How to fix the main guild problem in a merge

[fatherpirate]

There are (apparently) many issues with guilds and a merge.

I would think the 2 biggest are the guild ship and guild level.

I can give a good way to cover those 2 (just talking guild level and ship) <- only

2 weeks prior to merge day, inform server player base that guilds go down in 1 week.
1 week prior - guilds are shut down and GUILD LEADERS are given a store code to
get a AD type guild ship of equal level to the one they had or better. Only usable if your a guild
leader (they would need to restart their guild under a new name.) ALSO the
guild leader would get 'guild experience" tokens (similar to exp tokens from gold/silver rolls but only award guild exp)

so here is the time line

2 weeks out (get warning) empty guild chests - DO NOT DISBAND GUILD
guild leader SHOULD tell guild members how to get a hold of him/her on the new server
1 week out - developers award guild ship code to guild leaders and guild exp tokens, then they shut down all the guilds
merge
new server, ex-guild leader creates a NEW GUILD with new name if they need to
NEXT guild leader uses guild exp tokens to advance the guild back to it's original level
NEXT guild leader uses store code to 'buy' replacement ship.

go on with life.

and before anyone says "you can't do that"
They do it all the time on the test server.

will it make up for losses of amenities ? not really (they might have a way to do that but none I know of short
of giving the ex-guild leaders a bunch of AD)

but the 2 big issues will be handled
move on with life.

[Grandern_Marn]

If doubling up servers means double the lag then no thanks.

No problem finding groups to run with as is, jumped in a great pug last night.
One person did leave the group halfway through. Another person joined in like 10 seconds.

[fatherpirate]

I can logically prove that current lag problems have ZERO to do with population

almost empty servers (no population) are having lag problems = lag has nothing to do with population

what is causing it?...no clue, but it is not peeps.

[Greantun]

I can think of 4 things you are not accounting for in this scenario, and there are probably many more:

1) What about the currency (astral and plat) stored in the Guild Airship Showroom for the guild to purchase a ship
2) What about the money (astral and plat) stored on the airship to purchase amenities
3) What about a Guild that the leader is not active, and a replacement has not been designated
4) What about the items stored in Guild Chests, both the new ones and the old ones

[Clemeit]

If doubling up servers means double the lag then no thanks.

You're inventing problems where none might exist. Doubling up servers would probably do nothing to the lag (observe: the server populations are at an all-time low and the lag is at an all-time high), and if there was any possibility that it would, I'm sure SSG would address that prior to performing a server merge.


No problem finding groups to run with as is, jumped in a great pug last night.
One person did leave the group halfway through. Another person joined in like 10 seconds.

That's great anecdotal evidence to support your stance. Here's some anecdotal evidence to support mine: "This one time I posted a group and it took 42 minutes to get the first player. We never filled; had to disband and try again the next day."

While it's great that you got another person "in like 10 seconds," why would you be against getting another person "in like 2 seconds."

[Ashlayna]

You're inventing problems where none might exist. Doubling up servers would probably do nothing to the lag (observe: the server populations are at an all-time low and the lag is at an all-time high), and if there was any possibility that it would, I'm sure SSG would address that prior to performing a server merge.



That's great anecdotal evidence to support your stance. Here's some anecdotal evidence to support mine: "This one time I posted a group and it took 42 minutes to get the first player. We never filled; had to disband and try again the next day."

While it's great that you got another person "in like 10 seconds," why would you be against getting another person "in like 2 seconds."

Here's mine: I run stuff with my guild, and never have to worry about this kind of thing. It is, after all, an MMO, and guilds are a part of the equation. Since I do this, I rarely even open the LFG pane to see what's going on. Since I don't have a group listed, and I'm not looking to find one on there, does that mean I'm not playing?

[Clemeit]

...does that mean I'm not playing?

Literally nobody argued that point. I'm not even sure if you're in the right thread.

[Ashlayna]

Literally nobody argued that point. I'm not even sure if you're in the right thread.

So server merges aren't about getting faster PuGs? Odd, that's usually the primary argument for why MMOs need a merge...

[Clemeit]

So server merges aren't about getting faster PuGs? Odd, that's usually the primary argument for why MMOs need a merge...

Nobody argued that "you aren't playing" if you don't open the LFM panel.

[Ashlayna]

Nobody argued that "you aren't playing" if you don't open the LFM panel.

