Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ...
8
9
10
11
12
... LastLast
  1. #181
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormykitten View Post
    they should just merge and let people adjust - their half-way solutions seldom work out that well in practice. I would welcome it, despite the hurdles. I don't mind a little pain to get something greater.
    There is not a single benefit to merging servers that connecting servers does not fix. This has all of the benefits of server merges without the headaches of random name changes and guild name changes. You really need to talk to some of those original AOC and Warhammer players to find out just how disruptive mergers were.

    I simply cannot fathom why anyone would want mergers over this solution. There are NO benefits.

  2. #182
    Immortal Tharkkun's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Minnesnowta
    Posts
    7,058
    Quote Originally Posted by kamuimac View Post
    all im reading between the line is that they will "connect" few dead realms with low pop one to another - which will change next to nothing - they wont touch high pop servers cause then they woul lose incom from realm transfers - it same "illusion" population chance as CRZ are -_-
    Are you saying High Pop servers are a problem? A lot of us would love our servers to return to medium/high pop status. Connected realms should solve this problem without paying for a transfer.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Vorhn View Post
    I wonder if this will be the nail in the coffin of CRZ finally?
    This is CRZ. But rather than it be dynamic it doesn't disconnect between zones.

  3. #183
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowe View Post
    Basically server merges but with a twist so Blizzard can avoid the "WoW is dying comments".
    And without requiring name changes, or guilds to break up and be reformed.. and a host of other negative things. People are really stupid.. Blizzard announces subscription numbers every quarter. Even when they lost 1.3M subscribers in 3 months, they announced it themselves. Do you really think they are ´avoiding´ server mergers because of PR, don´t you think they would avoid announcing subscriber numbers if that were the case???. Connectiing servers solves a lot of huge problems that games like AOC and Warhammer had when they merged servers. It is a much more intelligent way of doing things.

  4. #184
    Quote Originally Posted by nyy22592 View Post
    What about bind on account items?
    Exactly my thought when I saw this feature coming. Should be no problem to transfer BoA items between your "off server alts" with this new tech, although I suspect that the answer is "nope sorry, can't do that, until some unspecified future date, that is probably never coming" (because paid transfers with chars full of BoA items is just good money?!).

  5. #185
    Stood in the Fire yunito's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    US,
    Posts
    436
    so virtual realm got a new name...same thing was said months ago..

  6. #186
    Immortal Tharkkun's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Minnesnowta
    Posts
    7,058
    Quote Originally Posted by shewkoi View Post
    you sir, are one of the few people that actually see this for what it is.

    folks, today blizzard admitted that wow is in fact, dying.

    if they had 1 brain amongst them, they would open old content servers and let us relive the times when wow was actually good.
    Sorry you and Crowe are two months late to the party that started on June 12th.

    Why would Blizzard open old content servers? Let's put development resources into removing everything we've done to the game, classes, balance etc for the last 9 years. You'll quit after a month when you realize how unbalanced and somewhat useless some classes/specs were.

    I'd much rather see new features/content.

  7. #187
    High Overlord MattyP's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    California, U.S.
    Posts
    121
    "Permanently linked" Damn.

    When I hear about this I was hoping I'd be able to join and leave it so I could farm up mats on my empty server then sell them off on the virtual realm =/

  8. #188
    Quote Originally Posted by shewkoi View Post
    you sir, are one of the few people that actually see this for what it is.

    folks, today blizzard admitted that wow is in fact, dying.

    if they had 1 brain amongst them, they would open old content servers and let us relive the times when wow was actually good.
    Have you heard of "mega server" from ESO? Let me guess, ESO is pre-merging their realms because Bethesda know ESO is "in fact, dying" before it launches?

    Connected realm is a much better solution to various player population problems compared to server merge. Yet without understanding what it is, people like you default to the "omg wow is dying" stupidity. I mean.. if you don't know what it is, at least read and be less ignorant.
    their moving their table over their
    they're moving they're table over they're
    there moving there table over there

  9. #189
    Really great announcement. I'm very glad to not have to spend money on a transfer.

  10. #190
    So how is this any different than merging servers? If they were working towards 1 mega server that'd be cool (so long as they could control it with CRZ or what not to keep zones from being overpopulated), but I have the feeling they're just going to "Connect" lower population realms (AKA Merging them). I suppose it is probably a smart PR move not to use the word "Merge" though. For some reason the MMORPG community always thinks once the word "Merge" comes into play that the game is dying (even though it's natural for populations to shift after launch, especially this long after release).

  11. #191
    Why are people moaning about it? I personally think it's a great idea! I'm already on a full server (Argent Dawn), but I always welcome any more RPers on the server

  12. #192
    It is a great feature and it will make Blizzard tons of money from characters transfers. Once "Connected Realms" servers groups are announced and the chances that all your characters will belong to the same group are quite low - server transfer will sky rocket. Everybody will try to gather their alts in to their "Connected Realms" server group. That is what I'm going to do.

  13. #193
    Quote Originally Posted by raptorette View Post
    I like the idea of this. HOWEVER, my one and only complaint with the game is that I wish they could implement something in the game to where you do NOT have to be in a group with people from spanish speaking servers (such as Ragnaros). Those are by far the worst people to play with, as they don't understand how to play. The worse LFR/LFD groups I have been in have been with these groups, and I'm not the only one who feels this way.
    Nice xenophobia there johnny.

