The sky has not fallen (yet)

[Draegan]

The point is that if you design it correctly, you advance by heading to the place where the invasion is happening, not a predetermined static quest hub.

Therefore you wouldn't have a system that kept you from playing the game you intended to play. It would be the actual game.

This.

You seem to be reading past the point where the main gameplay is questing.  The main gameplay is doing invasions or whatever.  Maybe quests, a lot less of them, are the side things you do during low points of game play.

The industry after WOW started to thinking THE MORE QUESTS THE BETTER!  And started to brag that they had 10,0000000000.56 quests in their game and put that on their box.  The model is changing (finally) from masking the grind with stupid quests, to something greater.

Imagine if you can just create the game without creating 100 quests per level?  Imagine the saved dev cost from having writers write stupid shit all day that no one reads.  Imaged the save dev cost from your linguistic team from having to translate all that bullshit into 4 languages.  Imagine having to not translate hidden pop culture references or comb for offensive words in other languages.

Good stuff.  I just saved every dev company billions of dollars.

[Lantyssa]

I don't think MMOs ever can tap into the explorer archetype very well to be honest due to the nature of the design. The fact is you are sharing the world with a LOT of other people, which totally breaks exploration  for me. For example Skyrim was fantastic for exploring, but add more than a few other people into that world and it would lose that aspect. To explore you need wilderness and emptiness, and MMOs don't do that anymore.

Explorer can be tapped, it requires a bit of different thinking though.  SWG was perfect early in its life.  I took scout classes to planets like Yavin IV and Dathomir where no one was.  There were little hidden quests if you got your faction high enough, resource hunting, etc.  It required being stealthy and careful.  But then they threw balance out the window and one person in good armor could pretty much kill anything.  (I'll refrain from going on that rant.)  Regardless, early in the game there was wilderness where only a few of us were crazy enough to trek through.

GW2 is actually pretty good in this regard.  There are lots of little hidden nooks and varied terrain.

So it is possible.

[Kageru]

I'm simply not in favor of systems that, for the sake of worldiness, keep me from playing the game I enjoy and sat down to play.  GW2 events at a low level with a fuckton of people around, like Minor Rifts and those stronghold thingies, are similar to what I sat down to do that they're a fun bit of dynamism.  I really enjoyed them, as they never got in the way but were "there" if I felt like doing them.

How GW2 events will work at the edge case of a very low pop zone and higher complexity, I don't know.

Neither do I, since I've only seen the early zones and low population was hard to come by in the beta sessions. But the events are supposed to scale to the number of people present and that seemed to be working.

[UnSub]

Imagine if you can just create the game without creating 100 quests per level?  Imagine the saved dev cost from having writers write stupid shit all day that no one reads.  Imaged the save dev cost from your linguistic team from having to translate all that bullshit into 4 languages.  Imagine having to not translate hidden pop culture references or comb for offensive words in other languages.

Imagine logging in, finding that you just missed the previous invasion and now you need to wait for the RNG to trigger the next one.

Or you play on a low-pop server / off-peak time, and hear stories of massive battles against fantastic creatures, but your personal experiences is fighting 5 goblins who hop off the back of a donkey cart because there aren't enough people to trigger the good stuff.

And then there is the question of fast travel - do you have it so that players can quickly move to hotspots? Or does that also result in players using it to travel long distances and then ignore the event, but still count towards the event population and thus make it harder for players actually involved in the event?

And what happens when the players lose? If it is just about slow progress, perhaps it doesn't matter, but if the invasion is a big deal and players keep losing, they are probably going to suffer for their loss. Good luck in keeping those players logging in.

Quests work because they are always there. If you have to log out, they'll wait for you. There has yet to be a MMO that has offered major, world altering events that has been as successful (and even though people fondly remember Asheron's Call, the player numbers were with EQ and UO) as a game that just offered quests / static content. That doesn't mean it will always be the case, but history isn't on its side.