I am, however, only one person that doesn't use the pane. Do you think I'm unique in that? That's the problem with trying to say "it takes me forever to fill a group" as a reason for a merge, how many other players completely ignore the LFG pane? How many players ignore it because they're tired of joining groups to hear about how inferior their build is? How many don't use it because they're tired of listening to players deride them for not having played as long as someone else? How many ignore it because of any other measure of toxicity? Is it in every group? Likely no. Does it happen? Yes. Does it drive players away from using it? Yes. The point is, just because people aren't using your preferred method of grouping doesn't mean there's a dire problem with the population. It doesn't mean there isn't, but, there are a myriad of reasons to why people won't use the LFG pane, and low population is only one of many. Hence "are players that don't use it not playing". Because for all intents and purposes, as far as someone that's coming here insisting the game's dead because they can't fill a group in the LFG pane, that's exactly what it means.

[Clemeit]

Because for all intents and purposes, as far as someone that's coming here insisting the game's dead because they can't fill a group in the LFG pane, that's exactly what it means.

Still not sure who you're talking to. That was anecdotal "evidence" directed at a specific poster in this thread (not you, so you may need to reread for context) pertaining to their post specifically (in actuality it was an absurd claim fabricated to exactly rebuke theirs). I did not claim "the game's dead because can't fill a group." I simply argued that while filling a group in X amount of time is great, filling it in half that time would be better.

To more directly address your statements:

Do you think I'm unique in that?

Never said you weren't.


How many players ignore it because they're tired of joining groups to hear about how inferior their build is?

No idea. Did you conduct a survey we should know about?


The point is, just because people aren't using your preferred method of grouping...

It's actually not my [I]preferred method, thanks for asking. However, it's the go-to for many. It also might be easy to argue that it is the preferred method of the game's designers (just an assumption considering there's an entire panel devoted to it), but I suppose I won't go that far.

[Chai]

People who are on break who come back in a few months. Keep in mind I'm not even talking of those who went on break years ago, but those who come back for a specific update or expansion, get the loot/progression out of it, then go on break for another few months.

What happens for those folks?

Its been ~7 years or so since people began asking for merges, and ~5 years or so since a company employee responded that they will revisit the issue. Alot of these issues should already be solved, or they should have some idea as to why they cant be solved, whether technical or otherwise.

[Ashlayna]

Still not sure who you're talking to. That was anecdotal "evidence" directed at a specific poster in this thread (not you, so you may need to reread for context) pertaining to their post specifically (in actuality it was an absurd claim fabricated to exactly rebuke theirs). I did not claim "the game's dead because can't fill a group." I simply argued that while filling a group in X amount of time is great, filling it in half that time would be better.

To more directly address your statements:


Never said you weren't.



No idea. Did you conduct a survey we should know about?

Does reading the forums for the last 8 years count as a survey? Since we do tend to love anecdotal evidence, how about "you can't join this quest because your HP is too low"? Or, even better, a soul stone in your backpack explaining how their build is superior to yours for over half of VoN 5/6? That's a couple of my own experiences, from before there were epics. I was already not using the pane with anything like regularity well before that. None of which, of course, addresses my main point, except below, where I used an empirical "you" in support of my statement, and question.


It's actually not my [I]preferred method, thanks for asking. However, it's the go-to for many. It also might be easy to argue that it is the preferred method of the game's designers (just an assumption considering there's an entire panel devoted to it), but I suppose I won't go that far.

Probably a good idea not to. It exists to make filling groups easier, for those that choose to use it. Very early on, it was probably a lot more effective. However, the community is every bit as much to blame, if not more so, than population. We can, of course, pretend that none of the scenarios I listed ever happen, we'll have to agree that we both know we're being a bit naïve, at best, but we can go there. However, I much prefer reality. It makes it easier to discuss problems in the game if we keep if focused on what actually goes on, instead of one's perception. Last anecdote: DPS classes in swtor screaming that we needed server merges because of how long it took to fill a group. Merges happen, and within a week it was back to "we need merges because the queue takes too long to fill". Now, there, the tool actually tries to form legit parties, meaning it looks for a tank, a healer and two DPS players for 4 man groups. See the problem there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=26&v=2DxS7eT_ky4&feature=emb_logo

and maybe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ivtJD0t9M4

So let's not try to pretend that groups aren't what's wrong with groups...

[Clemeit]

Does reading the forums for the last 8 years count as a survey?

No.


That's a couple of my own experiences, from before there were epics.

All the way back from 2012? Maybe it's time to give it another try.


Probably a good idea not to.

I didn't.


Very early on, it was probably a lot more effective.

