Petition to Terminate Restrictions on Transfer to “High Population” Servers

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

I challenge anyone who actually wants this policy to remain in place to cite, with specific examples, how the high population of a server has adversely impacted your gameplay. In my two years on Balmung, the only time I /ever/ recall the population causing a problem was when new housing wards were released. The amount of speculation, fear-mongering about "monster queues," and other unfounded, speculative concerns about population woes are completely baseless and exaggerated.

If you joined after the launch of 3.0, you have no idea. Aether was down for days due to the lobby server crashing due to population limits reached because of balmung and gilgamesh both residing on it.

[Oaken]

If you joined after the launch of 3.0, you have no idea. Aether was down for days due to the lobby server crashing due to population limits reached because of balmung and gilgamesh both residing on it.

Again, I don't think people who support the transfer prohibition have given much consideration to alternative actions SE could implement to /actually/ stabilize high population servers (see OP above). These actions could accomplish the same balancing effect without the obvious detriments identified in the OP.

[Rokke]

The solution should not be to boost the populations of dead servers (which will remain sparse and dead -- see post above for detrimental effects), but to merge small population servers and devote resources to sustain high population servers. SE has the assets to do this, and if they do not, should simply raise subscription prices.

I agree that some of the smallest servers could benefit from a merge, but you seem to be glossing over the midpop servers. Aether is not just "ghost towns + Balmung". With the temp lock + 4.0's launch, those mid population servers will fill in and hopefully even out some of the data center's lopsidedness.