New server needed to keep current player population, otherwise...

  • New server needed to keep current player population, otherwise...

    We will reach a nice balance, once we lose a ton of players, then one server will suffice.

    The current population is WAY too high for a single server with this architecture and small maps sizes.

    I applaud the one world concept, but its not going to work at this population.

    It honestly is starting to feel like the company is just going to allow players to leave to reach equilibrium and that's sad, loss of paying players is always sad.
  • Geez man, you guys just don't get it.... The server population will decrease? Who plans for the their game to fail. This game is fun, they are not scaling correctly. This isn't a single server problem, it's a we didn't use the correct technology lolol... There's servers today that will auto-scale to your demand and then down-scale when it needs to.... IE Vmware.
  • That doesn't help. You can have a thousand servers spinning, but if enough people need to read and write data and share it with everyone else in one zone (like Fort Sterling), you have a data bandwidth problem. What you'd then need to do is stagger data transfer, but that also means people aren't getting the latest necessary data to calculate usage fees on buildings, sale prices on market, etc.

    Speaking as a developer that has and does work with really large networks, spinning up additional server instances that still need to share and transmit the data between all of them does not help. That's not the issue and not the solution to it.
  • I think its more the accumulation of people in the cities.. Back when the world was larger with Queensmarket and Kingsmarket along with tons of other cities would hold up better to the world population because the world size was a lot bigger. They said they can scale these new maps to have more zones.. I think they should do that very fast if they want to get people spread out to take some stress off the zones.
  • As I said they said these new worlds can be expanded, and that's what they need to do. I never said new world.. I just said the older larger worlds would fair better then what we have now. .They claimed with new world they could scale it to the player population so they need to starting scaling it fast.
  • Problem is Archaegeo is after the first month there will be a decrease of population at least 25-35% which is standard for these types of games. Should the devs do the same thing that everyone else does and repeat history? So a quick band aid fix now, then it'll split the community like crazy and then everyone would be complaining about the dead world and leave anyways. I agree that they need some bandwidth to handle the current increased load on the servers. However, a completely new server is not a good idea unless they make it NA / EU, but even then I don't agree with it because again after the first month we will see a decrease in population and that's just fact.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Jerek ().

  • I actually agree having a EU server and NA server could have alleviated some of these launch problems, after a year what would happen when one server is way more populated so people switch causing the other to die.

    Sure basing a decision like that on a fear of lack of success could be a risky move if you alienate too many at launch due to server issues and more leave than would have under the aforementioned scenario.

    Either way its a gamble, but with the amount of people STILL buying this game and filling it up every day more and more, it seems they could have done the EU/NA and retention on BOTH would have been enough.
  • Galenmereth wrote:

    That doesn't help. You can have a thousand servers spinning, but if enough people need to read and write data and share it with everyone else in one zone (like Fort Sterling), you have a data bandwidth problem. What you'd then need to do is stagger data transfer, but that also means people aren't getting the latest necessary data to calculate usage fees on buildings, sale prices on market, etc.

    Speaking as a developer that has and does work with really large networks, spinning up additional server instances that still need to share and transmit the data between all of them does not help. That's not the issue and not the solution to it.
    But we 100% see the issues in all towns and zones now, not just Fort Sterling.

    Jerek wrote:

    Probably is Archaegeo is after the first month there will be a decrease of population at least 25-35% which is standard for these types of games. Should the devs do the same thing that everyone else does and repeat history? So a quick band aid fix now, then it'll split the community like crazy and then everyone would be complaining about the dead world and leave anyways. I agree that they need some bandwidth to handle the current increased load on the servers. However, a completely new server is not a good idea unless they make it NA / EU, but even then I don't agree with it.
    Games that rely on server drops are basically saying they don't care to try to keep the new players.

    If not a new server, expand the current world, it is WAY too small for the current population. 25-35% loss of players will become 40-50%.

    Sure the game will still be playable, but I cant imagine a company that wants to lose even 25% of their customer base.
  • If they were to split the servers I don't think separating NA and EU would be the right call. In the US my ping to central and western Europe is at most 180, and usually 120 although not ideal its playable. Oceanic players on the other hand get pings in excess of 200, and it causes issues for everyone when they are forced to try to compete with people that in some cases have pings in the sub 20's. So if they did add another server they should add one for US/EU and one for the Oceanic players.
  • Archaegeo wrote:

    Galenmereth wrote:

    That doesn't help. You can have a thousand servers spinning, but if enough people need to read and write data and share it with everyone else in one zone (like Fort Sterling), you have a data bandwidth problem. What you'd then need to do is stagger data transfer, but that also means people aren't getting the latest necessary data to calculate usage fees on buildings, sale prices on market, etc.

    Speaking as a developer that has and does work with really large networks, spinning up additional server instances that still need to share and transmit the data between all of them does not help. That's not the issue and not the solution to it.
    But we 100% see the issues in all towns and zones now, not just Fort Sterling.

    Jerek wrote:

    Probably is Archaegeo is after the first month there will be a decrease of population at least 25-35% which is standard for these types of games. Should the devs do the same thing that everyone else does and repeat history? So a quick band aid fix now, then it'll split the community like crazy and then everyone would be complaining about the dead world and leave anyways. I agree that they need some bandwidth to handle the current increased load on the servers. However, a completely new server is not a good idea unless they make it NA / EU, but even then I don't agree with it.
    Games that rely on server drops are basically saying they don't care to try to keep the new players.
    If not a new server, expand the current world, it is WAY too small for the current population. 25-35% loss of players will become 40-50%.

    Sure the game will still be playable, but I cant imagine a company that wants to lose even 25% of their customer base.
    Well at the end of the day Sandbox Interactive is a business, and a smaller company so they don't have unlimited resources. Why spend all the time and resources setting up something that will only end up hurting the player base eventually in the long run like every single MMO that has used servers before it. I'm all for expanding the world though and I'm pretty sure they are able to do that with the current tech they have. They could at least start with increasing the respawn rates on resources to help offset the fact tons are depleted everywhere, but then you risk unbalancing the economy by bringing in too many items into the database
  • Gankdalf wrote:

    Servers are fine. Everything should be left as is.
    Profile:

    Gankdalf

    Recruit

    • Male
    • from USA



    of course


    The idea for a single big world server is a nice idea but it just dosent work, especially for such a PvP focused game. East North Americans will always have the ping advantage, everything is overpopulated and this turns off a lot of the potential asian player base.