Haven right now!

[Valour]

Originally Posted by alamar777

I don’t think that we are talking about Ra... there was a post of Adrian whee he points out that Ra is stable and there won’t be a transfer or something else ...

Well, many of us are asking for a possible transfer from Haven to Ra.

Transferring to Valhalla is just prolonging the inevitable and would only serve to make the community go crazy again in the future.

If there were just a single server to manage, I think it’d be in the best interests of the game in its mature stages.

[Pery3000]

Never seen someone go so much off topic as Lebeau. Adrian asks about possibility of Transfers with account bound gear and this guy brings up “Allow all players to play every server” when we know 100% that won’t happen. Now he’s just ruining every thread we make about wanting our characters on RA. No wonder Adrian never comments back when Lebeau cucks the whole thread with useless crap. Sigh.

[schachteana]

Originally Posted by Pery3000

(...) No wonder Adrian never comments back when Lebeau cucks the whole thread with useless crap. Sigh.

Didnt you read his posts? They are effective, and they are superior!!!!!

[Lebeau]

</me makes mental note to self: "don't give a shit? don't feed the trolls?">

Ok, back to the f-ing point:

1) There are reasons to merge the servers, or to allow unrestricted transfers.
2) There are reasons not to merge the servers, or to allow unrestricted transfers.
3) There are reasons to account-bind certain gears if merge or transfers happen.
4) There are reasons not to account-bind all gears if merge or transfers happen.
5) There has to be an overall effective & superior way to handle these matters.
6) Therefore, please provide poll suggestions so this thing can be managed well.

[Roseythorns]

Originally Posted by Lebeau

</me makes mental note to self: "don't give a shit? don't feed the trolls?">

Ok, back to the f-ing point:

1) There are reasons to merge the servers, or to allow unrestricted transfers.
2) There are reasons not to merge the servers, or to allow unrestricted transfers.
3) There are reasons to account-bind certain gears if merge or transfers happen.
4) There are reasons not to account-bind all gears if merge or transfers happen.
5) There has to be an overall effective & superior way to handle these matters.
6) Therefore, please provide poll suggestions so this thing can be managed well.

That sort of sums everything up, doesn't it?

There are reasons to do as Adrian suggests, and there are reasons to not do as Adrian suggests.

What are the options?

Perhaps some poll item suggestions:

1. Keep everything the way it is right now. Do not allow transfers.
2. Allow Character transfers from Haven to Ra.
3. Allow Character transfers from Haven to Valhalla.
4. Allow Character transfers from any server to any server.
5. Restrict magic items in transferred characters to Account-bound.
6. Restrict magic items on transferred characters to character-bound.

[pelozo]

Originally Posted by Adrian

Just a quick question, would transfers be welcome if all the current items are bound to the account? Because that is what could happen if we allow them.

Anyway, we should first do the poll. We need to know what everyone thinks individually. We assigned a bit of time this month to make the in-game poll system.

Also, we have to think what we will do with inactive accounts.

Originally Posted by Hollow-Ichigo

Account bound the shit out of everything.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

[Lebeau]

Originally Posted by Pery3000

...Binding boss jewels do seem more reasonable...

IF boss jewels alone truly are the most major point of concern, contention, & hesitation, then ^THIS suggestion is quite likely the most effective & superior path-to-the-future overall that NGD COULD take....

[rekkles12]

Why bound anything at all? How does account bounding items change the outcome of transfering accounts and letting them rot on dead servers? Not sure why are you trying to make us any different from Ra players and not allowing us to trade /buy better gear with the stuff we earned, played for, the same way Ra players do with their gear.

[Lebeau]

Originally Posted by rekkles12

Why bound anything at all? How does account bounding items change the outcome of transfering accounts and letting them rot on dead servers? Not sure why are you trying to make us any different from Ra players and not allowing us to trade /buy better gear with the stuff we earned, played for, the same way Ra players do with their gear.

Agreed! It should be totally even & fair for ALL. Therefore, IF it is decided to bind boss jewelry in order to allow server transfers (or merges), then ALL of the boss jewelry, on ALL of the servers, should become account-bound. If this is UNacceptable, then NOTHING should be account-bound, as I suggested before

[Roseythorns]

Originally Posted by Adrian

Also, we have to think what we will do with inactive accounts.

Questions arise.

1. How do you define "inactive"?
   • does 1 login a year count as active? 1 login a quarter? 1 login a month?
   • does 1 login a day, for 30 seconds each day, count as active?
   • does the player have to actually engage in game activity (other than collecting daily rewards) to count as active? How much game activity?
   • Does standing afk 23:59:59 a day count as active?
2. Can you measure game activity programmatically?
   • I'm assuming so, because you can query the character database to see what they've done. A database query should let you figure all that out and find the general activity level.
3. Are we talking about "in the case of a server merge?" Or are we talking realm population reasons?
   • Because those are different cases. If you're marking accounts as Inactive so you don't include them in population numbers for each server or each realm, that's one thing; but if you're talking about what to do with Inactive accounts in the case of a server merge, that's another.

However. Those questions asked, and hoping they'll be answered, some ideas.

First, Inactive accounts should not count towards active server population.
For the purpose of defining "active server population," I would define "Inactive" as "has not been active in game." (for some number of hours or days, depending on the purpose of the query)
I would define "active in game" as

• Completing a realm task
• Finishing a quest
• Killing a mob
• Killing an enemy player
• Earning WMC in any way.
• Engaging in a duel
• Playing in an instance of any sort
• Earning experience in any way.
• Earning an achievement

I would not include "engaged in commerce" unless it earned an achievement. Many of those doing commerce log out for invasion, and log their other account to play for the invading realm.

If someone's logging in every day to collect the daily, that's not an active player. If he's logging in every 3 days to check on game status, that's not active either. Logging in once a week to play like a madman for 8 hours actually is an active account.

You have a database, and presumably you can query it to find the aggregate player history. How many are actually active?

Of course, that depends on the time frame you're querying. On the one hand, some players log once a month and play hard; others log every day and do nothing.

Second, if you're thinking about a merger of sorts, treat the inactives the same way you did when Horus and Raven merged (put them in some sort of Standby status). Why? Because many players on Haven now have Ra characters, and they have not logged on their Haven toons in years. Those toons are inactive, although the player plays on Ra.

You should be careful not to lose any characters; Wiz and friends were understandably annoyed when his toons simply disappeared during that merger (this contributed, by the way, to the general anger toward NGD in Haven afterwards. It also still contributes to the prevalent idea in Haven Syrtis that "NGD favors Alsius and programmatically hurts other realms' players to let Alsius win". This is also one reason why the Haven population is not bouncing back as quickly as you'd hoped -- who wants to play a game where the playing field is tilted towards one side?).

WARNING: Many Haven players have characters in a different realm on Ra. Allowing transfer will create more multi-realming activity.