It was. There were also 1) a lot more people online 2) spread over a lot fewer levels 2) with a lot less content to run. The first of which can be solved (or at the very least improved) with server merges or cross-server grouping. Assuming this wouldn't increase lag, what's the downside?


we both know we're being a bit naïve

Yes.


[Talking about SW:TOR and the queue system] See the problem there?

I'm not advocating for forcing players into a specific group dynamic. I've seen the problems it presents first-hand, and I don't want that here.

[Ashlayna]

No.
All the way back from 2012? Maybe it's time to give it another try.
I didn't.
It was. There were also 1) a lot more people online 2) spread over a lot fewer levels 2) with a lot less content to run. The first of which can be solved (or at the very least improved) with server merges or cross-server grouping. Assuming this wouldn't increase lag, what's the downside?
Yes.
I'm not advocating for forcing players into a specific group dynamic. I've seen the problems it presents first-hand, and I don't want that here.

The whole point to all of this is that the groups are as much a part of the problem as anything else. There are people, probably lots of people, that completely ignore the LFG pane. For myself, I don't need it, as I said, active guild, so I can do groups within the guild, and don't need the pane, and, when I'm in a range where there's nobody in it, or nobody on, and I really want to run something, I've got the experience, and the builds, to just solo. Why create issues, even just potentially, for myself? The videos I provided are a decade old, at least. While the roles aren't as clearly defined here, is BYOH familiar to you, there are expectations, such as the aforementioned BYOH, or knowing the quests well enough to Invis through them, or how to skip stuff that someone may not want to skip, aka flower sniffers here. All very real things, and I'd be willing to bet, things that happen regularly even today.

Some of these players are likely making their own static groups for quests, or doing what I do, and running guild, or, alternatively, private channel quests. The damage has been done in so far as "fixing" the LFG pane goes. Despite the claims, there's no guarantee that a merge would address these issues either, I used swtor above as an example of how "but this will fix it" doesn't actually mean it will. There will still be the same number of people doing their own thing, and the same number of jaded people, they'll just be on less servers. Cross server is something that might alleviate some of it, maybe, but again, there's no guarantee that it would, although it wouldn't hurt. It's just a thing where one shouldn't expect that merges will magically fix the issue, because there's a lot of us that have been around a long time, and don't use the pane at all, based on past experiences, or anecdotal evidence of past experiences.

[Hogdog5]

snip

I think the point is that there are plenty of people playing this game willing to post and join public groups, they're just spread too thinly. There's no legitimate excuse for a game this old and this uninhabited to have so many servers.
Even assuming for a second that merging all the servers wouldn't help, it certainly wouldn't hurt to have 7x more players online to interact with.
Even assuming for a second that implementing cross-server groups wouldn't help, it certainly wouldn't hurt to have 7x more LFMs to choose from.

[Kaboom2112]

Just make character transfer free and let the "free market" solve this.

[Ashlayna]

I think the point is that there are plenty of people playing this game willing to post and join public groups, they're just spread too thinly. There's no legitimate excuse for a game this old and this uninhabited to have so many servers.
Even assuming for a second that merging all the servers wouldn't help, it certainly wouldn't hurt to have 7x more players online to interact with.
Even assuming for a second that implementing cross-server groups wouldn't help, it certainly wouldn't hurt to have 7x more LFMs to choose from.

It's amazing. If you'd have spent a bit more time reading, and a bit less time snipping, you might have actually read where I said cross server queues wouldn't hurt, even if they may not help.

[Hogdog5]

snip

It's amazing. If you'd have spent a bit more time reading, and a bit less time taking things so personally, you might have actually realized I never claimed you were explicitly against cross-server grouping. If you hadn't been so defensive, you might have actually realized I was agreeing with you. Try not to take things so personally.

[Clemeit]

Just make character transfer free and let the "free market" solve this.

While I'm all for this, it's a terrible idea. I'm pretty confident we all know what would happen. As much as people like to deny the multiplayer aspect of this multiplayer game, that's what keeps most people playing. 95% of the players from each server would migrate to a single server, and the other 5% would either quit or (for the hermits out there) not even notice a difference.

[Ashlayna]

It's amazing. If you'd spent a bit more time reading, and a bit less time taking things so personally, you might have actually realized I never claimed you were explicitly against cross-server grouping. If you hadn't been so defensive, you might have actually realized I was agreeing with you. Try not to take things so personally.

