What's a healthy server look like?

Been talking to some good friends about server health and since I'd say about 2011 circa SWTOR, there's been this wave of guilds just dogpiling servers, playing for three months and leaving. There's been many titles where we can note this behavior, obviously this isn't healthy for the longevity of a server in Ashes.

So what's a healthy server look like to you? What would you suggest to Intrepid to achieve server health and not close down servers like many titles before it?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Raven016

What's a healthy team look like?
...
What's a healthy company look like? (from HR pov)

Solvryn wrote: »

What would you suggest to Intrepid to achieve server health and not close down servers like many titles before it?

I am optimistic that AoC will succeed retaining enough players.

Depraved

people who arent ill ^_^

Ayeveegaming1

Solvryn

Raven016 wrote: »

What's a healthy team look like?
...
What's a healthy company look like? (from HR pov)

Solvryn wrote: »

What would you suggest to Intrepid to achieve server health and not close down servers like many titles before it?

I am optimistic that AoC will succeed retaining enough players.

Well Ashes retaining enough players was never the question.

mcstackerson

In ashes, the nice thing about a lower populated server is there is less competition so I could see it being less of a problem for those who stick around on them. Some may even see it as a boon. Ashes also doesn't have factions so it doesn't need to worry about people being stuck on the under-populated faction.

If a server gets too low then I think the server should be shut down and the players transferred to another server.

Raven016

Solvryn wrote: »

Raven016 wrote: »

What's a healthy team look like?
...
What's a healthy company look like? (from HR pov)

Solvryn wrote: »

What would you suggest to Intrepid to achieve server health and not close down servers like many titles before it?

I am optimistic that AoC will succeed retaining enough players.

Well Ashes retaining enough players was never the question.

There might be problems after launch, if they advertise the game and 6 months later they have to merge servers. But to release the game "secretly" may not be the best suggestion.

Let's say that the game was released 1 year ago.
Players who stayed are those who like the core mechanic, leveling up nodes, destroying them, leveling them again... grinding them like this.

If IS is worried that some update might create a sudden increase in population then they can release smaller updates more frequently.
Also the kind of updates which cause temporary fluctuations are story related, new classes... something which you can eventually say you have seen it and you are ready to move to the next game.

But... are fluctuations really harmful?
Maybe is better to have fluctuations every 13 weeks rather than losing player base gradually.

Ayeveegaming1

mcstackerson wrote: »

In ashes, the nice thing about a lower populated server is there is less competition so I could see it being less of a problem for those who stick around on them. Some may even see it as a boon. Ashes also doesn't have factions so it doesn't need to worry about people being stuck on the under-populated faction.

If a server gets too low then I think the server should be shut down and the players transferred to another server.

I agree

daveywavey

Solvryn wrote: »

So what's a healthy server look like to you?

A clean, shiny coat of fur and a cool, moist nose.

Oh, hang on a minute...

Caww

With upwards of 50,000 accounts per server to accommodate about 10,000 active players, I'm not sure that guild-jumping/dumping will slam a server into insignificance since there aren't that many super large groups wandering the gaming landscape.

A healthy server, in my mind, can only be achieved through developing a satisfying game environment for people willing to pay $15/month consistently and not have people play a few months, drop a few months and then renew for a few more months, assuming they don't drop altogether. Steady, monthly "extra-curriculum" activities provided by AoC in addition to standard play should keep regulars invested.

Nerror

daveywavey wrote: »

Solvryn wrote: »

So what's a healthy server look like to you?

A clean, shiny coat of fur and a cool, moist nose.

Oh, hang on a minute...

Yes, many healthy Tulnar do indeed make for a healthy server!

That, and a server full of people who aren't limited by too much exclusivity, so they can pick and chose between many fun and engaging activities, even if they don't have much time to play

Ludullu

To me a healthy server would just mean 3-4 sides to the server-wide guild wars. Even if it's just 1-2k people on the server, fun can still be had. Well, that is if Intrepid's plan for downsizing node's mechanics works out well.

Fantmx

Solvryn wrote: »

Been talking to some good friends about server health and since I'd say about 2011 circa SWTOR, there's been this wave of guilds just dogpiling servers, playing for three months and leaving. There's been many titles where we can note this behavior, obviously this isn't healthy for the longevity of a server in Ashes.

So what's a healthy server look like to you? What would you suggest to Intrepid to achieve server health and not close down servers like many titles before it?

This is a very interesting question. Like all things there needs to be a balance. We need a good balance of pvp and pve players that interact in positive ways with each. We need a good balance of change and stability. Specific to Ashes there is so much we don't know yet that I think it is hard to define what a good server health would be beyond generalities like I just mentioned.

