So far, there have been ten merges of R2 servers for LOA:
16 & 19 (3/31)
11 & 12 (4/14)
15 & 21, 32 & 37, 23 & 31, 22 & 28 (4/29)
5 & 6, 18 & 25, 27 & 30 & 33, 45 & 48 & 50 (5/9)
Of people playing on the 22 affected servers, did the server merges help? Was there loss of information? How bad was the downtime? Is it better post-merge? Is merging the next best thing since sliced bread (as many posters asking for merging their servers seem to believe), or is reality somewhat different?
Now that's out of the way, I wanted to point out an interesting tidbit: between 3/31 and 5/9, server count went from 125 (3/30) to 167 (5/8). So, we 'lost' 12 servers through merges, but gained 42 new servers.
I believe that the model of constantly opening new servers to drive new spending is a profitable one, short- to mid-term. If you think R2 is server-bloated, take a look at the Chinese developer Youzu for LOA--I believe they're almost up to 700. Yes, this is old news, but leads to my final question: how profitable are server merges?
Of R2's collection of games, I am only passingly familiar with Yitien and Blood & Jade. Now, Blood & Jade never had the clientele for high server count, but Yitien was (last time I checked) merging servers only somewhat slower than they were opening new servers. From other posts on the forum, it seems like server merges are par for the course for R2. So, why not the same policy for LOA?
Are we an experiment to see if minimizing server merges will actually improve income? It's not out of the question, after all. Yes, with depleted servers, we hear that large numbers of spenders are leaving...but where are they going? Some of them may move on to another game, true, but how many of them simply move to another server and start over?
A common argument against people starting over is 'they've spent so much money, they wouldn't spend more on a new character.' To that, I ask, why not? We see people spending hundreds or even thousands on this game in a few months, and drool, turn green, both, or do something else entirely. But what if their spending is based on disposable income that is easily replenished? They can--and will--continue to spend money on games; why not LOA, on another server? New start, with a new chance to dominate, and new people to meet (and avoid annoying people from the old server). Experiencing the thrill of getting new stuff again, and the thrill of how quickly low levels move along (as compared to being stuck on level 70-something for two weeks). Granted, all of this requires that the LOA experience isn't too buggy, and that new content appears somewhat regularly. Debatable, but LOA is far from unplayable, or we wouldn't be here--though it'd be nice if Twilight Clash and CS events in general were more functional.
While I know that my suggestion is somewhat fact-light and heavy on supposition, I think that the possibility that it is more profitable for R2 to minimize server merges cannot be rejected out of hand. So, for all of the people clamoring for server merges, you may want to ask players on the above servers how lacking in activity they were pre-merge. This way, you can have a better idea of when your server may become a suitable candidate. Otherwise, all your posts and thread bumps will be for nothing. After all, if merging your server will actually cost R2 revenue, why would the company do so?
16 & 19 (3/31)
11 & 12 (4/14)
15 & 21, 32 & 37, 23 & 31, 22 & 28 (4/29)
5 & 6, 18 & 25, 27 & 30 & 33, 45 & 48 & 50 (5/9)
Of people playing on the 22 affected servers, did the server merges help? Was there loss of information? How bad was the downtime? Is it better post-merge? Is merging the next best thing since sliced bread (as many posters asking for merging their servers seem to believe), or is reality somewhat different?
Now that's out of the way, I wanted to point out an interesting tidbit: between 3/31 and 5/9, server count went from 125 (3/30) to 167 (5/8). So, we 'lost' 12 servers through merges, but gained 42 new servers.
I believe that the model of constantly opening new servers to drive new spending is a profitable one, short- to mid-term. If you think R2 is server-bloated, take a look at the Chinese developer Youzu for LOA--I believe they're almost up to 700. Yes, this is old news, but leads to my final question: how profitable are server merges?
Of R2's collection of games, I am only passingly familiar with Yitien and Blood & Jade. Now, Blood & Jade never had the clientele for high server count, but Yitien was (last time I checked) merging servers only somewhat slower than they were opening new servers. From other posts on the forum, it seems like server merges are par for the course for R2. So, why not the same policy for LOA?
Are we an experiment to see if minimizing server merges will actually improve income? It's not out of the question, after all. Yes, with depleted servers, we hear that large numbers of spenders are leaving...but where are they going? Some of them may move on to another game, true, but how many of them simply move to another server and start over?
A common argument against people starting over is 'they've spent so much money, they wouldn't spend more on a new character.' To that, I ask, why not? We see people spending hundreds or even thousands on this game in a few months, and drool, turn green, both, or do something else entirely. But what if their spending is based on disposable income that is easily replenished? They can--and will--continue to spend money on games; why not LOA, on another server? New start, with a new chance to dominate, and new people to meet (and avoid annoying people from the old server). Experiencing the thrill of getting new stuff again, and the thrill of how quickly low levels move along (as compared to being stuck on level 70-something for two weeks). Granted, all of this requires that the LOA experience isn't too buggy, and that new content appears somewhat regularly. Debatable, but LOA is far from unplayable, or we wouldn't be here--though it'd be nice if Twilight Clash and CS events in general were more functional.
While I know that my suggestion is somewhat fact-light and heavy on supposition, I think that the possibility that it is more profitable for R2 to minimize server merges cannot be rejected out of hand. So, for all of the people clamoring for server merges, you may want to ask players on the above servers how lacking in activity they were pre-merge. This way, you can have a better idea of when your server may become a suitable candidate. Otherwise, all your posts and thread bumps will be for nothing. After all, if merging your server will actually cost R2 revenue, why would the company do so?
Comment