What is the general consensus on server emptyness?

If so, then I apologize to Claws

That's probably a bit more drastic than I would have gone with but ok...

This was the problem I had with his post(unless I misunderstood it). To say some number of people would quit doesn't quantify how many that would actually be. It may very well not be a significant enough number to make a financial dent.

Ok...I'm with you here.

Perhaps, but there is still a whole lot of 'if' in there. Too much for me to say x or y would definitely be the result.

A few reasons I can think of.

First: Lag. Freedom and Virtue are almost always laggy even when the rest of the servers are butter smooth.

Second: Due to there being no true number indicator anymore to say how populous a server is at any given time, a new player logs in and sees all green and simply chooses the server with the name he/she likes best. He/she doesn't know it will have an affect on his ability to quickly get a team and also how many other players they see in the game.

I covered that above so I won't get into it again. In terms of why we don't bring in more new players though? I have several theories on that myself.

1) We do little to no real marketing for this game. Even with GR so close, coverage has been sparse, to say the least. The people who are getting info on the game are the people who are already playing it.

2) The relative failure of MA to become the driving force the devs thought it would be. And that is compounded by the rampant exploiting that releasing it in a broken form encouraged. When you read forums on other gaming websites, there is a notable lack of respect for COX after what happened with MA. It got the reputation of being a 1 - MAX level game in a couple hours even after the bugs in MA were fixed.

3) It has taken rather too long to get the stuff that people want in the game implemented. That leads to a bleed off in players who want something new. We have waited a long time for GR to come in order to get some solid content. I can only hope that it performs above expectations and truly reinvigorates the game. Not just for long time players, but for people who want to try it for the first time.

If this is true, which I believe it is for some number of players but not all of us because they are fine on my computers, then we are making the experience worst by merging for even more people.

Then merging the servers would sever very little purpose as opposed to simply working on these things you listed. Merging would simply be a stopgap measure that would only satisfy a subset of the playerbase of unknown size temporarily yet without those three things the bleed off would continue.

Not really interested in what you guys are talking about at this point, but you know that in a merger people would lose their sg, character name, etc? For a fact you know that?

Would those hypothetical people that quit because they lost those things still quit if they didn't? What does that do to the totally-made-up forecast that is based on absolutely nothing?

The actual fact is that we don't know what would happen in a merger, but it is a safe bet that they likely wouldn't proceed unless (ignoring the business side of things that I already talked about earlier) they could ensure that the majority of people kept their unique identifiers.

It would be nice if people stopped using the fear of losing personal identifiers as their silver bullet in these arguments because that fear is unsupported. It's a valid concern that needs to be addressed, but continually stating that it would definitely be one outcome is very misleading. I'm not accusing you personally of fear mongering, but I know that the infamous list quoted earlier in this thread relies on that tactic heavily and is painfully transparent and weakened as a result.

I agree they would lose subs. Of course, one could argue that not doing anything will also lose them subs in the end as well.

Ideally, a merge would be an attempt to do this as well. Also, I have heard a lot of talk about the back end costs of merging servers, but I don't know how much of a cost that would really equate to.

Would they actually save some money from it as well by needing less personnel for maintenance over time? Would they save in terms of reducing overall bandwidth costs? I can't say.

Not necessarily. In my experience, I have found that Virtue almost always lags and has sticky movement in areas like Steel Canyon, Talos, Atlas and King's Row. I actually queried this in broadcast a few times and was told that this is business as usual by quite a few players(they may have been lying...who knows).

As an experiment, I logged off then and there and logged onto Victory, Justice and Infinity(my usual home servers) and found that I had a very smooth play experience in comparison. I have repeated this a number of times with similar results. Now Virtue is sometimes less laggy and sometimes more laggy, but I have rarely had a play session that did not have some annoying lag spikes in the more popular zones. You may be lucky to live an an area with a better route to the servers.

Spreading the player population more evenly across servers may very well bring performance to an acceptable level across all servers rather than keeping it intolerably bad(for a number of folks) on the two most populated ones.