  14. #194
    Quote Originally Posted by xlightning View Post
    I wonder what they will make with my server, Aggra EU. It's the only Portuguese server and it definitely needs more activity.
    The real question is: Why do you play on a Portuguese server when you know good English.
    I guess if your side has a decent population they could introduce non-Portuguese people on your opposite faction.
    Quote Originally Posted by kbarh View Post
    may i suggest you check out wowwiki or any similar site, it's Grom that orders the murder of Cairne

  15. #195
    I must say, I support this idea 100% over merge server.. At least blizz understand that some player like the peace that low pop server bring, even though CRZ and cut that down somewhat.

    Thx Blizz... Love the Tech Guys, as i didn't think WoW engine could have manage this...

  16. #196
    So... they are merging low pop realms and giving it a fancy name? Anyway, good for those who play in such realms.

  17. #197
    Mechagnome Rixarius's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    737
    Sad that this isn't coming with the launch of 5.4. I was looking forward to more server competition.

  18. #198
    Stood in the Fire
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Space
    Posts
    453
    Quote Originally Posted by Azrile View Post
    There is not a single benefit to merging servers that connecting servers does not fix. This has all of the benefits of server merges without the headaches of random name changes and guild name changes. You really need to talk to some of those original AOC and Warhammer players to find out just how disruptive mergers were.

    I simply cannot fathom why anyone would want mergers over this solution. There are NO benefits.
    Well considering blizz keeps losing more and more revenue due to lost subs, wouldn't an idea(other than more store items) be to lower the upkeep cost of the game? The less servers there are the more they save on a daily basis when they don't constantly have to maintain the large amount there currently are. Yes actually merging servers could cause issues with names but in some of the time they spent making virtual realms they could have figured out a way so people didn't lose names on a merger.

    WoW isn't going to magically go back to the amount of subs it had during Wrath, the games age is preventing it from doing so. Cutting 30 or so servers out of the upkeep cost and letting people keep they names on a merge would have to be better than keeping all these dead servers around when barely anyone plays on them. They keep these servers around for no other reason than to keep the illusion that the game is doing fine even when it costs them in the long run due to upkeep and even more lost subs due to people not wanting to transfer but not wanting to play on dead realms.

    I do think virtual realms are a nice idea and a long time coming. However them being pushed back and the fact they are still burning money on upkeep of these dead servers doesn't help anything.
    Last edited by Wilhelm137; 2013-08-05 at 10:02 PM.

  19. #199
    Quote Originally Posted by Maconi View Post
    So how is this any different than merging servers? If they were working towards 1 mega server that'd be cool (so long as they could control it with CRZ or what not to keep zones from being overpopulated), but I have the feeling they're just going to "Connect" lower population realms (AKA Merging them). I suppose it is probably a smart PR move not to use the word "Merge" though. For some reason the MMORPG community always thinks once the word "Merge" comes into play that the game is dying (even though it's natural for populations to shift after launch, especially this long after release).
    Since a lot of people seem to not know how connected realm compares to server merges, I will write a bit on that.

    To start, let's talk about some problems that these 2 approaches attempt to resolve:
    1. low population
    2. faction imbalance
    3. population increase/decline pattern based on real life (ppl going away for summer, soldiers get deployed when war happens, less people log on during weekend morning, etc.)
    4. Difficulties finding guilds that fit your specific need/play hours from lack of people in similar situation

    Now, let's move on to the 2 different solutions and compare/contrast them for each of the problem.
    1. The two approaches will resolve the situation equally well immediately after the change. However, once people start resubbing for whatever reason (new expansion for example), server merge approach will take a heavy toll. People will experience queue time and unable to quest because of lag and/or quest items getting farmed by many others. This problem wouldn't exist for virtual realm as you can crank out multiple instnaces of the same zone. For example, a quest requiring you to farm guards at Stormwind, server merge can only get 1 instance of stormwind for 1000 people while virtual realm can crank out 10 different instances of stormwind to host 1000 people.

    2. Merging server cannot solve faction imbalance at all. The best Blizz can do by merging is run some calculation and hope faction number never change. However, with virutal realm, players can potentially be split into faction balanced zones. For example, if you have 100 horde and 10 alliance in zone A, virtual realm could split zone A into 2 different instances. 1st instance has 10 horde and 10 alliance while 2nd instance has 90 horde.

    3. Neither approach necessarily resolve this problem. However, since virtual realm can potentially link up all servers together, virtual realm has a better shot at providing higher player volumn at any given point in time. Server merges on the other hand has a set max capacity. Blizzard will not want to merge 3 million players into a single server but Blizzard can put 3 million players into a single virtual realm.

    4. Same analysis as 3.

    There is no TL;DR version. If you don't know the difference and don't feel like reading/thinking then just get this: "virtual realm is not server merge and virtual realm > server merge".
    their moving their table over their
    they're moving they're table over they're
    there moving there table over there

  20. #200
    Immortal Tharkkun's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Minnesnowta
    Posts
    7,058
    Quote Originally Posted by Rixark View Post
    Sad that this isn't coming with the launch of 5.4. I was looking forward to more server competition.
    I wouldn't be suprised to see them go live a few weeks post 5.4. They will spend a couple weeks hotfixing any bugs in the lost isle, 5.4 raid, flexraid tech and new arena team functionality before they jump headfirst into connected realms.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •