Is it against the terms of service

@ZAP The problems of choosing which players to move, where to move them to and in which order to insert them are similar whether you move 50 players from one shard to another or you move half a shard.

"Waqui;c-2086898" wrote:
@ZAP The problems of choosing which players to move, where to move them to and in which order to insert them are similar whether you move 50 players from one shard to another or you move half a shard.

Hmmm, what you’re saying now doesn’t seem different, but what they did with the ship shard move seems different than rearranging every shard.

I don’t think it’s even that difficult to do, the difficulty lies in the fairness and I just don’t see how that wouldn’t be difficult if not impossible, especially with this player base.

"ZAP;c-2086906" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2086898" wrote:
@ZAP The problems of choosing which players to move, where to move them to and in which order to insert them are similar whether you move 50 players from one shard to another or you move half a shard.

Hmmm, what you’re saying now doesn’t seem different, but what they did with the ship shard move seems different than rearranging every shard.

I don’t think it’s even that difficult to do, the difficulty lies in the fairness and I just don’t see how that wouldn’t be difficult if not impossible, especially with this player base.

in the end its also a very large change to make to a game this far into its life, and of all the things that came before it would probably be a leading cause to the "end of the game".

"ZAP;c-2086906" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2086898" wrote:
@ZAP The problems of choosing which players to move, where to move them to and in which order to insert them are similar whether you move 50 players from one shard to another or you move half a shard.

Hmmm, what you’re saying now doesn’t seem different, but what they did with the ship shard move seems different than rearranging every shard.

But still, they have to consider the exact same things in both cases when choosing a solution.

"ZAP;c-2086906" wrote:

I don’t think it’s even that difficult to do, the difficulty lies in the fairness and I just don’t see how that wouldn’t be difficult if not impossible, especially with this player base.

As I wrote previously:

I am not saying, there's a fair solution, but there's a solution which is just as fair (or unfair) as what they did earlier with that fleet shard.

Whether the solution is fair or not and whether players accept it or not are two different things.

"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2086898" wrote:
@ZAP The problems of choosing which players to move, where to move them to and in which order to insert them are similar whether you move 50 players from one shard to another or you move half a shard.

These are not remotely the same problems. I have no idea how they divided the infamous fleet shard, from furthers reports from people on the divided shards...the problem didn't fade.

In terms of finding a fair solution it's not much different. If you can move a low number of players - or even just a single player - in a fair way you can also move more players in a fair way.

"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:

Anyway, you can divide a shard in two by a superbly simple logic. Just make a snapshot of players at some random time, put the even numbers in one shard and odd in another. That way you maintain the status quo while reducing the extremity of high end players on each.

Agreed.

"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:

What's the paradigm you would go with if you were to shuffle shards and maintain some resemblence of fairness?

I'm not saying there's a fair solution. I certainly don't have a fair solution myself. But there's a solution which is just as fair (or unfair) as what was done with that fleet shard.

"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:

Whatever scheme you can think of, will it solve the problem of collusion that this whole discussion stems from or does it merely shuffle the colluding parties?

If a shard shuffle was to solve the "problem" of collusion (I personaly don't see shard chats as a problem) it would have to be repeated very often and you need to ensure that each shuffle will result in different top end players being put together in each shard. In my opinion it would be terrible.

"MaruMaru;c-2087037" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2087036" wrote:

"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2086898" wrote:
@ZAP The problems of choosing which players to move, where to move them to and in which order to insert them are similar whether you move 50 players from one shard to another or you move half a shard.

These are not remotely the same problems. I have no idea how they divided the infamous fleet shard, from furthers reports from people on the divided shards...the problem didn't fade.

In terms of finding a fair solution it's not much different. If you can move a low number of players - or even just a single player - in a fair way you can also move more players in a fair way.

"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:

Anyway, you can divide a shard in two by a superbly simple logic. Just make a snapshot of players at some random time, put the even numbers in one shard and odd in another. That way you maintain the status quo while reducing the extremity of high end players on each.

Agreed.

"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:

What's the paradigm you would go with if you were to shuffle shards and maintain some resemblence of fairness?

I'm not saying there's a fair solution. I certainly don't have a fair solution myself. But there's a solution which is just as fair (or unfair) as what was done with that fleet shard.

"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:

Whatever scheme you can think of, will it solve the problem of collusion that this whole discussion stems from or does it merely shuffle the colluding parties?

If a shard shuffle was to solve the "problem" of collusion (I personaly don't see shard chats as a problem) it would have to be repeated very often and you need to ensure that each shuffle will result in different top end players being put together in each shard. In my opinion it would be terrible.

If shard chats is not the problem, is there a problem that calls for any change in shard structure whether easy to implement or not?

In my opinion there isn't but that's not the point.

Not that i care about it, don't even change my payout time...
But if shard is a problem to some people, why not allow one shard jump per month? It's a gamble, you may end up in a worse shard, it's up to you stay where you are or try a new ground, not happy? Wait 30 days and jump again.

"MaruMaru;c-2087047" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2087045" wrote:

"MaruMaru;c-2087037" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2087036" wrote:

"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:

"Waqui;c-2086898" wrote:
@ZAP The problems of choosing which players to move, where to move them to and in which order to insert them are similar whether you move 50 players from one shard to another or you move half a shard.

These are not remotely the same problems. I have no idea how they divided the infamous fleet shard, from furthers reports from people on the divided shards...the problem didn't fade.

In terms of finding a fair solution it's not much different. If you can move a low number of players - or even just a single player - in a fair way you can also move more players in a fair way.

"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:

Anyway, you can divide a shard in two by a superbly simple logic. Just make a snapshot of players at some random time, put the even numbers in one shard and odd in another. That way you maintain the status quo while reducing the extremity of high end players on each.

Agreed.

"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:

What's the paradigm you would go with if you were to shuffle shards and maintain some resemblence of fairness?

I'm not saying there's a fair solution. I certainly don't have a fair solution myself. But there's a solution which is just as fair (or unfair) as what was done with that fleet shard.

"MaruMaru;c-2087026" wrote:

Whatever scheme you can think of, will it solve the problem of collusion that this whole discussion stems from or does it merely shuffle the colluding parties?

If a shard shuffle was to solve the "problem" of collusion (I personaly don't see shard chats as a problem) it would have to be repeated very often and you need to ensure that each shuffle will result in different top end players being put together in each shard. In my opinion it would be terrible.

If shard chats is not the problem, is there a problem that calls for any change in shard structure whether easy to implement or not?

In my opinion there isn't but that's not the point.

Ok, I don't follow the point then.

You'll see the point back where this part of the discussion started:

"Waqui;c-2086775" wrote:

"Kyno;c-2086743" wrote:

"BobcatSkywalker;c-2086741" wrote:

"ZAP;c-2086728" wrote:

"BlackIrish;c-2086727" wrote:
I'm against shard mafias. I don't think EA does enough or anything to discourage or stop them.

Do you have any suggestions on how CG could stop it?

Random shard shuffle monthly. But keep limit the movement so people are always in a shard with others who started within the same 60 days to prevent new players from getting matched in shards with 4yr old accounts would help.

If people start setting up monthly shard chats then do the shuffle weekly. It can be a auto run job on their servers and takes 0 effort once set up.

how do you handle the regrouping? what order are they placed in?

CG could do it in a similar way as when they split up that one fleet shard. If they found a fair way to do it back then, they can also find a way to shuffle shards.

My response to Kyno's question. For some reason it spawn several responses.

"Dark_Helmet_85;c-2087049" wrote:
Not that i care about it, don't even change my payout time...
But if shard is a problem to some people, why not allow one shard jump per month? It's a gamble, you may end up in a worse shard, it's up to you stay where you are or try a new ground, not happy? Wait 30 days and jump again.

Cost 500... no, no, no.
cost is 1500 Crystals.

Maybe CG would do it but it may cost 2,000 Crystal's and they would make you have to have all 3 tuskens relic 6 to buy it.

Even if u shuffle shards weekly or monthly ect within 1-2 days a shard chat will be back up and running so it wont actually solve anything at all from it just give a couple of days to resettle but if u change it every day to stop it it would be either get lucky around ur po to get top spots or spend several refreshes to get back up to where u normally are which would cause players to just quite worse then they are all ready