a bad decision to offer transfers with this as a condition.
I mean if you get nothing but kept your levels it would still save quite a bit of time if you really wanted a new server for w.e reason. Think its 45 days at 4-6 hours a day to hit 50 which was a vague estimate. Which would be 180-270hrs. could be faster or longer.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbole
"language that describes something as better or worse than it really is"
We been done, son.
Only the character. No items or money whatsoever.
And of course new shards would be off-limits for a few months.
Sure, some people may look at it like that, but most will just compare it to server transfers in other games (as well they should), and not be happy with it.
ok slightly different but not really. what did I exaggerate to make seem worse. Your just lazy and link a definition and call it done.
yea true. it would be lacking compared to other games.
The transfer would just end up being a paid level boost, which kind of makes it unfair to new players starting out there as you'd be max level.
No I'd say make server choice a permanent choice that you make and if you want to play on a different server just re-roll there.
Server mergers are a different thing though but I'll leave that up to Intrepid Studios to figure out if it's needed.
And if they simply all reroll on another server? As devastating for the server they left. Almost as disruptive to the server they moved to, almost like a mini-server launch, except with people already organized.
On the other hand, a dying server could gain more by being open to a one way transfer or merger.