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

[MomomiMomi]

Nice graph and allegations about login queues. It's a shame I can't really reduce to graph format what running through various zones on a high population server like Balmung or Gilgamesh (or other high population servers -- i.e. - large, healthy, active open world communities) looks like compared to most other servers (i.e. - ghost towns, terrible economy, minimal interaction between players, etc.). The bell curve on that graph would be a marvel to behold.

Are you kidding? Balmung has one of the worst economies.

[floofuf]

Oh yeah, I am talking about another thread in this forum This is what is getting us confused :P

In the other thread (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...nd-Roleplayers) some people were saying that SE should make Balmung an official RP server and enforce restrictions on non-RPers (who should just suck it and transfer out).

My criticism is towards how entitled people coming here with these ideas are. They not only want to take over the server but also for other people to pay for their exclusive mega-server. I can only hope they are not representative of the RP community as a whole.

I see now. Man, some people take their servers very seriously I guess. I don't think they're representative of the whole RP community. The people calling for changes all have different ideas on how this ordeal should be handled and want to share them with us. All will sort itself out in time.

[Ayer2015]

Blocking more people from transferring is the right move. Frankly, I don't think they should remove the block even after the SB launch until server pops level out. I just wish they also implemented free transfers out.

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

Blocking more people from transferring is the right move. Frankly, I don't think they should remove the block even after the SB launch until server pops level out. I just wish they also implemented free transfers out.

I think they will be. If so, my friends and I are contemplating moving.

[floofuf]

I think they will be. If so, my friends and I are contemplating moving.

Come to Mateus!! We have spots for many people in our FC

[Keydah]

I just wish they also implemented free transfers out.

From the wording of the post, they will. But to specific servers rather than from specific servers.

* Transfers to designated Worlds will be free of charge.

The "newly created Worlds" have their own slightly separate section (like, one extra line between the "designated" and "newly created" bullet points) on the Lodestone post. The newly created Worlds could be (and probably are) designated Worlds, but it wasn't stated as specific to new Worlds.

[Kyuuen]

[B][U]-OP snip-

I'm going to try to take this piece by piece, bare with me.. I tend to ramble.

1. Prohibiting transfers

Prohibiting transfers only divides friends if there is no way to play with them. ATM that is not the case with the new cross server tech they are implementing. Yoshi-P has stated in interviews that this tech would be expanded on over the course of time. The only discouragement as a new player coming in is how long it may take you to get up to current content (MSQ's).

2. High pop servers

This is just blatantly false. People come and people go, all for different reasons. Back in WoW during BC - WotLK Argent Dawn was one of the biggest servers, now it's not. I've known a few people who were always sniffing around for a new FC to play with, they don't play any more. Just because it's a high pop server does not necessitate subscription. Otherwise there would be NO people on the current smaller servers.

3. Server transfers and RP

You're being a bit overly dramatic on this one considering these restrictions are temporary. They won't be here permanently. Could it cause a little stagnation, possibly, but we have 20,000+ people on the server. Branch out and meet new people and learn to interweave your RP with more and more people.

4. Economic health, player-run events, user-content, = increased sub retention

First part.. HA. ARR relic quests that involved Materia IV that had a chance to blow up in your face. That's 600,000 (that's the low end) to 900,000 gil that you may have just wasted, if you were buying them. And you needed I think 10 (correct me if I'm wrong)! Player ran economy is a player run economy. More people or less, it can spiral out of control real easily.

Player run events, no arguments. More people does potentially lead to the possibility of more player events. User-content I'm lumping in under player events.

About the increased sub retention. I covered it up above, people come and people go, all for different reasons. I've seen crafters and gathers leave just as I've seen RPers and raiders leave. It depends on the person and their set of circumstances in not only game, but also life that dictates whether they stay or go.

5. Problems over exaggerated

No. No they are not. The Heavensward launch was dreadful. Between server stability and crashes and the 40+ minute queues to just to get in game and that's if you didn't lose connection attempting to log in or if the server didn't crash in-between. Not to mention the more players on a server the more animosity that's generated between players. For instance the vast majority of hunt complaints came; mostly, from the high pop servers all with the same complaints of early pulls and resetting of the mob. High pop servers aren't always sunshine and rainbows.

6. Numerous solutions to overpopulation

(1) This isn't a solution. It's just as potentially detrimental as closing off a server. "I bought the game, but if I want to be on the same server as my friend I have to pay a higher rate for a transfer due to highpop?" would literally be the next newest never ending complaint

(2) I thought I read somewhere that this was happening? Maybe I'm getting it mixed up with something I read that someone was suggesting elsewhere. >.>

(3) Fully agreed on this one. Though they do it more behind the scenes, it sometimes doesn't feel like it's enough.

(4) This would also be more detrimental to the game than a boost. Resource wise it could be good, but not at the cost of potentially chasing away current subs. I know a couple of people where this would be a deal breaker for them. Again, this would fall on a person to person basis.

(5) Again something I agree on, and it's something we've asked for back in 2.0 and I believe even back in 1.0 if memory serves. And I believe Yoshi had commented about it, though it's eluding memory.

(6) This, if I'm not mistaken; I don't recall hearing of it's permanent removal, is already in the game, but currently turned off due to lesser congestion. Though I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see it's come back for Stormblood.

They could spend money and resources on rebuilding/redesigning their back end of the game, but I think they really want to focus on getting more into the game itself.

Have to remember that this restriction is temporary. How long is temporary? That we'll have to wait and see

[Hasrat]

Come to Mateus!! We have spots for many people in our FC

Careful. All the empty house plots here might just leave them dumbstruck.

[Ayer2015]

From the wording of the post, they will. But to specific servers rather than from specific servers.

* Transfers to designated Worlds will be free of charge.

The "newly created Worlds" have their own slightly separate section (like, one extra line between the "designated" and "newly created" bullet points) on the Lodestone post. The newly created Worlds could be (and probably are) designated Worlds, but it wasn't stated as specific to new Worlds.

From what I understand those are EU worlds

[Valkyrie_Lenneth]

From what I understand those are EU worlds

I think they want people off of balmung and gilgamesh, or they wouldnt have gone this far. I'm 99% sure a lot of aether and primal worlds will be designated.