Transfer Restrictions and Roleplayers

[Mature]

I personally think this was a good idea. If the world is collapsing from time to time it's a bit silly to carry on pushing more people into it.

I just would like the Gil restriction remove completely. I don't see the point of having such a thing after 3 years.

[Oaken]

Restricting transfers to high population servers will not alleviate congestion during the SB launch. Hundreds, if not thousands, of inactive players are likely to return for SB. Restricting another 500-1000 individuals willing to pay $18 to play with friends on high population servers will not alleviate this problem. It will only divide friends and potentially damage long-running player communities.

It is extremely amusing how many PVEers have not considered that SE could have resolved the alleged population woes (which are actually signs of a vibrant, healthy, and active server) on high-population servers by implementing a variety of other measures that don't divide friends and harm established communities.

For example, SE could: (1) assess a higher server transfer fee for transfer to high-population servers and make transfers from those servers free; (2) provide additional in-game incentives to encourage players to transfer from high-population servers; (3) devote additional resources to banning bots and RMT schemes; (4) raise monthly subscription rates to compensate for the cost of maintaining high population servers; (5) designate official roleplay, hardcore raiding, and special interest servers to encourage player groups to transfer from over-populated worlds; (6) implement anti-idling features that disconnect players who idle for extended amounts of time; and/or (7) reallocate server resources to concentrate players on fewer servers, and divert resources previously used to sustain small, dead servers to supporting high population servers.

Instead, SE took the easy way out and implemented an overly broad and ineffective "remedy." Please take this into consideration before you hop on the "restrictions are the only way to solve the problem" hive-mind bandwagon. Thanks.

[CyrilLucifer]

For example, SE could: (1) assess a higher server transfer fee for transfer to high-population servers and make transfers from those servers free; (2) provide additional in-game incentives to encourage players to transfer from high-population servers; (3) devote additional resources to banning bots and RMT schemes; (4) raise monthly subscription rates to compensate for the cost of maintaining high population servers; (5) designate official roleplay, hardcore raiding, and special interest servers to encourage player groups to transfer from over-populated worlds; (6) implement anti-idling features that disconnect players who idle for extended amounts of time; and/or (7) reallocate server resources to concentrate players on fewer servers, and divert resources previously used to sustain small, dead servers to supporting high population servers.

RE bolded; Why should people with no interest in Balmung be required to pay for Balmung's server population? It's your choice to overpopulate it, not ours. Maybe you can pay those higher rates.

Anti-idling doesn't help anything because it's not only the population currently online at a time that is the problem. It's the overall population being so high compared to everyone else. Not to mention the login congestion. SE is rightfully channeling an Elidibus and wants balanced servers.

Also, as someone from Mateus, a small server -
LOLNO at 8. Why is your server worth more than ours?
I personally left a larger server because I wanted a quiet server with fewer people. Are you so arrogant to believe that other servers should be sacrificed for Balmung's well being? How absurd.

[MistakeNot]

Anti-idling doesn't help anything because it's not the population currently online at a time that is the problem. It's the overall population being so high compared to everyone else.

Are you really sure about that? I think it is the other way around - that it is the number of people online at the same time which is the problem.

If you look at https://ffxivcensus.com/ it seems that if you look at all characters created then Balmung actually has a below average population.
It is only when you look at active characters that Balmung looks overpopulated.

[anony11]

We need some official labels for server. I'm an RPer, but also a PvPer.
It would be nice to see RPPvP server and PvP servers, where the queue for PvP is much smaller.

[Driavna]

We need some official labels for server. I'm an RPer, but also a PvPer.
It would be nice to see RPPvP server and PvP servers, where the queue for PvP is much smaller.

PvP arenas are cross server.

[Lexia]

(4) raise monthly subscription rates to compensate for the cost of maintaining high population servers;

Only if the price increase affects the people that paid to transfer into the server, otherwise why should people that were natively placed there aka 1.0 players have to pay a higher sub? I also see you on balmung so you would be ok with paying a higher sub?

[Marluxia]

I'll keep banging the drum for as long as I need to.

1). One of the main reasons why Balmung is overpopulated is because it has two servers' worth of players in two broad demographics. Balmung has been host to both RPers and non-RPers ever since Besaid and Fabul were merged.

2). Providing incentive for the RP community to move is the easiest way to lower Balmung's population. Non-RPers generally don't have many reasons to transfer, whereas RPers will transfer to be with other RPers, especially if that transfer is free.

3). A new server that is designated with an "RP" tag is the ideal solution. A new server means that players and Free Companies who transfer can keep the exact plot that they own and all of their assets such as airships. It also means that an unsuspecting server's PVErs don't have to be flooded with RPers.

4). The restriction should last until sufficient people (in this case, mostly RPers) have transferred off. I know this is controversial, but after further thought, I don't think the New Server Solution would work without this. Keeping the restriction is key in removing Balmung's reputation as the "RP hub". Otherwise, RPers will keep transferring to Balmung and keep making characters on Balmung indefinitely and we end up with a pretty bad cycle.

[ExKage]

Addition of EU Data Center Worlds and Improvements to Population Distribution

All Worlds on the EU data center are presently experiencing high levels of player congestion. To resolve this issue, new Worlds will be added at the release of 4.0.

Moreover, players who want to transfer to or create new characters on designated Worlds across all data centers will receive special bonuses as described below.
* Pleased be advised the bonuses planned for implementation are subject to change.

Bonuses

• Transfers to designated Worlds will be free of charge.
• EXP bonuses will be applied to designated Worlds (up to level 60).
• Gil and free play time will be awarded to newly created characters that reach a certain level on designated Worlds.
• EXP bonuses will be applied to newly established Worlds (up to level 60).
• Gil and free play time will be awarded to newly created characters that reach a certain level on newly established Worlds.

For players who own personal housing, we are planning a number of provisions including a reimbursement for the full price of the estate, and compensation for the cost of furnishings which we will add in subsequent updates moving forward. We also plan to accommodate free companies members that plan to move together with or without a free company estate.

Based on the bar and line graphs, I can see SE's not going to add a new world just for NA or even Japaneses data centers. The reason EU will get any number is because they have a pretty even distribution. Japanese data centers and Aether's population spike essentially in the worlds that they restricted. Their soft limit of 'too populated' is essentially around 7-8k actives, exacerbated when there are multiple worlds of that number. Leviathan, at 7k, is on Primal and so it doesn't affect the congestion of the data center as a whole. Tonberry at 7.6k is in a similar situation to Leviathan, it's at the soft limit but isn't as problematic as the other worlds on Elemental are not reaching soft limits. Bahamut is a problem as it's already around 9k.

If they designate one of the lowest populated servers (based on a couple months old data candidates would include Coeurl, Goblin, Mateus and Zalera which are all sub 3k or just about 3k), would the above bonuses be enough? I highly doubt the housing move feature can work cross-worlds after all, so what added bonuses will compensate for other things like airship voyages? What other bonuses are necessary?

[Velynea]

RE bolded; Why should people with no interest in Balmung be required to pay for Balmung's server population? It's your choice to overpopulate it, not ours. Maybe you can pay those higher rates.

Uhm. Do you truly think this attitude is going to encourage roleplayers who are bumped out they can't join Balmung to join Mateus?