That usually seems to be the conclusion I reach when I consider server merges for this game. Of course, then I have to consider that NCSoft doesn't seem the least bit interested in correcting these things either.

It's something I find very strange. I have no idea how much it costs to hire nearly 50 new staff members and finance an expansion of the scope of GR. But I cannot imagine that you'd then leave player retention and attraction to chance and a minimal marketing effort.

My biggest concern in all this is that we'll never get anything in the order of magnitude of GR again if this expansion doesn't do very well. And then server merges will start to look very attractive to the NCSoft higher ups.

Empty outdoor areas is one of the things that people equate to server emptiness, yes. Still, we have always been a heavily instanced game. And even after street sweeping was effectively killed by tank changes and XP alterations, there still seemed to be more folks running around outside.

Heavily instanced or not, you have to transport yourself from one mission to the next don't you? There should still be a decent degree of player movement throughout a given zone.

Of course, you have to get that out there to the players. What's the best way to do that though?

That's exactly the point. It is rarely yellow. There are no longer population stats given next to servers. But even green can still mean that Virtue is bursting with players as compared to Victory or Justice.

As to how a new player may know to join Virtue as opposed to say, Infinty? There are external sources of info about this game outside of the forums. There are, in fact, some very vocal people who have strong opinions about COX and spread them on other gaming sites. So you might be surprised to hear someone comment on an article on Bluesnews that Virtue is the only server worth joining if you are going to play COX and don't want to play in a ghost town.

This is something we simply don't know. My gut says more people moved into the city (freedom/virtue) than moved out to the sticks (other servers). However, the population of Freedom/Virtue certainly didn't swell, but then again the entire player base has shrunk around that same time.

You are absolutely right though. Existing sg's and friend groups provide a significant barrier to leaving one's established server. Given the age of the game it would be misconstrued to assume that many of the players haven't formed strong ties on the server(s) they frequent.

Even for a player like me that uses a solo sg/vg for my toons the decision to change servers would be weighed heavily. Significant preparation would be required for me to ensure I could move with minimal loss of goods and then significant work would be required to set up again on a new server. And that is ignoring any server friends that I may be hesitant to leave. I'd need to be very confident that the new server would provide a lot more enjoyment than the one I'm on because it isn't as simple as clicking "x-fer this toon".

In other words, things need to be pretty bleak for a player that is well established on a certain server(s) to uproot to another. If there was any statistically significant movement trends during that time imo they indicate a pretty serious problem. If it was just random musical chairs then fine.

The reason it is green is they buffed the servers. That is why Freedom doesn't go yellow/red very often. It is not just due to less players.

But again, so then the new player can jump onto Virtue. What will merging do to affect that? What would those sites say if servers were merged? What did they say when SWG merged servers?

And if even just one server is not a ghost town (which is a laugh since Freedom is no less populated than Virtue) what is keeping people from signing up and playing there?

I feel like this goes around in circles.

The claim that all the servers are "dead" except Freedom and Virtue. Ok then play on those two.

New people won't know. Ok then let new people know.

New people know from other sites. Ok then what's the problem.

The other servers are "dead". Well then play on the ones you don't think are dead because enough people play on them and are satisfied and even happy.

How long will NC pay for "dead" servers? What's that to us? As some have stated in this very thread the server costs can cost more on a busier server than a "dead" one.

Honestly I am beginning to think there is some kind of dementia or agenda related to the pro-merger people that they aren't stating. Do they think they would get more content if the devs closed down some servers?

The circle breaks at this point.

What are some of these sites? Are they the official CoX site? Should any player, especially a new one, be put in a position that they need to scour the web to make an informed choice? Should then have to check out the official site before making informed decisions? Maybe, but you no longer have to do that when it comes to creating a toon, does or doesn't it stand to reason that that should logically extend to where you play that toon?

I can only speak for myself, but I would have never chosen Infinity as a server when I joined the game if I'd known more about it. It simply does not fit my preferences. It was only through sheer stubbornness and because I caught a glimpse of potential while playing there that I decided to give another server a try. Thankfully I had a rl friend that used to play the game recommend Freedom. If I'd just made another random choice who knows what would have happened. If I'd stumbled upon another Infinity I likely would have quit.

Is that the type of roulette you honestly want to play with your playerbase?

A lot of the questions I just asked are loaded by intention so allow me to propose one to support the opposite side. When does too much access to information become a liability where the potential for it to be detrimental outweighs the potential benefits?

To be blunt, do you know that it will not occur? Quite frankly all of this is hypothetical anyways. Until such time as the company announces such thing, we are all sepeculating - Including yourself.

With that said, know? No. Have an educted guess? Possibly. What happens when you move a character to a server where the name already exists? Unless they develop a new system to resolve those issues, that is the way the current tech handles it.

Well as a real person (not hypothetical one so mabe this does not address your question ) that would quit in the hypothetical situation where I lost those things, the answer to your question is obvious. If I don't lose it, I will continue to play as I do now. But, what it really comes down to, what is the way in which I do not lose it. For instance, I have no problem with charactername@globalhandle creating new identities in the new shared environment. But, based on the reaction to a question about doing this at HeroCon the result, there was resoundingly negative. This could be representative of the community at least, or not. I don't know but, if I was not happy with that solution would I stay? Not anymore then I would in the situation where I get a free rename token. So, the real answer to your question is maybe.

True. It is all speculation in this thread, including yours that they would develop new tech to keep that information. I'm not quite sure I agree with your safe bet assesment though.

The fear is a result of the unknown. And as you pointed out the result of a merger is unknown. They could be unfounded; they could also be justified. Regardless, the result is the same you saying there will be some mechanism to allow us to keep them. It holds as much truth to it as the fear tactic with one exception. The one I already pointed out, I know how a paid-for-service to move characters to another server where that name is already taken is resolved. I don't feel confident that they will develop new tech in the situation where they are merging servers.

--Rad

Frosticus, you and people who hold the same opinion are making some very strong assumptions about the so-called "new player" (in fact, those assumptions are similar to the ones made about the mythical "casual player"). You're assuming that new players to this game have never played another MMO in their lives. You're assuming that new players to this game have done no research or reading about this game. You're also assuming that new players to this game WANT to be surrounded by a bunch of people they don't know, all up in their faces with their often inane and banal chattering, while they're trying to learn the basics of how to play this game.

I've turned many people on to MMOs, people who are new to the genre overall (who had never played one in their lives). Not a single one of them fits into your 'new player box'. No one in my WoW or EQ guilds that I've told about CoX has been like that either. The new players I know of tend to read up on a game to see if they like it before committing to playing it. Their playtime is precious to them so they're not going to jump into a game, sight unseen, and run the risk of wasting said playtime. They prefer to try to learn basic gameplay before they shackle themselves to other people (often before they even tell me they're playing). You seem to portray new players as whimsical idiots who act on their first impulse. Perhaps the new players you know or have known have colored your view in that manner, I don't know.

Actually no. The majority of what you're seeing here is "variety is the spice of life" and "different strokes for different folks". Of course, you're not actually seeing that because it's not what you want to see. I was born and raised in New York City and live here now. I'm quite familiar with crowds and I'm comfortable in that environment. But I'm also familiar with less crowded places (like Bonaire, for example) and enjoy that too. Likewise, I have many characters on Virtue but I also have a lot on Infinity (almost all my villains), Victory, and Guardian and enjoy playing there as well. You want everyone to be forced onto a Freedom/Virtue type of server and you're trying to use some specious "financial" argument to support it. BZZT, wrong answer. Servers paid for themselves five years ago. Upgrades paid for themselves within six months. My two accounts (and the four others I pay for) would evaporate if the only choice I had was Freedumb, Virtue, and Freedumb Clone 1, 2, and 3.

You want a solution the devs can use to prevent making waves? Maintain the status quo and offer promotional periods of free server transfers a few times a year (perhaps the week leading into and following a double xp weekend). Even as an independent event, it's marketable and would possibly work even better if combined with a free reactivation weekend.

Might want to do some research before saying it. Though I'm sure designing one MMO from scratch TWICE didn't cost much money. Or were you not aware of the fantasy based Tabula Rasa? Seriously, anyone trying to use Tabula Rasa as some kind of justification for ANYTHING other than "get it right the first time" is going to look really ignorant.

I've seen that. I've also seen someone do that when begging for buffs in the Guild Lobby in EQ on Maelin Starpyre (read: arguably the most populated server in the game) with 138 people in zone. 138 people in a space that is a major gathering area and only about twice the size of an Icon store (so we're not talking about an Atlas Park sized area. That's 100+ people in your viewable range). I guess that means it's "empty" too?

Yes, because we all know how AWESOME hunt missions are.

Again, I'm not getting where people are coming up with this 'new players are lobotomized pigeons' view from. About the only game I'd agree that emptiness might work as a detriment, is EVE. But in that game, you don't want a lot of people around you either (in case one of them decides to shoot or suicide gank or canflip you). Many new people prefer to learn on their own, at their own pace, to prevent being the moron using Hurricane indiscriminately or the like. Sure there are others who don't care but there's the key point: they're not going to be decent team or community members anyway, because they don't care.

How did they know to choose Virtue or Freedom?

When I was a new player, I chose "Protector" because I liked the name. I didn't know anything else about the servers. My first impressions of the game, and my decision to subscribe, were based on my early experiences on that server back in 2006.

Very very few players ever look at the forums. Many will just log in, see no one around, and assume the game is dead and not subscribe.

They might be, but there then needs to be some way to communicate that to new players who download the game and log in without coming here to the forums to find out which servers actually have a population. That could be a possible solution, maybe instead of showing server load (which is almost always the same on all servers) give some kind of meaningful approximation of actual population for each server so new users know what they're getting when they pick any particular one.

Originally Posted by eltonio This is over the top mental slavery.

No. And I've never claimed to. One side is making very bold claims about how we'd definitely lose our names/sg's/etc. That is fear mongering at best and outright lying to convince people at worst. I don't need to resort to that to make pertinent points.

To steal your line of bluntness, a satellite service has nothing to do with a merger. The only thing it serves to show us is that they would indeed need to devise a way to ensure players could keep their unique identifiers. But we already know that.

If preserving that information wasn't a priority they likely would have already closed down some servers regardless of the business reasons I covered earlier. The EU servers are indeed empty, they are remote enough to be buried without generating negative press about a merger (I think at one time there was even Asian servers) and they are probably not generating enough revenue to support the GM's monitoring them...

That to me is a pretty clear indication that unless there is a very substantial business reason to proceed they will first ensure that the players are taken care of in the event that they ever do merge.


Having a fear of the unknown and proclaiming absolute truth about that unknown are two very different things. We don't know enough to make any definitive statements at all. Which again, one side of this discussion resorts to frequently. It's doubtful the devs know enough about this to make any absolute statements until they really sunk their teeth in to the matter. And even then they likely lack the expertise to make strong forecasts about the outcome. They don't know and we don't know exactly what would happen or how it would happen.

I don't believe anything more needs to be said than that in conjunction with the business reasons stated earlier. Simply put, we don't know enough to take the risk and the ROI likely wouldn't be good enough to proceed. There is no need to come off like a religious zealot proclaiming the end of your sg's and all your names will burn in the fiery pit. It's unnecessary and frankly embarrassing. And to be blunt again, it is the reason I'll usually side with the merger people even though I don't think a merger is necessary or even the right way to proceed.

Or alternatively it is experience based on server mergers in other MMOs.
Including NCsoft ones btw.

And how do we do that, keeping in mind 90% or more of the players never frequent the forums?

And can we change the dogpiling tactics of small server advocates when new players do dare stick their nose in and ask about server population?

If I run a store, I have to have more staff and goods on the shelf if my store is busy than if no one comes in. That doesn't mean the empty store is the better investment.

Um... what? I hope you're joking.

Originally Posted by eltonio This is over the top mental slavery.

Guild Wars is entirely instanced, but I see more people in that game in the social hubs than I do in many of the servers here.

Originally Posted by eltonio This is over the top mental slavery.

I never got the impression that tip missions are akin to defeat x number of y missions. I'm assuming that the developers know that kind of thing isn't very fun for most folks. So I guess you're making the assumption that people won't like something that hasn't gone live yet either.

Probably the same place you're getting the idea that new players are all well-informed, experienced gamers with established friends in the game who can guide them and tell them exactly where to get what they are looking for.

Different people have different experiences. If someone meets some new players that behave a certain way, and you came across new players who behaved differently, it doesn't make your perception of the average new player any more valid.

That's interesting. I've played EVE for over 2 years and never had that happen to me even in the most crowded systems. All bets are off in low sec space of course...but there usually aren't large gatherings of folks loitering in low sec unless they mean business and people are informed of the dangers from the get go...but that's an aside.

And in contrast I have met many new people who wanted to learn alongside other people. You can't just play the 'new people I know do this so the majority are like this' card and assume that yours is the only valid example to draw on.

So they should be discarded as valuable customers to NCSoft because they have an attitude that you think makes them a detriment to the community?

If MMOs pointedly went around weeding out and removing every player with an attitude problem, they'd all shut down.

Accurate up to that point, but you keep overlooking the fact that less servers means less monthly cost to maintain/operate them. That needs to be part of the equation.

It's a fact that there are lots of duplicated names on different servers. In order to accommodate that, either someones name has to change or the naming scheme itself has to change. EITHER of those methods would cause SOMEONE to quit. It's just a question of how many and would the benefits outweigh the costs.

Quite true. But, in the short term, we will have FREAKING EPIC CROWDS in Praetoria. They need to use that to show just how active the game is.

I'm willing to accept that the majority of new players are hyper-researching consumers, but the evidence suggests that is highly unlikely. The study of consumer behavior also suggests that is highly unlikely.

The fact that a small fraction of players visit the official forums and the game (like most) offers a free trial/demo strongly suggests that your embodiment of the typical new player is likely inaccurate.

The players you describe exists. Most definitely. I'd never want to come across as suggesting otherwise. However, nothing need be done for them because they are already hyper-researching consumers making informed decisions about their playtime.

I make the logical leap that many new players expect to see other players because of 3 reasons:
1. The game claims it is the World's Most Popular Superpowered MMO.
- World's most popular, that sounds like a lot of people like it...
2. It's an MMO
- It's a Massively Multiplayer online game. There is no denying that the term drums of the idea of a lot of players. It's largely why the genre took the name.
3. Previous MMO experience
- CoX is one of the most heavily instanced MMO's on the market, but the problem isn't the instancing it is that the "hubs" cover many square miles. Take Guild Wars, which also relies on heavy instancing, even more than this game actually. However the hubs are geographically small so the population outside of the instances are quite condensed. It doesn't take many players for GW to feel like you are well surrounded by other players.

When the dev's took away any and all reasons to be "outside" in this game they essentially designated entire zones as vacant hubs. There is essentially no reason anymore for a zone the size of Steel Canyon. Everything it offers could be condensed into a GW's sized hub and achieve the same purpose because everything we now do in this game is instanced.

On somewhat of a tangent, but the enormous amount of wasted space in this game since the devs changed the paradigm of play is the largest contributor to "emptiness". They obviously realize this and have tried to introduce some excitement back into the open world with events and now TIP's missions*. I'm not sure yet how easily people will be willing to shift paradigms again without strong incentive. That is to say it was an easy decision to abandon the outside world in favor of instanced missions because they reward so much better. The same goes for AE vs open world. To get people to readily come back out into the world to partake in events would take a sliding of the reward scale in their favor. TIP's will likely be something you just grind until it drops though and then you go run it. I'm not sure how compelling that is, but I guess we'll see.

*Or at least it sounds like 'TIP missions drop outside.

that would be the case if those were the only two options.

Frosticus - just curious, but what third option would you see?