I am not super worried about guild jumping. I completely expect players to jump to and have characters in other servers, especially as stories diverge. And I don't see that as a problem.

What I worry mostly about is how the economy flows since that is the root of risk vs reward here. I don't feel like I know enough to comment on it yet.

RazThemun

High amount of players who log on daily as there is plenty of content to do and be excited about. I hope ashes will be able to not only have longevity, but also consistency of content.... as opposed to- Burn through content for 3 or 4 months then nothing to do for 6 and then repeat. If they can balance out the creativity for pvp, crafting, raiding, dungeons, etc they will be in a good place. It is when a crafter runs out of things in 6 weeks so they log, the raider has no raids for 2 months so they log, and so on and so forth resulting in seasonal playstyle.....

Dolyem

Many near equal alliances in competition and conflict with eachother, causing a constant change among nodes, healthy resources and gold sink and generation, and plenty of PvP and gradually evolving PvE content due to the amount of change from said conflicts amongst nodes. And a healthy corruption ecosystem that allows for a steady amount of PKs, as not to grief players into the ground, but enough to maintain a healthy bounty system as well.

Solvryn

Interesting thoughts so far.

Boneshatter

NiKr wrote: »

To me a healthy server would just mean 3-4 sides to the server-wide guild wars. Even if it's just 1-2k people on the server, fun can still be had. Well, that is if Intrepid's plan for downsizing node's mechanics works out well.

Do you think 1-2k people would be able to advance the world enough? I could be wrong, but I was under the impression it would take a lot more than that to unlock all the dungeons and stuff.

Ludullu

Boneshatter wrote: »

Do you think 1-2k people would be able to advance the world enough? I could be wrong, but I was under the impression it would take a lot more than that to unlock all the dungeons and stuff.

Intrepid said that their systems can be downsized to match a lower population. Also, 2k people on a server meant for 10k people would just farm the stuff they want to farm. And with node leveling according to the population hotspots, the "stuff" would follow the people. Either the server is filled with casual players who just enjoy the game for what it is or the server is filled with hardcore min-maxers who would level up nodes in the most optimal (for them) locations.

Azherae

NiKr wrote: »

Boneshatter wrote: »

Do you think 1-2k people would be able to advance the world enough? I could be wrong, but I was under the impression it would take a lot more than that to unlock all the dungeons and stuff.

Intrepid said that their systems can be downsized to match a lower population. Also, 2k people on a server meant for 10k people would just farm the stuff they want to farm. And with node leveling according to the population hotspots, the "stuff" would follow the people. Either the server is filled with casual players who just enjoy the game for what it is or the server is filled with hardcore min-maxers who would level up nodes in the most optimal (for them) locations.

I'm pretty sure this is impossible without a flat economy.

They'd have to literally shrink the map or overhaul their entire resource node generation in a way that would cause the game to die in a different way.

Or end up with BDO I guess but even then, Ashes has too many pillars that would start to fail, for the same reason as the issue with limiting Freeholds in this way. The limitation on Freeholds results in diminishment of Free Economic Actors in the system, a thing that technically ruins 'Real Life' and that at least has a multigenerational delay on it.

It does not work in MMOs, you do not get to 'design a big economy in a big world and then just scale it back' without having multiple plans of 'what basically different game you have at each tier of downscaling'. The intended sizes of your economy are things you generally need to know, it's why RL governments exercise such control over this. They can't afford for it to shrink even 6% sometimes or the entire country collapses.

This might make one think that this is a good thing because 'the Node' will collapse, but it's not 'the Node' that would collapse, it's 'the game'. That's an exaggeration because you'd still have a game, you just wouldn't have anything close to the game you intended and the difference can be really stark, enough to change your target demographic in some cases I think.

RocketFarmer

Ironically, the way the node system works there may be more incentive for newer players to move to lower populated servers or for players who feel their current server is overpopulated to move. But there’s also the potential for players to screw a server up so bad that it dies off.

Healthy is relative. You are always going to have players who drop from a game, leaving inactive characters. I think Intrepid is counting on that in the plans for servers. It’s the peak interest period where you have to handle the overpopulation issues, like launch or a major release of new content. Would be nice if their server design is capable of handling twice their stated capacity for these swings in player population. Given the map size, however, I think you start getting into dangerous territory if you are at less than half the stated capacity because folks are too spread out or you have pockets of players with the rest being ghost towns or reclaimed by the environment. The latter may not be “healthy” because it is such a subjective term.

Child Item