Update on Server Issues and Compensation

Diese Seite verwendet Cookies. Durch die Nutzung unserer Seite erklären Sie sich damit einverstanden, dass wir Cookies setzen. Weitere Informationen

  • Aigaion schrieb:

    blazemonger schrieb:

    Kest schrieb:

    Bercilak schrieb:

    1) Specific zones being overcrowded

    Problem: There is a hard technical limit to how many players can be in a single zone, and this limit does not depend on the type of hardware used. It has to do with the fact that the information the server has to processes grows exponentially with player numbers. Many of you will know the wheat and chessboard problem, it's similar to
    On a non-technical level, is there any concern that this is too simple of an approach? EVE's game world is far larger than Albion. You're ultimately trying to fit a population larger than EVE into an extremely small environment, which forces players to form giant alliances. There's no upside to abandoning a zerg.
    While the EVE universe is far larger in size, it is also mostly empty.. You could erase half of the EVE universe and not notice a difference.
    This.
    The problems or EVE and Albion are both totally opposed although the exemple is correct. What also makes the EVE universe so more larger is the abundance of Wormhole space (what could be compared to the Carleon underground at some point). But still, the Albion universe is WAY too small for that amount of players. It should be at least twice as big for that amount of people playing, or having the same kind of "wormhole systems" but in another style.

    EvE has 8000 systems + wormholes. Each system has instanced stations, PVE missions etc.

    Even Jita, which is like Caldreon in Albion, can have 1000 players, but they are all instanced in station. Since EvE online station is equivalent to Albion Online populated city, EvE has no such problems.

    In big PVP corporation battles, in which I have been myself, there could be hundreds of players, like in Albion, however, when system limit exceeds some player count, the server for that systems goes into "Time Dilation" mode, which means entire game, packet processing is prioritized and slowed down to handle so many players.
  • blazemonger schrieb:

    Aigaion schrieb:

    blazemonger schrieb:

    Kest schrieb:

    On a non-technical level, is there any concern that this is too simple of an approach? EVE's game world is far larger than Albion.
    While the EVE universe is far larger in size, it is also mostly empty.. You could erase half of the EVE universe and not notice a difference.
    This.The problems or EVE and Albion are both totally opposed although the exemple is correct.
    As for expanding the world, it would be fair to assume there will be a considerable fall of of active players regardless of any issues like we are seeing now so taking drastic and far-reaching measures in that regard would be premature at best. It will take at least another 2 months or so for the player numbers to stabilise somewhat so it would be reasonable that the devs wait for that point before taking any such actions.
    The fact is that, in AO's case, there are not thousands of solutions. The main solution to fixing the actual problem would have been to have continental servers, but a true sandbox game has to have one servers (as does EVE). So from that point you either prepare a large enough scaled universe for players to be in, or you simply wait for the amount of player to drop (which is actually the only real solution for AO in my opinion). Now, the not large enough univers is, in my opinion, something that should have been planed way before the release. The other solution would be to stop sales (as did Trion with ArcheAge), but in AO's case we are probably far ahead of the breaking point.
    "Autre que moi, il n'y a personne d'innarêtable dans ce royaume." -Aigaion

  • Korn schrieb:

    Rolan schrieb:

    If you're as big as EVE at some points, your stance on that would be nice to be known.
    Our stance on that is quite simple: "Crazy start, let's deal with the current server issue asap and then make sure that we continue to do well and constantly improve the game for 5, 10 or even 14 years (as Eve has been doing)."
    I appreciate the anwser, thanks, even though you're somewhat dodging my question. But I'll read it as such: “we are fully aware of the world size problem and we are not yet at the point where we can communicate on what action we'll take to tackle the issue”, whether it means you haven't decided yet which way to go (e.g. expand or fork) or you have more tests to run to validate the solution you chose, or whatever else. I am perfectly fine with that, and am eager to see what you have in store.

    Cheers to the team. Rocky start indeed.

    Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 1 mal editiert, zuletzt von Rolan ()

  • Thanks for the feedback, and thanks for the compensation. Regardless if it's enough of a compensation or not, the gesture is much appreciated. Game launches are always crazy, noone expects things to be perfect, and you guys seem to be working very hard to improve the quality of the game so that's always good.

