RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Nodem · **05-18-2017, 01:34 PM**

(05-18-2017, 01:20 PM)forrest40pf Wrote: Yeah, I find it truly baffling that this game has no afk timer. Â The amount of people I see Away on a constant basis is ridiculous. Â What is the purpose of SE not implementing that?

It had one after HW release. People found ways around them and ultimately doesn't solve the over-population issue.

Virella · **05-18-2017, 01:46 PM**

(05-18-2017, 01:34 PM)Nodem Wrote:
(05-18-2017, 01:20 PM)forrest40pf Wrote: Yeah, I find it truly baffling that this game has no afk timer. Â The amount of people I see Away on a constant basis is ridiculous. Â What is the purpose of SE not implementing that?

It had one after HW release. People found ways around them and ultimately doesn't solve the over-population issue.

It still wouldn't hurt to keep it, if that fixes some server issues x_X

Kilieit · **05-18-2017, 01:49 PM**

Most people I know who AFK for hours do so by accident (didn't realise they'd be gone for so long, forgot they'd left the game on, etc). Even if it only catches those people and not the ones who automate play to circumvent server restrictions get around the issue somehow, I imagine it would still help...

I was honestly astounded when I learned FFXIV didn't have an AFK timeout to start with. I also think it's a bit silly to have a character creation limit when a server goes above a certain population, but no AFK timeout. You would think the two measures would go hand-in-hand...

Nodem · **05-18-2017, 01:55 PM**

(05-18-2017, 01:46 PM)Virella Wrote:
(05-18-2017, 01:34 PM)Nodem Wrote:
(05-18-2017, 01:20 PM)forrest40pf Wrote: Yeah, I find it truly baffling that this game has no afk timer. Â The amount of people I see Away on a constant basis is ridiculous. Â What is the purpose of SE not implementing that?

It had one after HW release. People found ways around them and ultimately doesn't solve the over-population issue.
It still wouldn't hurt to keep it, if that fixes some server issues x_X

Not to mention we also had... Instanced zones. Anybody recall how horrible those were?

http://na.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/...60ec3ce9d/

(05-18-2017, 01:49 PM)Kilieit Wrote: I was honestly astounded when I learned FFXIV didn't have an AFK timeout to start with. I also think it's a bit silly to have a character creation limit when a server goes above a certain population, but no AFK timeout. You would think the two measures would go hand-in-hand...

This was posted earlier, but I didn't see anybody post a reply about it. Balmung has a LOT MORE active players then other servers.
http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/luckybancho/i...8042e2.jpg

Kage · **05-18-2017, 01:57 PM**

It's not an SE only thing about capping and offering transfers off high populated servers. I've asked players of other MMOs and this seems to be about standard. They also expressed surprise or no knowledge about games usually increasing population caps. Though, I do agree that this is also by and large a money issue. Instead of investing more money into certain worlds is far easier and less costly to encourage those on that population to level out the areas that could get an increase. Yes, those worlds can get merged but that doesn't fix the high population congestion issue.

It honestly makes sense to close transfers without notice even though it -sucks-. They don't want more people on the worlds in the first place. They're trying to cut down, not give people time to move in. The signs of something like this coming were all there, people were unwilling to or didn't want to adapt to it. We've been hitting the soft limit for nearly 2 years and Square Enix is now saying we (along with Gilgamesh, Chocobo, Mandragora, and Bahamut) are hitting the hard limit. It's also possible that these implementations to relieve the high populations and congestion are more viable because of the increased space and possible to increase more with the new location of the data centers.

There's a lot of good weight and reason to consolidating those who weren't able to get into Balmung. I also think it's far easier and far likelier to get SE to give us more compensations and reimbursements for those who are willing to do that.

Nodem · **05-18-2017, 02:08 PM**

(05-18-2017, 01:57 PM)Kage Wrote: There's a lot of good weight and reason to consolidating those who weren't able to get into Balmung. I also think it's far easier and far likelier to get SE to give us more compensations and reimbursements for those who are willing to do that.