If you create a world, then tell players, "Go on - you have freedom here!" a large group tend to look blankly, scratch their head a bit then log off to play WoW.

[Kageru]

Imagine logging in, finding that you just missed the previous invasion and now you need to wait for the RNG to trigger the next one.

Or you play on a low-pop server / off-peak time, and hear stories of massive battles against fantastic creatures, but your personal experiences is fighting 5 goblins who hop off the back of a donkey cart because there aren't enough people to trigger the good stuff.

And then there is the question of fast travel - do you have it so that players can quickly move to hotspots? Or does that also result in players using it to travel long distances and then ignore the event, but still count towards the event population and thus make it harder for players actually involved in the event?

And what happens when the players lose? If it is just about slow progress, perhaps it doesn't matter, but if the invasion is a big deal and players keep losing, they are probably going to suffer for their loss. Good luck in keeping those players logging in.

Quests work because they are always there. If you have to log out, they'll wait for you. There has yet to be a MMO that has offered major, world altering events that has been as successful (and even though people fondly remember Asheron's Call, the player numbers were with EQ and UO) as a game that just offered quests / static content. That doesn't mean it will always be the case, but history isn't on its side.

If you create a world, then tell players, "Go on - you have freedom here!" a large group tend to look blankly, scratch their head a bit then log off to play WoW.

1. Have lots of small events, a short duration between repititions and something else productive to do in the area while you wait for a repeat.

2. Have the event scale to people available (I remember this element being so annoying in warhammer).

3. Size and frequency of the event will determine how widely you need to pull from. If it's an irregular, server-wide, event you'd better have fast travel.

4. The next event/sequence is about recovering from the loss. I don't think anyone would argue permanently consumed content is a good idea, ultimately there has to be some cycle.

Though this mostly applies to the small-event model of GW2 (noobie zones). A full zone invasion model is going to work differently, though it could just as easily be emulated by linking smaller events and that scales better. You don't really want your entire playerbase congregating in one spot.

I don't dislike quests. The problem with them is they don't scale and encourage multi-player gaming. You are competing for completion "Killstealer!", they don't scale and being "lockstep" you can't just join in to someone else's quests. It's ultimately a solo game model and the next step will be doing better.
 

[caladein]

The point is that if you design it correctly, you advance by heading to the place where the invasion is happening, not a predetermined static quest hub.

Therefore you wouldn't have a system that kept you from playing the game you intended to play. It would be the actual game.

It's not "the actual game" though.  That's like saying traveling to and between quest hubs and locations is the actual game.  They're both systems that point me to a set of mobs that are more rewarding to kill (or any other mechanic) than other similar ones.  I think how I get to dispatch those mobs is much more important.  Any occasionally worthwhile narrative content is a plus.  (Since we're talking about games with dynamic systems, I assume "story" isn't the point to the extent it is in SWTOR.)

Since camping is pretty dreadful, both for the game and as a player at times, those systems need to exist.  But past some minimum point I don't see a large enough gain to justify the travel time, randomness, and hitting edge cases on much less tightly controlled systems.  But I can see how that math can be different for other people.

[Furiously]

The one problem with many of the events is they spawn a champion type mob at the end.

A solo person is going to have a REALLY hard time killing one.

[Paelos]

The point is that if you design it correctly, you advance by heading to the place where the invasion is happening, not a predetermined static quest hub.

Therefore you wouldn't have a system that kept you from playing the game you intended to play. It would be the actual game.

It's not "the actual game" though.  That's like saying traveling to and between quest hubs and locations is the actual game.  They're both systems that point me to a set of mobs that are more rewarding to kill (or any other mechanic) than other similar ones.  I think how I get to dispatch those mobs is much more important.  Any occasionally worthwhile narrative content is a plus.  (Since we're talking about games with dynamic systems, I assume "story" isn't the point to the extent it is in SWTOR.)

The point would be to defeat the enemy encroaching. Horizons sort of had this idea, but they completely cocked it up and ended up bailing on it for static areas.