    Like many others in this thread, I believe the root of the problem is the world being way too small and designed around having people all gathering in the same place. Since you mentioned EVE, in EVE you can pick from many many different places to live out from based on your career prospects. In Albion there are only 6 cities, each of them offering a different choice, but there is 0 redundancy, meaning that all the people who want to do more or less the same thing will end up living in the same place. On top of that, out of these 6 cities, 1 of them is super interesting and the 5 others are somewhat worse choices ... The map design should be less mathematical, offer more options, different layouts that are not necessarily 100% symmetrical, so people could actually choose where they want to live based on what kind of biomes and area colors they are interested in, how close they want to be to big hubs and what kind of competition they want (small groups, large groups, etc). There is very little of that right now.
  • Bercilak schrieb:

    ...

    1) Specific zones being overcrowded

    Problem: There is a hard technical limit to how many players can be in a single zone, and this limit does not depend on the type of hardware used. It has to do with the fact that the information the server has to processes grows exponentially with player numbers. Many of you will know the wheat and chessboard problem, it's similar to that. This can not be overcome by better hardware (we already use the best available) or more servers, as the amount of information stays the same. (to use a poor analogy: if you traveled back in time 20 years with a copy of Overwatch, you could not run it, even if you used the combined power of 1.000 PCs from back then)

    Solution: The short term solution is splitting overcrowded areas into multiple smaller ones, similar to how we have put the market and bank in Caerleon into their own mini-zones. The mid term solution is to have an instancing system for the market place of towns (i.e. only the center, and only for NPC buildings there) while leaving all the player made buildings in cities strictly non-instanced. In essence, the end result would be a much cleaner, better looking and more scalable overcrowded mode.

    ...
    Wouldn't it be way more easier to instance the cities, when reaching 200 ppl?

    e.g. 200 ppl. in Fort Stearling => Open Fort Stearling 2 for the 201 Player.

    I see no point other than trading and fighting to see other ppl in cities and this can be solved in another way (Island or Create one additional Instance for that).

    This way you would in addtion be able to keep the current map layouts without extra work ;)
  • Speakmore schrieb:

    BeenJamminMon schrieb:

    Vortech schrieb:

    I'm not going to speculate here, but it seems something is fundamentally wrong. Be it due to a lack or foresight or a self-inflicted limitation, it's 2017. Everything should be made to scale, especially an MMO. As far as the compensation goes, I don't feel it's enough. Now, I've participated in worse launches and I appreciate what the devs have done and continue to do.. But many players have lost economical advantages, fallen off the fame curve, etc, due to these interruptions in service during prime time. @Bercilak this is your opportunity to do something big for the community, something we'll remember.. maybe something we can compare other MMOs to in the future and say.. "remember what SBI did for us after launch?". 7 days of premium? sorry, that doesn't even register.

    As I mentioned, I have participated in worse launches.. I appreciate the clear effort the developers and administrators have been putting in to provide us the world of Albion.
    I don't feel I personally need compensation at all however, I do feel like 7 days is NOT enough for most players who are extremely frustrated and are contemplating leaving the game due to the technical issues.. To be honest here, I fully believe that it would keep those players around if premium compensation was granted based on how long these issues have been happening/how long it will take for the issues to be resolved. As in - We've had these issues now for 2 weeks (those who have legendary that is) so compensate 14 days as of today. If the issues continue for 8 more days, give them 22 days of premium.
    Now I fully understand that this may be unrealistic from a business perspective of things as you guys need people purchasing premium for income to pay your development needs and all that.. However, due to the insane amount of people who have purchased the game and are playing, in which you stated by far exceeded your expectations and estimates, I am fairly certain you guys can afford to give players a lot more than just 7 days of premium. @Bercilak

    Like @Vortech stated above "This is your opportunity to do something big for the community.".
    You're both clearly morons. Tell me that the server has been down for MORE THAN 168 hours (7 days * 24 hours) EXCLUDING their 1 hour daily maintenance AND any third-party issues, which they seem to think it's not their problem for a majority of these down times. That being said, mathematically speaking their servers haven't even been down 10 HOURS if you exclude those 2 things that you signed in the Terms of Service. Take your 7 days and leave, that's about all I have left to say on the subject. You are ridiculous for crying for more. Not to mention, he even stated OP that there will be MORE compensation if shit continues to go wrong. How about you just ask him to give you max gear and unlimited Gold so you can cry when you die and lose it.
    They promised in the ToS that you will get at least 90% uptime.