You're 100% correct, and SE has already mentioned this before in the most recent Letter from the Producer live, aired on May 1st. They will offer us stuff to leave our cozy nests, so to speak.

Letter From the Producer XXXV

1:43:26 Wrote:Q: In an interview, I read that the number of data centers for Japan may change. I'm currently gathering members to run the Omega raid, but are there any plans to change portions of the Elemental or Mana data center?
A: In preparation for Patch 4.0, we are looking at various data, such as the number of active players and their progress in the main scenario.

For the Europe region, the Chaos data center population is increasing across all Worlds, so in anticipation of a large increase in traffic, we may open up one or two new Worlds.

For Japanese and North American data centers, we see deviations in the populations from World to World. Instead of increasing the number of data centers or adding more Worlds, we're considering incentives for players that transfer to specific Worlds. These are also in consideration for Patch 4.0, so details will be released at a later date.

Kage · **05-18-2017, 02:15 PM**

When I read that part of the translation of the digest morning, this is what I take from SE's stance.

All worlds in EU Data Center are being populated at a relatively high but not like the locked worlds numbers. Population is spread out etc. Thus, it makes more sense cost-wise to add another world to even out character population distribution.

For Japanese and North American Data Centers, population distributions are extremely scattered and thus they want to even it out before adding worlds.

Lydia Lightfoot · **05-18-2017, 02:16 PM**

I'd rather if they just split the server, as long as they did it intelligently:

1. No need to transfer or deal with housing. Players simply opt, on Mog Station, to select one of two new servers their character will be migrated into automatically as of an SE-determined date when the migrations will occur simultaneously.

2. On the migration day, they have a server downtime for the day. The database for the origin server gets copied to the two destination servers, and any characters who didn't opt for that server get dummied out in the same way they would if they'd transferred off the server (so their friends' friends lists would say (Unable to Retrieve), etc). Since the database was copied, anything relevant to the character should remain intact - if the character had a house, they still have the same house, same ward, same spot, same decor, etc, just on the new server. If they led an FC, their FC would be right there (albeit missing any members who didn't opt for that server). Members' private chambers would be waiting and still decorated, etc.

3. Any players who didn't make a server choice for some or all of their characters by the deadline would lose any housing/chamber/FC they'd owned on that character (though they could pick up their decor items at the broker in the housing ward, as usual). Upon logging into the character, the player would be asked to choose between the two destination servers for the character, and it'd be essentially the same as a server transfer at that point (except for the gil restriction would be lifted, for that situation only).Â

Sounds simple on paper, but it'd be a bit labor-intense on SE's end. Still, it'd be a fairly clean split. They could even take the opportunity to make the decision easy on the community by labeling one of the destination servers as an RP server. No need for additional rulesets, etc, just because it's an RP server. The only point would be to make, basically, a big sign that says "If you don't care, cool, pick whichever server, but if you do care either way, then go to that server if you want RP and the other one if you don't want to be around it".

Arrelaine · **05-18-2017, 02:26 PM**

Why would they do all that labor when they can just open up free transfers and incentives/reimbursements for already existing servers? Picking another server for RP is essentially already what you're suggesting, without forcing it on people. They're giving people a choice to move or to stay. New players have to pick somewhere else, while people who have had characters here can stay here. -Forcing- people to move is even worse.

Val · **05-18-2017, 02:37 PM**

(05-18-2017, 02:26 PM)Arrelaine Wrote: Why would they do all that labor when they can just open up free transfers and incentives/reimbursements for already existing servers? Picking another server for RP is essentially already what you're suggesting, without forcing it on people. They're giving people a choice to move or to stay. New players have to pick somewhere else, while people who have had characters here can stay here. -Forcing- people to move is even worse.

Pretty much this. Forcing people to move never ends well and will cause more problems. People that are tired of the restrictions will inevitably give up and bail, as will others that just want a server to play on that doesn't have the awful pricing of Balmung. And no, having low marketboard prices is not a good thing. It's one of the side effects of how godawfully overcrowded this server has become because SE wasn't intelligent enough to block server transfers ages ago.

Honestly, they've been far too good to Balmung players and should have done something about it long before now.