Here's the fatal flaw with your logic: I commented on the last thing you said in the quoted post, which means, logically, that I actually did read what you wrote. As opposed to snipping out a point of agreement, only to post it myself where I completely removed your post, trying to pretend like you're being unreasonable or something. Were I in the "we need merges camp", and you were in opposition to that, and we hit that point of common ground, I wouldn't have snipped your post and then brought up the point as if it were something new I was pointing out, trying to make it seem like you were being unreasonable. I would have, instead, pointed out the fact that we reached some common ground.

To wit: Hey look, we reached some common ground, and cross server queues is something they can implement that doesn't run the risk of costing everyone tons of real world money on their guild investments if they don't find a way to transfer guilds intact, that may not remedy the problem. If all these guilds lost all their progress, a very real possibility, do you sincerely believe you would have your 7x as many players? I'd imagine my guild would rage quit over the lost real world money, and I have to wonder how many others would as well?

[fatherpirate]

I love feedback but please read the OP so your feed back is relevant.

[AstorPotamus]

I’m relatively confident that 99% of ddo’s lag issues are because it’s a 32 bit game trying to exist in a 64 bit reality. If SSG can untangle 14 years of 32 bit spaghetti code to create a cohesive 64 bit client, lag’s gonna go back to being a network issue as opposed to its current state of quantum flux’n’flotsam

[Clemeit]

snip

"Snipping" people's posts is a perfectly valid, widely-accepted, space-saving technique - something that I do often myself. The link to the original is still there for anyone trying to follow the conversation. It doesn't mean that they didn't read your post. I don't understand why this is a point of contention.

And I don't think anyone is in favor of a bunch of people losing their guilds and their real-world investments into them. This is (I believe) something the OP wanted to address. Clearly SSG wouldn't be so short-sighted as to believe that destroying everyone's guilds was reasonable. Nobody should be worried about it because it's totally out of the question.

As the OP suggested, one solution would be to allow guild leaders to transfer their guilds with them, preserving all of their progress (something that I previously suggested to a lesser extent here (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/511124-What-is-the-obstacle-for-transferring-Guilds-in-a-server-merge?p=6279100#post6279100)). That seems reasonable. Or, better yet, ditch the server merge idea altogether in favor of cross-server grouping. At this point, that seems like the best solution with essentially no downside (assuming it doesn't increase lag).

[droid327]

If you're not reducing the open group-to-player ratio, you're not actually changing the rate at which your group will fill. If you merge servers, then you're increasing the playerbase but you're also increasing the number of open PUGs at any given moment. Your PUGs wont fill any faster and LFMs wont appear more easily.

If you want to improve grouping, improve the mechanics of the grouping mechanism itself so that the people that already are there can get together more fluidly and easily. "Power creeping" the population numbers wont do anything if the thing keeping people from joining is not wanting to have to travel out to wherever you are, or already being mid-quest and not wanting to have to recall out and lose their progress, etc.

[Ashlayna]

"Snipping" people's posts is a perfectly valid, widely-accepted, space-saving technique - something that I do often myself. The link to the original is still there for anyone trying to follow the conversation. It doesn't mean that they didn't read your post. I don't understand why this is a point of contention.

And I don't think anyone is in favor of a bunch of people losing their guilds and their real-world investments into them. This is (I believe) something the OP wanted to address. Clearly SSG wouldn't be so short-sighted as to believe that destroying everyone's guilds was reasonable. Nobody should be worried about it because it's totally out of the question.

As the OP suggested, one solution would be to allow guild leaders to transfer their guilds with them, preserving all of their progress (something that I previously suggested to a lesser extent here (https://www.ddo.com/forums/showthread.php/511124-What-is-the-obstacle-for-transferring-Guilds-in-a-server-merge?p=6279100#post6279100)). That seems reasonable. Or, better yet, ditch the server merge idea altogether in favor of cross-server grouping. At this point, that seems like the best solution with essentially no downside (assuming it doesn't increase lag).

It's also an easy way to avoid actually commenting on what people say, and instead focus on what one wants them to have said. In some of the forums I've been on, this behavior would result in board warnings and temp bans. It falls under editing people's posts, and is frowned upon. Context is key, and when you snip out the post, you remove all context, and if the post is a page or two back, nobody's going to bother. You see, if we had a post tree that was almost a page long, I'd agree with you. When it's two lines, nope, it's "oops, got caught with my pants down, and now I have to try to clean it up".

