[Suggestion] Please let us manually change map instance.

[Biff.5312]

The existing process is good both at allowing movement and at ensuring new maps have an opportunity to populate/be abandoned when it makes sense. Allowing players to initiate the movement would lead to migrations in and out of maps as the pop is perceived to be climbing/shrinking and very likely would be an absolute mess.

[Sondergaard.8469]

> @"Biff.5312" said:

> The existing process is good both at allowing movement and at ensuring new maps have an opportunity to populate/be abandoned when it makes sense. Allowing players to initiate the movement would lead to migrations in and out of maps as the pop is perceived to be climbing/shrinking and very likely would be an absolute mess.

 

There are ways to work around this. For example, set a minimum population limit on an instance for showing in the manual swap list. If there's less than 10 players in a map for example, it wouldn't show up as an option to jump to.

Likewise, for updates, if an instance is scheduled for updates, it won't show up in the list until it's finished rebooting, and the client version matches the server version.

 

Essentially, they don't have to throw away all the existing logic about migrating instances, bonuses, etc to make this work. They can layer this on top of that, and set restrictions in the 'swapping instances' to follow the same rules the current system does, or limit issues like the ones you mentioned.

[Gop.8713]

It seems like an RP chat channel would solve this and many other RP-related issues. I know that's been floated before and no one seemed to like it much, but I never really understood why . . .

[Random Object.1298]

> @"Hati.5734" said:

> I really wish RPers would use LFG but the problem is that you can only make parties unless you're a commander so you're going to end up with tiny groups. I try to advertise when places like The Busted Flagon are busy so people can taxi in but nobody checks LFG now.

 

The trouble with the LFG tool is that anyone is able to join the party even if they aren't on the same server cluster - NA players joining EU players and the reverse. Once joined the LFG message changes if the joiner had something different in their message, erasing the original from the search. These issues make the LFG a non-ideal solution.

 

> @"Gop.8713" said:

> It seems like an RP chat channel would solve this and many other RP-related issues. I know that's been floated before and no one seemed to like it much, but I never really understood why . . .

 

There're chats like this in other games, but they are an absolute magnet to every troll with time on their hands and a keyboard nearby. The closest thing to that is guild chat, but there remains the issue of being unable to change shards without partying up so we're left with the original problem.

[Gop.8713]

> @"Random Object.1298" said:

> > @"Hati.5734" said:

> > I really wish RPers would use LFG but the problem is that you can only make parties unless you're a commander so you're going to end up with tiny groups. I try to advertise when places like The Busted Flagon are busy so people can taxi in but nobody checks LFG now.

>

> The trouble with the LFG tool is that anyone is able to join the party even if they aren't on the same server cluster - NA players joining EU players and the reverse. Once joined the LFG message changes if the joiner had something different in their message, erasing the original from the search. These issues make the LFG a non-ideal solution.

>

> > @"Gop.8713" said:

> > It seems like an RP chat channel would solve this and many other RP-related issues. I know that's been floated before and no one seemed to like it much, but I never really understood why . . .

>

> There're chats like this in other games, but they are an absolute magnet to every troll with time on their hands and a keyboard nearby. The closest thing to that is guild chat, but there remains the issue of being unable to change shards without partying up so we're left with the original problem.

 

Okay I guess I can see that but it seems like any tool that allowed currently unaffiliated ppl to find fellow rpers would suffer from the same problem . . .

 

As to the actual suggestion of being able to manually select different instances I think it would be great for a multitude of reasons, but I'm guessing they'd rather not have players directly involved in deciding which instances get populated, for whatever reason . . .

[phs.6089]

I support this idea for many reasons e,g not lagging in crowded LA., checking map for dem caffeinated sktitt etc