They most likely are talking about the afk auto-logouts when they talk about the character login restrictions.
Which is not at all unexpected.
Which is not at all unexpected.
Balmung Transfer Restriction Megathread |
|
RE: High Pop Anti-Transfers |
05-17-2017, 01:54 PM
They most likely are talking about the afk auto-logouts when they talk about the character login restrictions.
Which is not at all unexpected. |
RE: High Pop Anti-Transfers |
05-17-2017, 01:58 PM
I have my doubts that the developers will change their stance on this. I'll be very surprised if they do. I also suspect that this is very much a necessity - for the sake of keeping Balmung stable. There's been a lot of problems over time, including a dubious economy, a lack of player housing and major issues whenever new content is added due to too many people rushing to get online at once. Aether has crashed more than once in recent months and that isn't entirely the fault of the development team.
Far too many people here and elsewhere have been constantly urging more people to transfer over to Balmung. I get it, a lot of people want their friends to be here too - and I've done as much myself. All the same, there's definitely valid concerns about the server being too bloated at this point. Bigger isn't necessarily better. Technically there's 'more role-play' here than elsewhere. In large part that is due to Balmung serving as a vacuum which indirectly hampers attempts for other servers to truly thrive as legitimate alternative options. Let's be honest here, 99% of the time if someone has the choice between a huge server bustling with players and a smaller, much tighter knit server where more effort to find role-play is required they're going to go for the easiest option. I expect the developers to continue offering incentives to players to transfer elsewhere and consider making use of other servers. |
RE: High Pop Anti-Transfers |
05-17-2017, 01:59 PM
Yep, the post on the official forums is already getting anti-roleplayer pushback from people. Hooray.
Lydia Lightfoot ~ The Reliquarian's Guild «Relic» ~ Lavender Beds, Ward 12, #41
This player has a sense of humor. If the content of the post suggests otherwise, please err on the side of amusement and friendship, because that's almost certainly the intent. We're all on the same team: Team Roleplayer! Have a smile, have a chuckle, and have a slice of pie. Isn't pie great? |
RE: High Pop Anti-Transfers |
05-17-2017, 02:13 PM
I didn't know Balmung's population is what's been causing the aether data center crashes.
|
RE: High Pop Anti-Transfers |
05-17-2017, 02:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2017, 02:21 PM by Lydia Lightfoot.)
I was just discussing with a friend, and one of the main issues is that even if they offered transfers off Balmung completely for free, and made incentives on low-pop servers with exp and the like, it wouldn't work very well due to "anchor" players: those who have spent resources on a gil sink that they wouldn't get back, such as a house or apartment, FC airships, or even just an FC chamber (300k gil is a lot of gil to lose for a lot of players).Â
When we played ArcheAge and they had some server issues, one of the ways they tried to mitigate the anchoring issue was to offer a token item to anchor players which would let them reacquire a similar gil sink (not the exact same spot, but, for example, a medium house to a medium house) on their destination server. They'd made some new servers, and temporarily made it so that land could only be bought via those tokens (not by the normal currency), so that the anchor players who opted to "lead the way" with their transfer would have their pick of the choicest locations using their token. Even outside of RP, one anchor player who owns a house and refuses to leave and lose the gil they'd spent on it... well, if they're important to a big raid group, or a big PVP group, then their friends will be disinclined to leave them behind, and suddenly you have a big chunk of players who won't leave just because one or two among them have an anchor. Give them the option to pick up that anchor and drop it on the new server, and they might. Lydia Lightfoot ~ The Reliquarian's Guild «Relic» ~ Lavender Beds, Ward 12, #41
This player has a sense of humor. If the content of the post suggests otherwise, please err on the side of amusement and friendship, because that's almost certainly the intent. We're all on the same team: Team Roleplayer! Have a smile, have a chuckle, and have a slice of pie. Isn't pie great? |
RE: High Pop Anti-Transfers |
05-17-2017, 02:31 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-17-2017, 02:32 PM by Virella.)
Got to love delusional people on the OF.
