Jump to content


Wargaming, now's the time to offer server transfers, or you'll lose me for good.


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

Duqe #21 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 02:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 24485 battles
  • 7,550
  • [BERT] BERT
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011

View PostBubba187, on Aug 13 2017 - 01:50, said:

 

How about you wait for the server to go live before you actually jump to conclusions?  The sky may fall, or it may not, but it is not currently falling

 

For a lot of us non-Americans (continent, not the US of A), this isn't a new problem, and it was sort of an issue when there was only a central server before. And as addressed in my earlier post, me- and I imagine a number of others too- aren't really abundant in confidence on what Wargaming NA does server-wise. Remember Telia? Remember the 2 years it took to get that sorted out?

 



killertank_962 #22 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 02:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11149 battles
  • 35
  • [AR-PA] AR-PA
  • Member since:
    10-18-2012

View PostAegis270, on Aug 13 2017 - 11:52, said:

So the Central server has been announced. Great! Except for the players that it sucks really hard for. Yep, we Australians and Kiwis and everyone else from South East Asia who play on the NA server are now screwed. Generally, we can manage about 200 ping to NAW. While not ideal, this is playable, and we've adapted to it in order to play the game.

 

I'm sure, at this point, some of you are asking why we don't just play on the SEA server instead. Well, there's a couple of reasons. Firstly, due to where that server is located, my ping isn't that much better than NAW. Around 180 ping. Secondly, English is much rarer, as most people playing are from Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and other Asia countries. Thirdly, the standard of play there is pretty appalling, at least when I did play there. 

 

Now with a central server being set up, that previously manageable 200 ping is going to jump. Their current server hosting contractor has servers in Denver (Which would probably be a modest, 220 ping), Houston and Dallas (Closer to 230 ping) and worst of all Chicago (At 240-250 ping). 

 

Bottom line is, the ping may jump to a point where play is unfeasible. And I'm not about to start the grind from scratch all over again, losing all my premiums and progression. So, considering the circumstances, this would be an ideal time to offer players the one time option of transfer their account and everything in it over to the SEA server. Or the EU server, for any European players in the same position. I know server roaming has been shot down time and again, but considering this special case where they are likely to lose a not insignificant portion of their playerbase for good if they don't do this, surely they'll at least look into it. 

 

I as kiwi agree but 250 is playable 300 is where i would stop. i play with it on east nearly everyday for strongholds with 230 ping at best. and then there are the idiots who cry about 80 ping :)

PrivateStash #23 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 02:19

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 21179 battles
  • 170
  • [SSGS] SSGS
  • Member since:
    12-25-2011

View Postjosif90, on Aug 13 2017 - 01:23, said:

If WOT looses the Aus-NZ players it will be a big deal for the 6 hrs of the day that these make up over a third of the players.

There will be fewer players of the combined server than there are now on the east for a 1/4 of the day.

I play from Nz on the east server quite often now because the MM is better but if the ping is any worse than now it will be unplayable.

WG should at least try to have a server somewhere that works for the south pacific.

I have an SEA acount but this server just sucks from NZ. The ping is bad and there is no one on the server when I want to play. Also the players don't speak English and the play style is horrible.

 

Pretty sure there is never a time where the AUS/NZ players make up a third of the players, but if you have proof i'll admit  i am mistaken.

Nonamanadus #24 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 02:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 24557 battles
  • 3,432
  • [HBG] HBG
  • Member since:
    02-02-2013

View Post_Gungrave_, on Aug 13 2017 - 00:00, said:

Well you can always wait a couple more years to see when they will decide to shut down NA for good as that is likely when they will offer server transfers but knowing WG they'd probably charge you an arm and a leg to do it.

 

Chances are they would sell the rights to the NA market before they closed the doors. 



bockscar43 #25 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 03:31

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 25343 battles
  • 1,013
  • [PL1AR] PL1AR
  • Member since:
    01-01-2015
WG. and wots will do whatever they want and the base has no voice, don't the rules so state?

poppavein #26 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 03:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 23942 battles
  • 1,609
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    12-06-2011

View PostAegis270, on Aug 12 2017 - 16:58, said:

 

Mostly technological limitations. It would slow everything down if all servers had to constantly update each other on what accounts are active and on what servers. Of course, this doesn't stop other games from offering roaming for a fee, but apparently the technology is still outside of WG's grasp. That or they don't care. I honestly don't know which. 

A daily batch job would be sufficient. 



EnglishBob_ #27 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 03:40

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5636 battles
  • 319
  • Member since:
    08-25-2015

View PostBubba187, on Aug 13 2017 - 10:20, said:

 

How about you wait for the server to go live before you actually jump to conclusions?  The sky may fall, or it may not, but it is not currently falling

 

If WG was worried just about you .. ummm  lol    :harp:  ( OP )

Insurrectional_Leftist #28 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 09:08

    Major

  • Players
  • 45016 battles
  • 6,027
  • Member since:
    05-23-2013

View PostAegis270, on Aug 13 2017 - 00:10, said:

 

Laugh all you want, but it's way more than 2, and this entire move is because the NA servers have been losing so many players as to become unprofitable for WG. They lose many more without a serious uptick in people signing up, and they'll pull the plug altogether. 

It's laughing boys like him, that this server is in trouble now partly. As long as the have blue stats they don't give a damn about anyone else a kiss WG's butt no matter how much they screw up. They all sat back while the server lost population a fell apart, yet still the wheels are coming off, an they still don't seem to get it. This stop gap of a single server, will not change the overall population numbers! All it's doing is saving WG money from operating 2 servers, cause the WEST sever has been dead for a long time! The MM is not working correctly, because of low pop. And, at some point in time, we will get sent to another server.... it's only a matter of time. 



Viserion_Dies #29 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 09:41

    Major

  • Players
  • 30169 battles
  • 4,850
  • [FADED] FADED
  • Member since:
    06-19-2013

View PostAegis270, on Aug 12 2017 - 23:52, said:

So the Central server has been announced. Great! Except for the players that it sucks really hard for. Yep, we Australians and Kiwis and everyone else from South East Asia who play on the NA server are now screwed. Generally, we can manage about 200 ping to NAW. While not ideal, this is playable, and we've adapted to it in order to play the game.

 

I'm sure, at this point, some of you are asking why we don't just play on the SEA server instead. Well, there's a couple of reasons. Firstly, due to where that server is located, my ping isn't that much better than NAW. Around 180 ping. Secondly, English is much rarer, as most people playing are from Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and other Asia countries. Thirdly, the standard of play there is pretty appalling, at least when I did play there.

 

Now with a central server being set up, that previously manageable 200 ping is going to jump. Their current server hosting contractor has servers in Denver (Which would probably be a modest, 220 ping), Houston and Dallas (Closer to 230 ping) and worst of all Chicago (At 240-250 ping).

 

Bottom line is, the ping may jump to a point where play is unfeasible. And I'm not about to start the grind from scratch all over again, losing all my premiums and progression. So, considering the circumstances, this would be an ideal time to offer players the one time option of transfer their account and everything in it over to the SEA server. Or the EU server, for any European players in the same position. I know server roaming has been shot down time and again, but considering this special case where they are likely to lose a not insignificant portion of their playerbase for good if they don't do this, surely they'll at least look into it.

 

its like 100 of you. wg will survive

ColonelShakes #30 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 12:16

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5393 battles
  • 382
  • Member since:
    01-17-2016

View PostAegis270, on Aug 13 2017 - 01:10, said:

 

because the NA servers have been losing so many players as to become unprofitable 

 

Source ?  On both.



FeelMy_APCR #31 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 12:39

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 29793 battles
  • 862
  • [BRVE] BRVE
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012

View PostColonelShakes, on Aug 13 2017 - 14:16, said:

 

Source ?  On both.

 

http://wot-news.com/...rver/us/norm/en

ImaKillYou #32 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 15:37

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 24170 battles
  • 681
  • [-GENT] -GENT
  • Member since:
    04-25-2011
Peeps don't seem to remember NA used to only be 1 server and WG split it to east and west after [edited]tons of complaints about lag and packet loss (never did fix that did ya WG?) and also so SA and EU players could have decent connect to east coast and our fine aussie and kiwi brothers could connect to west.

_Gungrave_ #33 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 15:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 36639 battles
  • 9,381
  • [JGRN] JGRN
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostDoomslinger, on Aug 13 2017 - 01:26, said:

They need a north american central server and a south american central server. That would solve all the problems and I think South America would be closer to Australia than NA west even if it was a central server. You could chum around with BR and other jajajajaja players. It would be mostly team killing and tank ramming at the start of every battle and "testing" their guns.

 

What is with you people wanting to seperate the NA and SA players?

Hurk #34 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 15:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 46488 battles
  • 14,253
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View Post_Gungrave_, on Aug 13 2017 - 07:42, said:

What is with you people wanting to seperate the NA and SA players?

they normally play vastly different than US based players.



_Gungrave_ #35 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 15:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 36639 battles
  • 9,381
  • [JGRN] JGRN
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostNonamanadus, on Aug 13 2017 - 02:19, said:

 

Chances are they would sell the rights to the NA market before they closed the doors. 

 

Unlikely I mean WG has somewhat talked about the idea of a WoT 2.0 which will have modern tanks so they might keep their NA offices if they ever decide to develop WoT 2.0 though I highly doubt they will get most WoT 1.0 players to jump ship as most of us are fairly tired of their ███ by now.

 

View PostHurk, on Aug 13 2017 - 15:44, said:

they normally play vastly different than US based players.

 

I rarely see them play any worse I mean most of the time people use them as an excuse for why they lost when in reality its just yet another thing in their long list of excuses they like to use.

Edited by _Gungrave_, Aug 13 2017 - 15:48.


Duqe #36 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 15:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 24485 battles
  • 7,550
  • [BERT] BERT
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011

View Post_Gungrave_, on Aug 13 2017 - 15:46, said:

 

I rarely see them play any worse I mean most of the time people use them as an excuse for why they lost when in reality its just yet another thing in their long list of excuses they like to use.

 

To be fair, I'm playing with an average latency of 250-400ms., I should damn well be allowed to use it as an excuse when my every input is like .25-.5 seconds late.



_Gungrave_ #37 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 16:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 36639 battles
  • 9,381
  • [JGRN] JGRN
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostDuqe, on Aug 13 2017 - 15:51, said:

 

To be fair, I'm playing with an average latency of 250-400ms., I should damn well be allowed to use it as an excuse when my every input is like .25-.5 seconds late.

 

Well thats different, thats a technical issue and even I have to fight packet loss every match myself where my ping shoots up to 999 for 5 seconds and I cant control my tank during that time which results in me losing lots of HP or getting killed.

Stugmeister #38 Posted Aug 13 2017 - 17:04

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17721 battles
  • 59
  • [KGM] KGM
  • Member since:
    01-16-2014

View PostDoomslinger, on Aug 13 2017 - 01:26, said:

They need a north american central server and a south american central server. That would solve all the problems and I think South America would be closer to Australia than NA west even if it was a central server. You could chum around with BR and other jajajajaja players. It would be mostly team killing and tank ramming at the start of every battle and "testing" their guns.

 

Wow we can only hope and dream...it will never happen but it would be nice.

SuckerPuncher #39 Posted Aug 16 2017 - 02:00

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 36755 battles
  • 937
  • [GUNS] GUNS
  • Member since:
    09-17-2011

View PostAegis270, on Aug 12 2017 - 18:10, said:

 

 this entire move is because the NA servers have been losing so many players as to become unprofitable for WG. They lose many more without a serious uptick in people signing up, and they'll pull the plug altogether. 

 

What a load of BS, and I will tell you why: 

  1. The SEA server has less than half the population of the NA servers and it is still a thing.  If they were gonna kill anything due to lack of participation the SEA server would be target #1.
  2. On a per player basis, the NA server spends more money than any other server.  Again if they would kill anything it would be the sea server since it not only has a smaller player base but that base does not spend as much money.

 

If the aussies leave it won't even be a blip.  If however they use the opportunity to actually improve the physical support structure that runs the game they just might add a few players.



awildseaking #40 Posted Aug 16 2017 - 02:16

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7615 battles
  • 388
  • [AWOO] AWOO
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015
Hate to be blunt, but if you were significant, you would have your own server. Why do you think we're getting merged? Because we're insignificant. WoT is now an EU/RU game.

Edited by awildseaking, Aug 16 2017 - 02:17.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users