Kilieit · **05-18-2017, 02:41 PM**

(05-18-2017, 01:55 PM)Nodem Wrote:
(05-18-2017, 01:49 PM)Kilieit Wrote: I was honestly astounded when I learned FFXIV didn't have an AFK timeout to start with. I also think it's a bit silly to have a character creation limit when a server goes above a certain population, but no AFK timeout. You would think the two measures would go hand-in-hand...

This was posted earlier, but I didn't see anybody post a reply about it. Balmung has a LOT MORE active players then other servers.
http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/luckybancho/i...8042e2.jpg

Yes, that's my point. The problem is active players (calculated based on who had the Aymeric minion from the 3.3 MSQ), not number of characters... so why do they restrict the creation of new characters (even for players already on the world!) without also restricting how long an AFK player can remain connected to the server?

Like, I can't think of a single legit reason why someone would need to stay online but AFK for over an hour, let alone over two or even more.

Blythe · **05-18-2017, 02:42 PM**

(05-18-2017, 02:26 PM)Arrelaine Wrote: Why would they do all that labor when they can just open up free transfers and incentives/reimbursements for already existing servers? Picking another server for RP is essentially already what you're suggesting, without forcing it on people. They're giving people a choice to move or to stay. New players have to pick somewhere else, while people who have had characters here can stay here. -Forcing- people to move is even worse.

Â I agree with this.Â

It's a wonder to see how it will go, but forcing people to move should only be the last possible scenario. Splitting it may not be good either as it may end up having the same thing happening a couple years down the road with the same issue or makes enough people quit to the point that it isn't the same as it was. And to be honest, I don't even think they would give people a choice if they didn't even give a fair warning for this lock out.

Right now we are at a very thin line and S.E. is doing as much as they can right now before a server split. (And the fact we are still near Gilgamesh with a server split is kind of frightening to be honest with how many people we have.)

Since we don't have enough information yet on these server bonuses, it's a wait and see game until SB comes out anyway. :T

Leggerless · **05-18-2017, 02:43 PM**

Maybe relevant to this topic?

In any case, still don't mind the block to Balmung.

It's managed to force people into action and devise new plans moving forward. Even if the majority of players won't do much anyways.

P.S. I can assure you most of whom I talk with about FFXIV stuff these days are not on Balmung, but also here for the RP part.

Lydia Lightfoot · **05-18-2017, 02:51 PM**

(05-18-2017, 02:37 PM)Val Wrote:
(05-18-2017, 02:26 PM)Arrelaine Wrote: Why would they do all that labor when they can just open up free transfers and incentives/reimbursements for already existing servers? Picking another server for RP is essentially already what you're suggesting, without forcing it on people. They're giving people a choice to move or to stay. New players have to pick somewhere else, while people who have had characters here can stay here. -Forcing- people to move is even worse.

Pretty much this. Forcing people to move never ends well and will cause more problems. People that are tired of the restrictions will inevitably give up and bail, as will others that just want a server to play on that doesn't have the awful pricing of Balmung. And no, having low marketboard prices is not a good thing. It's one of the side effects of how godawfully overcrowded this server has become because SE wasn't intelligent enough to block server transfers ages ago.

Honestly, they've been far too good to Balmung players and should have done something about it long before now.

I'm not sure what point you're making. If you dislike Balmung why are you on it? Have you considered that SE doesn't have to be the one to step in and incentivize departure - that if some people on the server are genuinely unhappy and would go ahead and transfer off, maybe that alone would resolve the apparent population issue?

Lydia Lightfoot · **05-18-2017, 02:53 PM**

I'm feeling like the ones who've responded to my comment about a split didn't read any further than my first sentence. The reason people typically rally against splits is because they lose things in the process of them. I've been through it a few times myself in different games and that's been the typical complaint. The idea I put forth is one in which players stand to lose nothing. From the player's perspective, the only differences would be that the server they're on has a different name, and, there'd be less people on it.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (23): « Previous 1 … 12 13 14 15 16 … 23 Next » Jump to page:

Balmung Transfer Restriction Megathread

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes