Server Consolidation Idea

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by I_Love_My_Bandwidth, Dec 3, 2018.

  1. I_Love_My_Bandwidth Augur

    In the past, server merges have been a nightmare for both DBG staff and the impacted players. I propose a slightly different approach which has worked well in my organization.
    1. Determine which servers should be consolidated
    2. Set up a new, large server to accommodate the players. Front-load more resources than requirements dictate to allow for troubleshooting, data moves, etc. Plan to draw these resources down to levels set by project requirements as allowed.
    3. Allow voluntary transfers from affected servers for 8 weeks. These people are your test group. Rewards granted both for early transfer and test/feedback will encourage buy-in.
    4. Begin mandatory transfers for an additional 8 weeks determined by alpha-order/guild name in a lead-up to the big consolidation. Reach out to guild leaders and officers with information about how to save their guild decorating layout, and assign trouble tickets top priority during mandatory transfer period.
    5. Final consolidation begins 16 weeks after initial transfers began. This will be mostly comprised of characters who haven't logged in for months or years.
    6. Free name change service and an XP potion granted to those who lost their character names to active characters, favored to character with highest number of active days played in the last year.
    This reduces the short-term workload of the team overseeing the transfer, downtime comes in smaller chunks, and long-term workloads are spread further out.

    This reduces overall efficiency, but also should reduce errors.

    I wouldn't mind seeing several guilds at end game on my server. Everyone benefits from larger populations.
  2. Waring_McMarrin Augur

    Doing the transfers slowly over time is a bad idea as it will split up friends and alts when they get transferred at different times. A quick example of the problem is when you have a single account with characters in multiple guilds on the same server.

    Personally I would be surprised if during a server merge they didn't add hardware from the servers being shutdown to the combined server.

    Also remember that a bazaar bot can have a lot of days played and could steal someone's name if you just looked at days played
    Corwyhn Lionheart likes this.
  3. I_Love_My_Bandwidth Augur

    This is why you have the voluntary move period. People can move when they see fit.

    If someone has a bazaar bot they've had a paying account. They're entitled to the name.
  4. Waring_McMarrin Augur


    You are missing the point in that entire guilds would need to move at once and it would likely end up with everyone moving at once since large groups will need to move at the same time. Also the problem with a voluntary move is that would end up being a lot of work for players with lots of characters across a lot of accounts to have to go and manually flag all the characters that they want to move. There is a reason why they always merge the entire server at once when they do the merge.

    As to the bazzar bot does a character that is online and afk the entire time really have more reason to keep a name then someone who plays daily but does not stay online 24x7?
  5. Tatanka Augur

    Do Bazaar PCs even accumulate /played time? It's called "offline" selling. Just curious.
  6. xcitng Augur

    I am totally against a server consolidation of any kind! We already have had enough go wrong, even after just a patch, like ggh taking us to sunrise hills, anchors missing, and more. Just keep up reading these forums and that will tell you more.
  7. snailish Augur

    I get the OP's spirit of intent... the past has shown that very, very low population servers will be kept up for a long time. Some thoughts:

    Allowing a window of free moves off the 2-5 lowest-population live servers to the 4 or so stronger live servers would be a good test of playerbase will to migrate for greener pastures. Open this for 1 month.

    If the population moves, you are left with a couple of ghost town servers that you force merge later if so inclined.

    Once Phinigel catches live, (with its special set up intact including sub to pay) consider giving it perma higher XP and other bonuses. Keep it pay to play but allow free transfers to it, paid to get off of it. A Legends server 2.0 if you will.
  8. KermittheFroglok Lorekeeper

    I JUST WANT TO SHOUT OUT FOR THOSE PLAYERS THAT LIKE BEING ON A LOW POP SERVER!

    -Less competition
    -Community feels a little more personal
    -Less drama in general

    I'm fine being on Vox, the Bazaar is active enough for me.

    My advice to the OP is to just buy a fewer server transfer tokens? That's probably the easiest and most fair solution for everyone.
    code-zero and adetia like this.
  9. I_Love_My_Bandwidth Augur



    Yup. I am suggesting that players work a bit to ease the strain on the EQ team. Not saying this is a perfect plan, but I like playing an MMO with, you know, other people. Server populations are dismal.



    Yes, they do. How do you define "plays"? How do you prove they "play"? If I pay my money and sit my happy **** in the Lobby all day and all night for a year, that's my right. I paid. Is it a good use of time? That's not for you to decide and not for DBG to decide.

    So, you've emptied your six-shooter into my suggestions. I'm curious...do you have anything constructive to add?
  10. Waring_McMarrin Augur


    I am still unsure about how doing a move over a period of 16 weeks is any better then doing the move all at once. Doing it the way you suggested will end up with a lot more work for both the players and daybreak as they have to deal with the issues of players moving and this is something that can be avoided by doing a move all at once.

    And I would disagree that holding onto a name because you can leave it logged in an afk is fair.
  11. I_Love_My_Bandwidth Augur

    I never said it was efficient. It's an idea to help prevent issues and errors. In case you were wondering, the last two mergers were complete disasters and required large amounts of work on DBGs part to get things sorted.

    I never said it was fair. But then, life rarely is.

    Still waiting on your ideas. Let's hear them!
  12. Waring_McMarrin Augur


    My idea is server merges are not needed. Also just because someone doesn't like a suggested idea doesn't mean they need to propose ideas of their own.
    snailish and code-zero like this.
  13. Yinla Augur

    Server mergers like this will cause more work for DBG rather than less. For every guild which is already set up a new guild on a new server will need to be set up manually by DBG, whether they will need to speak to the guild creator to do this I've no idea, I do know that when I've tried to set up a guild which exists on another server I cannot as the guild already exists, the game physically prevents it.I did finnaly get my guild set up, but I was the creator of said guild and had to petition.

    There was a reason AB refused to move to Vox and that was either we all moved together or not at all.

    Nice idea but I don't think even with guild co-operation it will work.
  14. Evertrek Augur


    server merge? they have no intention of merging servers. we all are hoping something special will be in store for the 20th anniversary, but no word at all about the state of EQ these days. they keep pumping out TLPs and DLCs and i guess that's enough.
  15. I_Love_My_Bandwidth Augur

    No intention of merging/consolidating because every time they try it's a complete disaster. It's not DBG's fault. There simply are too many complex data moves to consider and none of this was given any forethought when new servers were spun up so many years ago.

    This is a proposal to make the process less clumsy with fewer errors. Doesn't mean it's good. Doesn't mean it's the only way. But it's something that needs to be talked about because server populations, despite what Warring and others state, are atrociously low.
  16. code-zero Augur

    It's an answer to a question that no one should even be asking

    In the end it'll be a disaster with people becoming fed up and quitting because of overcrowded zones and the attendant friction
  17. Tatanka Augur

    Evidence? Or, your anecdotal stories vs his?

    Whenever I'm in PoK/GL/Bazaar, there seem to be plenty of toons, so what's the basis for "atrociously low"?
  18. I_Love_My_Bandwidth Augur

    My evidence is running through the last three expansions and, at most, seeing 1 group every 6 zones I go through. Doesn't matter the time. I think in OT I saw 13 players one time in zone. Three were afk in the tunnel through the wall.

    /shrug

    In the end, it probably won't matter anyway. /cheers and thanks for the feedback.
  19. Tatanka Augur

    I've played very little in "current" expansions in the recent years (I'm usually 4-5 behind the curve). When I did do a fair bit of grouping in EoK/RoS last December-February, there were always mutiple groups hunting in each zone.

    Could also be a "new expac just came out" vs. "done with everything and don't log in waiting for the next one". I understand many players get what they want out of the new expac, and then move to other games til the next expac comes out. Perhaps we'll see an uptick next week.

    Just thought of another reason... many of the accomplished players are doing beta, so that's another chunk of pop you're not seeing right now.
  20. I_Love_My_Bandwidth Augur

    It's possible. I just prefer to see zones teeming with people. Probably a post-nostalgic meltdown over the current state of the game.

    I love this game. Maybe a bit too much. But that's where I'm at. I want to see people having as much fun playing as I do. One of the most common complaints I see/read/hear is the lack of people. So I try to fix it.

Share This Page