"Why not start another RP server." "You can just try to make one." It has been tried and it failed before. But alas, don't let people hear about Gilgamesh. I honestly wish it was realistic to start another RP server, and I support any attempt. But I'm cynical about the situation for a heap of reasons. I hope I'm proven wrong though! |
RE: High Pop Anti-Transfers |
05-17-2017, 02:33 PM
Having a large role play community is a GOOD thing.Â
What population issues are we actually concerned about? Housing? Apartments? If you consider that to be a problem, go to any housing ward and check the housing list. How many of those houses belong to single players? How many are being utilized on a regular basis? Now, if you are a person who thinks a single player should be allowed to have a house as well as enjoy a FC house and also a personal apartment, maybe that is a valid argument for you. But if you make an alt on any medium sized server, you're going to find the same situation. With the exception of the very low population servers: people have bought houses. Houses are an issue for them too. The economy? If anything, Balmung has the most stable economy for middle income players. Yes, the big name crafters cannot gouge prices like other servers can. But there is also a huge variety of goods available and at a stable market price. Being on a small role play server is miserable. Finding like minded roleplayers is a shot in the dark. Everyone has their own preference. These preferences include tolerance to violence, language, sex, opinion on lore, sense of humor, schedule, posting length preference - and then you have to agree on what you want to role play. Some people want to do slice-of-life stories, some people want to do tavern/forest rps, some people want long, epic adventures. Some people just want sex. Some people want to RP politics in Ishgard, some people want to RP the tribal life of a Miqote. Some people want to rp the tribal life of an Au Ra. On Balmung, thanks to our HUGE buffet population, we can find these people. On smaller servers where you might have... 100-200 role players - all with different preferences, regards to lore, and availability ... you probably aren't going to find these people. This restriction might personally benefit YOU, because maybe it spurs YOU to transfer and meet new people on a smaller server but that should be your choice. Just like it should be MY choice if I choose to go to a small server where I might not jive with other role players, but I might be able to buy a house or an apartment. Or MY choice to go to the giant server, where on any given hour I can find someone to RP with. But I won't be able to get an apartment. Do not support taking away other people's choices to force your personal preference. I doubt this restriction will last long. Maybe a month or two after the release of Stormblood. They should have given us warning that they were going to do it, so those who wanted to get into Balmung had a chance to before they closed their gates for an indefinite period of time. |
RE: High Pop Anti-Transfers |
05-17-2017, 02:47 PM
Anyone who makes fun of my OF username gets banned. No exceptions.
Kidding, of course. For those interested, here is a relevant thread from two years ago that sort of addresses this topic. In short: transferring is too expensive with not enough incentive. A mass exodus doesn't really need a coordinated effort, honestly. The key to this is twofold: transferring needs to be completely free with no loss of any assets except for time, and there'd need to be some kind of official designation in order to facilitate the segregation of RPers and non-RPers. That means transferring needs to be completely free at the minimum. Housing needs to be guaranteed. Things like FC airships need to be guaranteed, or adequately compensated in gil and materials. At the same time, they should offer free transfers away from whatever the designated RP server is so that non-RPers can choose their environment. I really don't see any downside to this, unless you're a corporate executive that only cares about quarterly profits and want to milk transfer money as much as possible. Which, I mean, it's Square Enix so... |
RE: High Pop Anti-Transfers |
05-17-2017, 02:52 PM
(05-17-2017, 08:38 AM)Rash Wrote:(05-17-2017, 07:20 AM)savail Wrote: My spouse has been playing with some friends on Phoenix.  Been contemplating transferring off Bal to join them (I made an alt over there, but I'm struggling getting both ready for Stormblood given I've been slacking with HW).  Apparently, there's a decent-sized linkshell for RP over there that he got an invite to. I know the people in charge have another LS listed here, but don't know if that one is active.  Looked it up on the Lodestone, and this is it: http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/...695872350/ ~ Miynmekh Qestir ~ |
RE: High Pop Anti-Transfers |
05-17-2017, 02:54 PM
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
|
|
|