[Draegan]

Imagine logging in, finding that you just missed the previous invasion and now you need to wait for the RNG to trigger the next one.

Or you play on a low-pop server / off-peak time, and hear stories of massive battles against fantastic creatures, but your personal experiences is fighting 5 goblins who hop off the back of a donkey cart because there aren't enough people to trigger the good stuff.

And then there is the question of fast travel - do you have it so that players can quickly move to hotspots? Or does that also result in players using it to travel long distances and then ignore the event, but still count towards the event population and thus make it harder for players actually involved in the event?

And what happens when the players lose? If it is just about slow progress, perhaps it doesn't matter, but if the invasion is a big deal and players keep losing, they are probably going to suffer for their loss. Good luck in keeping those players logging in.

Quests work because they are always there. If you have to log out, they'll wait for you. There has yet to be a MMO that has offered major, world altering events that has been as successful (and even though people fondly remember Asheron's Call, the player numbers were with EQ and UO) as a game that just offered quests / static content. That doesn't mean it will always be the case, but history isn't on its side.

If you create a world, then tell players, "Go on - you have freedom here!" a large group tend to look blankly, scratch their head a bit then log off to play WoW.

I haven't read Kag's response yet (and my cursory glance seems that he's right), but here's mine.  What you're doing is creating designs specifically to make the game shitty.  I'll go point by point.

1)  Who said you have to design a system around needing a specific event?  GW2 designs their game around just doing events, enjoying them, and getting xp/rewards/pts that you want and need.  Stop creating a game in your mind that's trying to shoehorn in the WOW design.  You aren't doing invasions/events for specific items.  You're doing them because that's the game you're playing.  If it's loot, then all events of a specific level/tier/type whatever have the same loot table, or they all drop points to buy loot.  Whatever.  Details.

2)  Events can scale, GW2's tech proves that you can do this.  Instead of doing this with 500 PCs you're doing it with 500 NPCs.  Instead of there being 100 mobs, there are 20.  Instead of there being 100 elites and 500 normals, there are 1 elite elite and 5 normals and you're solo.  -- Also, who says you're even on a server?  GW2 style that shit and let people switch servers at will.  Get rid of servers all-to-gether and create a giant one that is just sharded/phased whatever when specific populations hit different levels.  Lots of solutions to the low pop stuff.  If off hour pops are still a problem after this, that's your own fault.  I can't give you everything.  But if you're used to off-hours, you're used to low pop stuff in current games unless you play with other regions of the world.

3)  I duno, GW2 allows fast travel and it's fucking amazing.  I'd put this in every game I make.  Even if you don't do this specifically, you can always allow players to teleport into the nearest hotspot or whatever you want to call it.  Shrug, plenty of solutions here if you design your game around this concept.

4)  You lose to a big invasion?  Ok good job.  The game doesn't have to be centered around one giant invasion.  There can be a lot of other things going on around the world.  They can also happen often enough that if you fuck one up, you'll catch another major one sooner rather than later.  -- DESIGN your game around invasions.  This way they aren't uber special.  This way they aren't "AWESOME EVENTS" they are just part of the game, part of a dynamic experience.  Failing a single invasion should never have you stop progress.  If you design your game and this happens, then you suck at designing games.  There should always be stuff going on in your world so that you always have somethign to do and one specific thing isn't cockblocking you.

Also design a game that doesn't create obvious cockblocks that piss people off.  Since invasions are the main source of fun in the game, there shouldn't be anything it's blocking since thats what you want to be doing.

5)  You're just not thinking out of the WOW box.  I do not want to create a game around major world altering events.  I want to create a game around small slightly shifting world goings-on.  Major events are great for once in a while, but I want minor things always happening.  Play GW2 to get a taste of what I'm thinking of.  Those events are always happening and they will always happen and when you log back in something else is happening for you to go do.  No one actually likes killing 10 rats and collecting bear asses or escorting retard AI walking down a road.  It's 2012, we can do better than that.

6)  I also don't want to see a world where the game says "GO!".  That's bad design, and I never said you have to create it.  You can easily have mechanisms in the game that point you a long. Log into the newbie world and you just see streams of NPCs running towards whatever.  You hear people say "c'mon!" and you follow through.  Then you leave the newbie world and your map and UI tell you where stuff is going on and each event will give you a check list or a bar or whatever metric you can thing of, visually, telling you how you're doing or what needs to happen or something.

There, you just told players what to do.  Again GW2 does this sooooo well, please go play it, this type of game system is the future of MMORPGs and it's still pretty basic because it's all static scripting.

[Draegan]

The point is that if you design it correctly, you advance by heading to the place where the invasion is happening, not a predetermined static quest hub.

Therefore you wouldn't have a system that kept you from playing the game you intended to play. It would be the actual game.

It's not "the actual game" though.  That's like saying traveling to and between quest hubs and locations is the actual game.  They're both systems that point me to a set of mobs that are more rewarding to kill (or any other mechanic) than other similar ones.  I think how I get to dispatch those mobs is much more important.  Any occasionally worthwhile narrative content is a plus.  (Since we're talking about games with dynamic systems, I assume "story" isn't the point to the extent it is in SWTOR.)

Since camping is pretty dreadful, both for the game and as a player at times, those systems need to exist.  But past some minimum point I don't see a large enough gain to justify the travel time, randomness, and hitting edge cases on much less tightly controlled systems.  But I can see how that math can be different for other people.

The actual game is seeing shit happen in the world and jump in and kill bad guys that are doing shit whether you're there or not.  In any quest driven game you run into an area circled on your map, you kill a bunch of mobs that are standing in static locations waiting to be killed.  Boring. 

I'll repeat and shill for Anet some more, but please try it out.  Snag some of the beta keys they are handing out for June 8th and play it.  If you play for more than 2-3 hours you'll never want to play static quest hub games ever again.

[caladein]

If you play for more than 2-3 hours you'll never want to play static quest hub games ever again.

I have, and I didn't care for it.

Edit: I'll add, having the quests be "out there" instead having to pick them up in place X and going out to do them in place Y isn't fundamentally different.  I'm still making a counter go up by clicking on or killing things.  Having the quests not always be there (events) isn't relevant, they are either there and I do them or they're not and I don't.

[caladein]

To put it philosophically: I don't think that the game-state doing things when I'm not there adds value in-and-of-itself, much less being something important.  I experience the game-state as it is when I'm there, not when I'm not.  The experience that I have is what matters, not that it is unique or shared or the product of vast modelling systems.  Dynamic systems (including world PvP in my opinion) do add variety though, which adds value on repeat playthroughs.

As a practical matter, dynamic systems like the ones described in these past few pages just haven't been shown to produce the same quality of experience as static ones on a consistent basis.  They appear to be harder to get right.

Of course, the ideal is highly dynamic, in that the game is giving you exactly what you're looking for at all times.  But that's also a very personal experience, so the need or possibility even for a communal objective game-state fades away.

[Draegan]

I guess I disagree with you then.  For myself, quest driven content is oldhat.  I like a world that is driven by visual cues and not checklists and circles on a minimap.

The pull of a dynamic system, that is the primary drive behind content, is that you show up somewhere and something is just starting or finishing, or you come in the middle.  There are other people/npcs doing it.  You get the feeling that it's actually a living world rather than a series of things just waiting for you to show up to do.

I personally like that.

[Paelos]

Dynamic systems have never actually been done. It's always been static worlds with dynamic veneers. That's wholly different, and people can see through it very quickly.

People FEAR change. They are by nature anti-change. However, we have reached the absolute limit of possible innovation within the toolbar/mmo/static world scenario. Without changing either the combat or the static world, or even (gasp) both, nobody will make big money on these types of games again.

[Lantyssa]

And what happens when the players lose? If it is just about slow progress, perhaps it doesn't matter, but if the invasion is a big deal and players keep losing, they are probably going to suffer for their loss. Good luck in keeping those players logging in.

This is a design issue.  Losing an invasion needs to equate to a different story path rather than a kick to the groin.

Since we're in TOR, I'll use a revamped Ilum as an example:  The two sides fight over this planet.  Both players and NPCs.  NPCs need to spawn to help balance numbers, because the goal is to dynamically scale to present at least a modicum of challenge.  There are four overall states:

1) Contested
2) Republic-controlled
3) Imperial-controlled
4) Truce

(1) will be the most common.  During this little hotspots will appear across the map.  They can be themed on which sides' base they're closer to, but the creators need to use some imagination.  Maybe a patrol is looking for the opposing side.  A surveillance tower is coming under attack.  The tower commander wants to plant bugs.  Chain events.

(2) (3) Eventually one side wins by having their main base taken over.  The loser falls back to a hidden encampment.  Now the zone takes a theme where the winning side is in control.  Patrols are looking for insurgents.  Wampas are savaging an outpost.  Guerilla strikes against the victors.  Scavengers to run off.  Make it so the dominating side cannot prevent a slide back to contested based on the events presented to them.  They can slow it, but not stop it.  At least if the side in retreat makes an attempt.  If activity is happening though, the state eventually reaches (1) and those sets of events start happening.

(4) If not much activity happens for a while then a Truce state is entered.   This can happen from any of the others.  It can be a transitionary state to allow a bit of a breather.  Exact implementation isn't important for this discussion.  Fewer direct conflict related events happen.  More logistics or even cooperative events occur.  Eventually it transitions into (1).  Stuff still needs to be happening though!

Individual events could occur with any state.  Others could be restricted.  Chaining events so there is a natural flow back and forth would be best.  But that's how you do an invasion.  Let it lead to new events, not a crushing loss for a side.

[Kageru]

If you play for more than 2-3 hours you'll never want to play static quest hub games ever again.

I have, and I didn't care for it.

Edit: I'll add, having the quests be "out there" instead having to pick them up in place X and going out to do them in place Y isn't fundamentally different.  I'm still making a counter go up by clicking on or killing things.  Having the quests not always be there (events) isn't relevant, they are either there and I do them or they're not and I don't.

One is a solo experience "my quest" and the other is inherently multi-player "the event on everyone's map" which is the reason one better suits a MMO. Then again I would expect fans of SWTOR to also be fans of a single player experience in a MMO setting because that was its focus.

[Evildrider]

Or you are like me and play any MMO til endgame as a single player game.  I want to level as fast as possible and I've never found a game where grouping has made it actually faster then I can do it by myself.

[Ingmar]

I find I kind of resent other players getting in on my kills even when they're supposed to (WAR PQs for example.) This probably bodes ill for my enjoyment of GW2.

[Fordel]

I find I kind of resent other players getting in on my kills even when they're supposed to (WAR PQs for example.) This probably bodes ill for my enjoyment of GW2.

Maybe if you weren't such a jerkhole kill stealer yourself!

[Kageru]

That's because Warhammer PQ's were designed as being competitive. Only the top ranked got the good rewards so every other player was your opponent and certain classes were just screwed because of the poor systems they used to measure contribution. In GW2 if you do even a bit of damage to a mob you get full loot and XP, and if you contribute even a bit to the event you generally get "gold" contribution, so more players the merrier. In the GW2 thread I quoted one of the designers saying that playing warhammer and having high levels cherry pick PQ's and make any lower level contribution irrelevant was one of the design inputs.

It helped me realise that I don't so much want to play solo as I hate LFG and the hyper-competitive "dungeon sprinting" the genre has become.

Of course if you are focused on getting to raiding then the whole thing is just a painfully extended tutorial to be skipped ASAP, but I'd be happy to see alternative end-games to the current raid model too.