Now, it's been a few years since last I read about this, and my memory is a bit fuzzy, but guild ships were exactly why they didn't want to mess with merges, if I remember correctly. I'm sure there were other things too, but I'm not up with the details. By all means, try out the cross server queues, and see what happens. If it doesn't change anything, or doesn't have a significant impact, then it didn't cost the players anything, and doesn't have the potential to, at least, superficially. I have seen some instances of people losing stuff "in the translation", as it were, moving back and forth between servers. Given this game's notorious problems with databases, losing stuff in TRs, for example, it's pretty scary, but far more acceptable than losing everything, including possibly a guild name, in a merge.

[Inanout]

Each toon has personal renown.
On new server each toon can apply renown to guild of their choice.
Guild leader gets token for current astral shard air ship.

[Clemeit]

Now, it's been a few years since last I read about this, and my memory is a bit fuzzy, but guild ships were exactly why they didn't want to mess with merges, if I remember correctly. I'm sure there were other things too, but I'm not up with the details. By all means, try out the cross server queues, and see what happens. If it doesn't change anything, or doesn't have a significant impact, then it didn't cost the players anything, and doesn't have the potential to, at least, superficially. I have seen some instances of people losing stuff "in the translation", as it were, moving back and forth between servers. Given this game's notorious problems with databases, losing stuff in TRs, for example, it's pretty scary, but far more acceptable than losing everything, including possibly a guild name, in a merge.

Enough derailing this thread. I agree with this paragraph. Cross-server grouping would probably be the best route, assuming they (SSG) thought anything was wrong in the first place (they might not). Server merges are messy business, and nobody wants to see people lose hard-earned work - that's not fair.

[Renvar]

Way more complex issue.

If even because of timing. You can’t shut down guilds for an entire week.

You can’t assume guild leaders will be available on the 1 week in question. Too many casual and inactive players. Your solution only accounts for the small highly active contingent.

A better solution would be some sort of code solution to migrate guilds to the new merged server and deal with guild naming conflicts. Trying to take them down and tokenize the various aspects with the guild leader is problematic.

[fatherpirate]

Just for reference
the OP
<--- me

doesn't know a bloody thing about

server farms
networks
spaghetti wire ... what ever
or dead hamsters

I only know what I see

[Enoach]

Just for reference
the OP
<--- me

doesn't know a bloody thing about

server farms
networks
spaghetti wire ... what ever
or dead hamsters

I only know what I see

When trying to figure out these types of situations one approach to use is to list out what could go wrong.

Guilds going wrong is a pain point - One that could create a huge dissatisfaction ripple in the DDO universe.

I know some don't think the dev team has thought about this, but I think some have. I'm also thinking they have weighed the pros and cons and done the risk analysis and it is quite possible that at this point it does not come up in favor of doing any merges.

It is also possible they are continuing to try and solve these pain points and running experimental merges on development available servers. They just have not come up with a solution with acceptable risk yet.

[Loromir]

If doubling up servers means double the lag then no thanks.




I doubt this is a primary contributor to lag. I think it's various quest mechanics and special effects that contribute primarily to lag.

[myliftkk_v2]

If you're not reducing the open group-to-player ratio, you're not actually changing the rate at which your group will fill. If you merge servers, then you're increasing the playerbase but you're also increasing the number of open PUGs at any given moment. Your PUGs wont fill any faster and LFMs wont appear more easily.

If you want to improve grouping, improve the mechanics of the grouping mechanism itself so that the people that already are there can get together more fluidly and easily. "Power creeping" the population numbers wont do anything if the thing keeping people from joining is not wanting to have to travel out to wherever you are, or already being mid-quest and not wanting to have to recall out and lose their progress, etc.
Demonstrably not true.

As someone who's led plenty of pugs for years. If a LFM exists for content I enjoy (because of XP/Loot/Fun) and in my level range, I won't create an LFM, but will join one instead. Many people who are willing to lead pugs aren't dead set on being leaders. I lead many many VoNs, and just as many I didn't lead. Same with every chain in the game.

Because content execution on various servers is larger similar in its patterns, you will mostly see a consolidation of LFMs where they overlap, but they will be fuller.

The "getting to quest" is an overwrought complaint and always has been. Set a timer on how long it takes most toons to get to the vast majority of quests and the distance is extremely short. It's not instanteous, but it's hardly a Sunday stroll (especially once you reach the capacity of casting teleport scrolls). I would be in favor of improving the tools by which grouping and arrival at quests is achieved, but sans major changes in population availability, those improvements will be marginal at best and meaningless at worst.