Blizzard has the free xfer backwards

#0 - May 13, 2009, 7:56 a.m.
Blizzard Post
the current opporitunity is to be able to xfer off a high population to a low population server. this is more proof that blizzard doesnt play their own game. if you have ever played a high pop, then a low pop server, you will see how horrible it is. it takes literally hours to get a group for anything, and i swear at least half the players are gold farmers. no one responds back unless it is poor english.

they should give free xfers TO high pop servers. these "recommended" servers are a joke. i would much rather play with 500 horde on a slightly laggy server than to play with 3 people and rarely see another player. the whole point of an mmo is to play with other people and yet you are recommending people to be isolated, just because you fail at maintaining a server.


BTW- if it isnt obvious- do not play on my server it is DEAD
#11 - May 13, 2009, 8:26 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
the current opporitunity is to be able to xfer off a high population to a low population server. this is more proof that blizzard doesnt play their own game. if you have ever played a high pop, then a low pop server, you will see how horrible it is. it takes literally hours to get a group for anything, and i swear at least half the players are gold farmers. no one responds back unless it is poor english.

they should give free xfers TO high pop servers. these "recommended" servers are a joke. i would much rather play with 500 horde on a slightly laggy server than to play with 3 people and rarely see another player. the whole point of an mmo is to play with other people and yet you are recommending people to be isolated, just because you fail at maintaining a server.



Hm, well I can see you're upset. Perhaps if I help clarify. High Population realms are often hit with large amounts of latency and other issues (such as queues). In order to alleviate queues and help prevent latency, we offer transfers to lower population realms.

So why low population realms? Low population realms are realms we'd really like to have more players on. Obviously, putting them off in the corner and condemning them to a life of lowpopitude wouldn't be beneficial for any one. Thus, we open up transfers from a realm with to many people to a realm that may need additional players.

As for splinting realms and reassembling them later, that is something we tend to avoid. We avoid it because it removes individuals from their realms with out their direct consent and often times separates them from friends or guild alliances. Clearly, friends and/or guild alliances are an integral part of the social experience of the game. The amount of discord that this would cause is not currently worth it, particularly when we have other options available to us.
#19 - May 13, 2009, 8:37 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:


Why not just merge realms? All the population would still be there. Just, with more people!

Though you'd have to hyphenate the name, and I assume there would be arguments as to who appears first.


Merging realms is tricky and what we've found is that merging can exacerbate some problems in the area of realm distribution. There are also a myriad of technical issues that need sorting out for realm merges.
#28 - May 13, 2009, 8:48 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:


I am against splits, but not against mergers. There are too many low population servers, and some of them aren't just low pop, they are downright dead (there is a difference.)

If you have a bunch of realms at 10% capacity then you can easily merge three of them and open transfers to the newly merged realm on top of that. I would consider xfering to a realm with 10,000 characters (I know they dont accurately represent the actual amount of players, but it's a good number to go by) but would never transfer to a realm with 3,000 characters, and according to wow census there is currently 10 realms under that population.


The problem is, we don't have a bunch of realms running at 10% capacity. Still, we're not taking merges, or any option off the table.