[Lantyssa]

I find I kind of resent other players getting in on my kills even when they're supposed to (WAR PQs for example.) This probably bodes ill for my enjoyment of GW2.

Much like I only enjoyed PvP in WAR, I find I only like working with strangers in GW2.

It should be less of an issue as people spread out through the world, though.

[Sjofn]

Dammit, WAR, why did you wind up shitty!

(Sorry, I always feel like I should say that when WAR's PvP gets mentioned, since I, too, only really enjoy PvP in Mythic games I do not know why.)

[Scold]

Quests work because they are always there. If you have to log out, they'll wait for you. There has yet to be a MMO that has offered major, world altering events that has been as successful (and even though people fondly remember Asheron's Call, the player numbers were with EQ and UO) as a game that just offered quests / static content. That doesn't mean it will always be the case, but history isn't on its side.

Not sure if this counts as the same thing, but I remember reading recently that LoTRO was adopting AC's monthly content/story update model going forward. It'll be interesting to see how that affects their metrics.

[Ingmar]

That's because Warhammer PQ's were designed as being competitive.

No, I don't really think this was the issue for me. First off, I played a healer, and secondly I understand obviously that the content can't happen at all without them there. I'm not saying it is logical, but for me it takes away from the experience in PVE if I (and my group of people I know already) need help from outsiders to beat something. I like group content, I just don't like group content where I don't know anybody.

I feel differently about PVP with strangers but I'm not sure why. (EDIT: To clarify I don't mind PVP with strangers at all.)

[Abelian75]

That's weird, I also don't do much PvP in MMOs, but really enjoyed it in WAR (until it sucked, of course).  I guess for me it sort of felt like what Draegan is talking about with there being a difference between dynamic content that's there as a distraction from questing, and dynamic content that IS the game itself.  In this case, WAR PvP felt like it was the actual game, whereas in most MMOs I feel like it's this thing that people who really want to kill other people can do if they want.

I also think it was nice that, in that setting, there isn't actually a chance of peace between, say, Dwarfs and Greenskins.  In a setting like WoW, I always feel actively driven away from PvP because the "best" course of action seems to be that maybe the various people stop killing each other and instead fight the evil gods/dragons.  So PvP ends up feeling weirdly morally degenerate to me.  I guess I prefer a completely morally black and white (or just... black, in the case of Warhammer to some extent) setting if I'm going to be doing faction-based PvP.  Also, I kind of hate factions anyway if it isn't a completely black and white thing.

[tazelbain]

That does sound weird to me.  I thought GW2's profoundly co-operative game design was liberating.  You never have to worry about stepping on people toes.  If I see anybody fighting, is okay to help? The answer is always YES! Will passing strangers bother to rez me? YES!  Do those people over there want my help killing that giant demon thing? YES!  I have no idea want those guys are doing, can I join them? Yes!

[Kageru]

“Subscriber numbers are funny things. How you count them – the math you use – really matters, and there are lots of variables to consider,” he said. “Such as, people that simply subscribe compared to people that actually buy the box. There are very different numbers out there, and you should be smart about which one you use when you talk to the press. -
(VG 24/7)

I had no idea accurately counting the number of people giving you money each month was so hard.

[Maledict]

That does sound weird to me.  I thought GW2's profoundly co-operative game design was liberating.  You never have to worry about stepping on people toes.  If I see anybody fighting, is okay to help? The answer is always YES! Will passing strangers bother to rez me? YES!  Do those people over there want my help killing that giant demon thing? YES!  I have no idea want those guys are doing, can I join them? Yes!

The fact that rezzing other people gives you xp is brilliant. They really have gone out of their way to try and make every possible interaction with other players beneficial rather than competitive.

[Simond]

“Subscriber numbers are funny things. How you count them – the math you use – really matters, and there are lots of variables to consider,” he said. “Such as, people that simply subscribe compared to people that actually buy the box. There are very different numbers out there, and you should be smart about which one you use when you talk to the press. -
(VG 24/7)

I had no idea accurately counting the number of people giving you money each month was so hard.