    14 (days online, or offline as you'll cry) * 24 - 14 (daily maintenance) = 322 hours
    322 hours * 0.90 uptime = 289.8 hours of promised uptime

    Don't think the server has been offline for 32 hours bud.

    Each hour lost is $0.018, I can do the math for that too if you want. I'd say you lost no more than 10 hours play time here. That being said, I bet you can write on cardboard with a black marker "Poor millennial needs 1 quarter to make up for lost time on Albion."

    Good fight

    Clearly you are just a keybboard warrior who cannot read and possibly needs to turn off moms computer.... Considering I CLEARLY stated, and I quote from above "I don't feel I personally need compensation at all". I was simply saying there are 10x more over dramatic/impatient people who feel they deserve more compensation than those like myself. blah blah.. why am i wasting my time typing to you? lol....

    good fight, you win, don't care.
  • eve dont had a eu server, only a extra server for the china farmers since 2007. this game maybe need the same xD my idea for compensation is a week of 3x mats spawnrate to push the economie...and yep i know that prices drop in this time, but more ppl can reach a higher level of crafting.

    greets

    Dieser Beitrag wurde bereits 1 mal editiert, zuletzt von Teigling ()

  • Teigling schrieb:

    my idea for compensation is a week of 3x mats spawnrate to push the economie...and yep i know that prices drop in this time, but more ppl can reach a higher level of crafting.

    greets
    No.

    This is not the solution and will only benefit huge blocks of players who didn't suffer from the problems encountered.
    "Autre que moi, il n'y a personne d'innarêtable dans ce royaume." -Aigaion

  • Bercilak schrieb:

    Everybody who has played since release and today will be compensated with an additional 7 days of premium time. In the unlikely case that we do not improve the server situation over the next 2 weeks, additional compensation will be awarded.
    To whom are they compensated? To all who entered the game within the first three days or only the very first? If all, then how to get compensation?
  • chuvachok schrieb:

    Bercilak schrieb:

    Everybody who has played since release and today will be compensated with an additional 7 days of premium time. In the unlikely case that we do not improve the server situation over the next 2 weeks, additional compensation will be awarded.
    To whom are they compensated? To all who entered the game within the first three days or only the very first? If all, then how to get compensation?

    This.

    I have been on vacation on release day, but went through disconnect lag and black screen hell afterwards. So people who were not here first day wont be compensated? How does that make sense?
  • McWolf schrieb:

    Bercilak schrieb:

    ...

    1) Specific zones being overcrowded

    Problem: There is a hard technical limit to how many players can be in a single zone, and this limit does not depend on the type of hardware used. It has to do with the fact that the information the server has to processes grows exponentially with player numbers. Many of you will know the wheat and chessboard problem, it's similar to that. This can not be overcome by better hardware (we already use the best available) or more servers, as the amount of information stays the same. (to use a poor analogy: if you traveled back in time 20 years with a copy of Overwatch, you could not run it, even if you used the combined power of 1.000 PCs from back then)

    Solution: The short term solution is splitting overcrowded areas into multiple smaller ones, similar to how we have put the market and bank in Caerleon into their own mini-zones. The mid term solution is to have an instancing system for the market place of towns (i.e. only the center, and only for NPC buildings there) while leaving all the player made buildings in cities strictly non-instanced. In essence, the end result would be a much cleaner, better looking and more scalable overcrowded mode.

    ...
    Wouldn't it be way more easier to instance the cities, when reaching 200 ppl?
    e.g. 200 ppl. in Fort Stearling => Open Fort Stearling 2 for the 201 Player.

    I see no point other than trading and fighting to see other ppl in cities and this can be solved in another way (Island or Create one additional Instance for that).

    This way you would in addtion be able to keep the current map layouts without extra work ;)
    Instancing is not an easy feature to add to a MMO, they may not have that capability yet.