Lower the server's player limit

[alexinho 1]

Whenever the server goes over 7K you have a 0.5 sec - 1 sec delay that makes the game hell to play. You don't need 7000 players online for bragging rights. As long as gameplay is being compromised the limit should be lowered. No point having 6000 people lag for an extra 1000. There's a queue, use it.

[Claxton 0]

yes please!

[Keala 28]

By setting a lower player cap, you will simply prevent 1-2k players from playing on their realm (during peak times, ofcourse). Wouldn't it be better to open transfers from Elysium to Anathema/Darrowshire, in order to lower the population a bit on Elysium and also revitalize the other 2 in the process?

[Ragingducks 9]

22 minutes ago, Keala said:

By setting a lower player cap, you will simply prevent 1-2k players from playing on their realm (during peak times, ofcourse). Wouldn't it be better to open transfers from Elysium to Anathema/Darrowshire, in order to lower the population a bit on Elysium and also revitalize the other 2 in the process?

That's the ideal solution, but let's be realistic: not many would be willing to transfer over, which makes the whole effort pointless.

Lowering the cap is a solution, but so is investing in hardware? Maybe the devs can shed some light on this.

[Keala 28]

8 minutes ago, Ragingducks said:

That's the ideal solution, but let's be realistic: not many would be willing to transfer over, which makes the whole effort pointless.

Lowering the cap is a solution, but so is investing in hardware.

To be fair, you can't also be sure of how many players wouldn't want to transfer there either.

Even before the TBC announcement, there were some people here and there who simply don't like how unstable Elysium is right now, and thus asked for transfers. There are even players who are already bored of being only at BWL patch yet. Additionally to those 2 type of people, there are also those who are interested in seeing TBC ASAP. If they stick to what was said in the first post (Anathema first to transfer), then it makes sense for a part of the players to join Anathema, since they would have to wait AT LEAST till September 2018 before they have a chance to see TBC at all.

We don't need half of Elysium to transfer, and not even 1/3. I'm fairly sure this would help a lot even if the Elysium pop decreases by roughly 1k, and on top of that Anathema/Darrowshire get some more people around.

[alexinho 1]

1 hour ago, Keala said:

To be fair, you can't also be sure of how many players wouldn't want to transfer there either.

I think we've already seen with ZK that anything else will die out. Fast. Right now Elysium suffers from that 1 second of delay. It ain't OK.

Crestfall's going to take over with their anti VPN/5K cap policy.

[Ragingducks 9]

14 minutes ago, alexinho said:

I think we've already seen with ZK that anything else will die out. Fast.

Elysium is like the eucalyptus. It dries out everything around it.

[Keala 28]

1 hour ago, alexinho said:

I think we've already seen with ZK that anything else will die out. Fast. Right now Elysium suffers from that 1 second of delay. It ain't OK.

Crestfall's going to take over with their anti VPN/5K cap policy.

I'm sorry but I failed to see what was your point in this post. Sure, Elysium is suffering a 1 second delay and it's not okay, does that mean you agree transfers would help this issue, or?

[alexinho 1]

5 hours ago, Keala said:

I'm sorry but I failed to see what was your point in this post. Sure, Elysium is suffering a 1 second delay and it's not okay, does that mean you agree transfers would help this issue, or?

It means the player count wouldn't go down as much as you think it would, still leaving us with a laggy server.

[Keala 28]

1 minute ago, alexinho said:

It means the player count wouldn't go down as much as you think it would, still leaving us with a laggy server.

You don't have any concrete proof it would be like you said, the same way I don't have any proof enough players will actually transfer. Does this mean we should just completely ignore the option it could improve the situation and do nothing? Okay.

[alexinho 1]

1 minute ago, Keala said:

You don't have any concrete proof it would be like you said

Sure I do, Anathema allowed Nost transfers and Elysium took over it from the moment it launched. Don't give me the fresh server excuse, else ZK wouldn't have died.

[Keala 28]

6 minutes ago, alexinho said:

Sure I do, Anathema allowed Nost transfers and Elysium took over it from the moment it launched. Don't give me the fresh server excuse, else ZK wouldn't have died.

Zeth'Kur was the same patch as Elysium? Also that's not even close to being concrete proof, do you even know what concrete proof is? In our case, it would be confirmation from 90%+ of the Elysium playerbase that they won't transfer to Anathema now if they had the option. Good luck asking thousands of players.

[alexinho 1]

53 minutes ago, Keala said:

Zeth'Kur was the same patch as Elysium? Also that's not even close to being concrete proof, do you even know what concrete proof is? In our case, it would be confirmation from 90%+ of the Elysium playerbase that they won't transfer to Anathema now if they had the option. Good luck asking thousands of players.

They opened transfers before. The servers died. It's not going to get fixed with transfers.

[Banezilla 2]

3 hours ago, Keala said:

Zeth'Kur was the same patch as Elysium? Also that's not even close to being concrete proof, do you even know what concrete proof is? In our case, it would be confirmation from 90%+ of the Elysium playerbase that they won't transfer to Anathema now if they had the option. Good luck asking thousands of players.

We're talking about a population cap not a transfer. Try to stay on topic.

[Keala 28]

Said the guy who doesn't contribute in any possible way ever to any thread.