Runes of Magic US / AU

I've got to say I'm shocked at the results of the question asking how many servers people would like to see after the merge... The highest majority of people saying 3+. Two things about that answer, firstly, 3+ means at least 4, in which case, there are only 7 US servers atm, having there be 4 servers after a merge would mean there would be a server being left un-merged at all. Secondly, With this many servers being left, no problem is being fixed in term of population per server, as combining 2 server sparsely populated servers, only creates one less-sparely populated one. Which is where I make my case with combining the 2 PvP servers and why it wouldn't fix anything. I'm not saying everyone should vote AGROPIG, though i'm obviously all for it... It's just the answer of 3+ servers after a merge makes little sense to me. So I would love if anyone who voted for that option could sort of discuss their train of thought behind it.

3+ servers makes no sense to me. Seems like an uneducated answer.

I was surprised myself on the server answer. I see 2 servers as the max number myself. 1 or 2, but not more.

Quoted from "Rougetopriest"

I've got to say I'm shocked at the results of the question asking how many servers people would like to see after the merge... The highest majority of people saying 3+. Two things about that answer, firstly, 3+ means at least 4, in which case, there are only 7 US servers atm, having there be 4 servers after a merge would mean there would be a server being left un-merged at all. Secondly, With this many servers being left, no problem is being fixed in term of population per server, as combining 2 server sparsely populated servers, only creates one less-sparely populated one. Which is where I make my case with combining the 2 PvP servers and why it wouldn't fix anything. I'm not saying everyone should vote AGROPIG, though i'm obviously all for it... It's just the answer of 3+ servers after a merge makes little sense to me. So I would love if anyone who voted for that option could sort of discuss their train of thought behind it.

I am one of the respondents who voted for 3+ servers. Normally I would be happy to exchange my thought process behind my vote but I have already posted my reasons several times under the server merge thread.
Since that post didn't gain any traction, neither in direct opposition or in any way attempting to engage into the thought process at that time I really have no intention of repeating myself here.

With that said, I believe the voting numbers pretty much speak for themselves despite many of the more vocal posters advocating for a single server.

I've read the other threads and posts. They do not answer my question. Only reason I can see people selecting the 3+ option is because for those against the merge, there was no other option to select.

Quoted from "Rougetopriest"

I've read the other threads and posts. They do not answer my question. Only reason I can see people selecting the 3+ option is because for those against the merge, there was no other option to select.

Fair enough. I looked back over my previous posts and realized that some of the information I had previously planned to post did not make it through edit. I apologize if that made it appear as if I were sending you on a wild goose chase. That said, I will continue along the line of one of my earlier posts in the other thread concerning "putting all your eggs in one basket".


While you are correct that I also am against merging servers this really had little to no correlation with my vote or for voting for more than a single server. Quite the opposite in fact. My rationale was/is that if server mergers end up happening at some point, then I would rather there be some variety and redundancy over a single point of failure. For example, if there is only one server and it bugs, glitches, crashes, etc. then everyone is down nobody is playing, etc. There is also the issue of how the single server would handle bandwidth during peak load periods, how the economy would not necessarily improve (you would think it would but one server will not necessarily increasing supply but would very likely further increase demand which would drive inflation up not down).

Anyway, these are just a few of the factors I considered in my decision process. I rarely make arbitrary posts and I do my research before posting. Empirical research shows that the only group that advocates for server merges is players, not game devs and publishers because they know how many things can go so horribly wrong. To put it another way, if the most successful mmorpg of all time, with it's 200+ servers and years of experience, spent their resources to develop an alternative to server mergers then maybe, just maybe, they are on to something or know something we do not.

I hope that answers your question.

@Tuulikki-

Your opinion on not wanting 1 server is a decently backed opinion, but that doesn't really answer why you voted for 3+ servers.

As RTP said, 3+ means a minimum of 4. So out of curiousity and for general discussion, what is your opinion on why you think we need that many servers post merger?

And @BB-

FOR SHAME not using the designated AGROPIG propaganda..going off and using your own twist >.> lol

If it ever gets noticed by gameforge and we get more information, we should be told about how many active players there are per server so that the general population of rom can have a more informed decision about how many servers they would like to see.

To me, there is about 50 on Artemis. I'm sure there's more, but that's all I feel like I see. There are less than 50 people in Trade channel.

I don't feel like having a population of 50 merged with a population of a smaller server (say 20) will do much good at all.

I feel like around 50 is a generous estimate of Govinda's active population at peak times as well

@acypcar90: I voted 3+ because if servers do merge I would prefer 3 pve servers and 1 pvp server for the reasons I stated above and more that I have not yet discussed.

@CharlieBananas: I'm sorry, your response to my post is incorrect. In patch 5.4 WoW implemented an alternative to server merges call connected realms.

@bleedingblak: That would indeed be ideal but based on their history of disclosure I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on those numbers.

I personally voted for 3 servers; 2 PVE and 1 PVP. The 2 PVE will have Reni or Artemis as their base servers and the rest will be absolved into these two accordingly. Ideally all PVE should be merged into 1 big Agropig or AggroPit but i'm afraid that would be too chaotic initally. First, merge the servers that are a must, and then if everything works okay, continue with the overall consolidation and merge all into 1 big one. As for PVP, im sorry but the suggestion that a few are making about making PVP into PVE and leaving 1 channel for PVP simply sounds too complicated. They are not going to go through all that trouble to please a very small number of people. Hence merge them but leave it as PVP server. If PVP people don't like it, then give them 2 options: either move to PVE or merge all PVP from NA and Europe. I know someone said that the PVP channel option was available once on Reni, but don't confuse something that happened out of error with something that is going to work as intended. Making 1 channel just for PVP is just too much trouble tbh.

@Tuulikki I completely agree with the suggestion you made on the other thread because it is something that I myself have suggested, but at this point, Im afraid is not very realistic. Merging the AH and the interface for pugs would probably be even better than the server merges because that would consolidate all the economic aspect of the game, without physically merging the characters. This suggestion to make the AH/instances server-wide would be the ideal case but Im afraid Gameforge doesn't do what's ideal for the players, but what is cost-efficient for them.

Quoted from "Needundead"

I personally voted for 3 servers; 2 PVE and 1 PVP. The 2 PVE will have Reni or Artemis as their base servers and the rest will be absolved into these two accordingly. Ideally all PVE should be merged into 1 big Agropig or AggroPit but i'm afraid that would be too chaotic initally. First, merge the servers that are a must, and then if everything works okay, continue with the overall consolidation and merge all into 1 big one. As for PVP, im sorry but the suggestion that a few are making about making PVP into PVE and leaving 1 channel for PVP simply sounds too complicated.

what i voted for about the same reasons.

multiple merges at first ensures that 1) it works, and 2) doesn't put all the eggs in the same basket.

once they get smaller merges down, i don't think it would be much of a stretch(if they got that far) to simply consolidate the servers at a later point.

Well don't forget that everyone has the right to their own opinions and reasons, you might think they are wrong, crazy, stupid or in general because they don't have the same opinion as you, well that is the beauty of the human race. Tuulikki posted his, i voted the same as he did btw, 3+ seems fair enough for all and i can't imagine all those big egos on one server, that would be just bad.

Having to also modify the number of items showing in AH would be a must to have ;-)

Also to have prevented all this merging server and stuff, why instead of paying Runewaker stupid amount of money to do it and that i am pretty sure they will mess it up more than anything else. Why doesn't Gameforge put that money into ads and commercial, magazines, conventions, Facebook and revitalize the game as a whole new big community. For all those people that make up fake thread about being bullyied when they came to Reni, to those who only have negativity in their hearts for this game, just quit and move on. A lot of players still enjoys it, play it and run instances. help others get up there etc.

Most of the people crying over stuff are endgamers that are bored because some have moved on to greener pastures and new content is not out. Run with lower people and share your experience with them, show them the value of running hardmode instances, show them how to have fun. Don't take it out on lower geared people for you being bored, take it upon yourselves to solve it and running with them. Yes fine you won't burn bosses in 20 seconds, you will die, but maybe you will experienced the game as it was made out to be : FUN!!!!! work for it, don't burn it ;-)

Quoted from "zidlef"

Well don't forget that everyone has the right to their own opinions and reasons, you might think they are wrong, crazy, stupid or in general because they don't have the same opinion as you, well that is the beauty of the human race.

it is not about what people's opinions are. it was the fact that so many people seemed to be in favor of one server, when the survey results say otherwise that has people confused.

mmh so many were in favor??? who?? the 12 people posting on the forums?? we are not the majority, just the most vocal, we don't count as the many, just the few

Why Reni and Artemis as the base servers? Artemis and Govinda have the two strongest guilds.

One server is easily the best option. Or 2, 1 pve and 1 pvp. Any less than that and they may as well just not merge servers at all for all the good it will do. Even 1 big server isn't going to be nearly as populated as one WoW server or one server back in this games good days.

The concept that there would ever be more than one server merger is not sound. If they do anything at all it will be a quick one shot fix. Then other than a patch or two to cover the most glaring errors it will be the end and we will never get anything done in the merger area again.
One PvE server and one PvP is probably the only way to go though I doubt even then that there will enough people to make the PvP server playable. The PvE server will have a strong enough player base to survive and make it enjoyable for a long time.
It may be chaos at first but that in itself will generate more interest than this game has seen in years.