I'd imagine that massaging the sub numbers in such a way that EA doesn't immediately fire the rest of Bioware Austin for gross incompetence is actually quite a task.

[UnSub]

“Subscriber numbers are funny things. How you count them – the math you use – really matters, and there are lots of variables to consider,” he said. “Such as, people that simply subscribe compared to people that actually buy the box. There are very different numbers out there, and you should be smart about which one you use when you talk to the press. -
(VG 24/7)

I had no idea accurately counting the number of people giving you money each month was so hard.

My favourite bit was this:

Lusinchi said that while he is no expert when it comes to subscriber numbers,

I've seen him listed as a Lead Designer for SWOR. That's not something you want a lead designer on a MMO starting off his long set of topical comments with. Especially when he still doesn't talk in actual numbers.

[Falconeer]

In other clownshoes news, server transfers started today and they are allowing moves from 10 servers out of the 214 total. My server, of course, is not part of the transfer so I am STILL stuck in a DEAD town with no PvP match ever starting for who knows how long. Way to keep your customers' subscription money.

I wonder what the hell qualifies as a low-population server to them. I am pissed off.

Free Character Transfers Now Available On Select Servers


The initial character transfer service is now available, allowing qualifying characters to be transferred at no charge from selected origin servers to selected destination servers. This character transfer service will be available as long as is required to help maintain population balance across the service and create a better overall gameplay experience. Select servers will be eligible for free character transfers based on the player populations of the origin and destination servers.

To qualify for a free character transfer from a low population sever to a high population server, a player must have a character on one of the selected origin servers and must meet the following requirements:

A player’s account cannot be in a banned status.
The character being transferred cannot be a guild master; they must either resign as master or demote themselves to a lower guild rank to be transferred. (Guild rankings and status will not be transferred.)
To start the character transfer process, login to your account, click My Account and then click Character Transfers in the left hand menu. From there you will be able to select Start a Character Transfer and see if you have any characters eligible for transfer to selected servers.

The character transfer service will be made available gradually, starting with a small number of the lowest population servers and adding more until all servers eligible for transfer are made available in the service. Eligible servers will be listed as they become available for transfers at www.swtor.com/transfer. This is to prevent potential server load issues. As a result, you may have to wait a short period before you can begin your character transfer.

After you confirm your character transfer request, it can take up to three hours for your requested characters to be transferred. During this period you will be unable to login to any of the characters that are being transferred, or any other character on that origin server. If you are playing one of these characters when you confirm your transfer, you will be logged off from that character and server until the transfer is complete.

You will be notified via email (to the email address registered on your game account) once your character transfer requests have been processed. The character transfer page will also be updated at that time.

Moving forward, we are committed to making improvements to the character transfer service to provide you with a great gameplay experience. For more information on the character transfer service, please read our FAQ on the character transfer service and our recent Community blog. You can also keep up to date on the latest news and updates about Star Wars: The Old Republic by visiting www.StarWarsTheOldRepublic.com, as well as joining us on Twitter and Facebook.

[luckton]

As much angst as I have over them fracking up this MMO, I think it's alright for them to start this character transfer thing off small and slow and then ramp it up as things start to work.

Pretty sure the last thing you want to do is just have everyone wantonly transfer their characters where ever they want to without abandon on day 1.  When the servers crash and everyone looses their data and progress, you're pretty much done.

So, yeah, you're sounding like a flame-baiter.  Stop it.

[Falconeer]

If anything has ever been flame-baiting is telling someone to "stop it". Don't be that asshole.

[luckton]

Excellent...now we just need someone to come in to tell us both to shut up and stop acting like fools for the circle-jerk to be complete  

Edit: To be clear, just poking fun at the issue.  I need more coffee 

[Sky]

I, too, am outraged that your whims are not catered to for a completely meaningless diversion.