Server Merge Solution

I have been saying for a while that low pop servers should trigger world threatening events that the server population can rally together and face to save the server.

If they succeed, they become a host server for low pop servers that fail. If they fail, the players will have the opportunity to caravan their goods to the divine gateway, which would be how they show up in the world of their new server. In this way, they keep the server storyline intact.

Imagine your world of Vera is threatened by a world destroying comet that can only be averted through special religious quests related to the constellation system. Imagine your server is unable to stop the disaster and the comet grows larger in the night sky over a week while players rush to save what they can and bring it to the portal, while bandits wait on every road looking to profit from the chaos.

Imagine you make it through to an alternate reality where the world has not fallen and your caravan, loaded with goods, is protected and brought to a nearby city where refugees are greeted with offers of citizenship and your housing certificate can be traded in for the gold cost of your original home or freehold. Struggling cities would compete to attract these immigrants to strengthen themselves and grow to new heights.

This is the way. Not the loss of your server, but the conclusion to its unique story. Not a restart, but instead, the beginning of your characters next grand adventure.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Depraved

sounds fun

Aszkalon

Depraved wrote: »

sounds fun

Gotta love some Creativity from time to time.

Noaani

That is a much better way of doing it than just forcing it.

Only thing I would add is that the games lore would need to include the concept of a multiverse.

Sathrago

i like it. good ideas.

CROW3

I dig it. Reminds me of a Fringe plotline. Though I can already hear the freehold crowd whining from three alternate realities over.

Nerror

I like it

Edit: @Vaknar I think this idea is really worth highlighting to the team.

Bobby4stevens

Love the idea - very creative

Jwscoot

Thanks guys. I am hoping the team finds some part of this useful. I watch a lot of AoC videos and the server merge issue is constantly pointed to as a reason the game will struggle when server populations inevitably decline after launch.

Smaashley

I think there should only be one global server for everyone with different instances of those servers. Example :

An East America server that doesn't have a limit of population, but that server is divided into ''instances" that can carry maximum 15,000 players. Events on one instance should impact other instances (Node being successfully sieged on one instance, so all the other instances the node will be destroyed as well).

Songcaller

Smaashley wrote: »

I think there should only be one global server for everyone with different instances of those servers. Example :

An East America server that doesn't have a limit of population, but that server is divided into ''instances" that can carry maximum 15,000 players. Events on one instance should impact other instances (Node being successfully sieged on one instance, so all the other instances the node will be destroyed as well).

That is a really bad idea. I liked the mega server idea but the idea about a node being destroyed across all instances would suck. How would that make unique story lines beyond, logged out and lost all my shit due to an invisible battle.

Jwscoot

Smaashley wrote: »

I think there should only be one global server for everyone with different instances of those servers. Example :

An East America server that doesn't have a limit of population, but that server is divided into ''instances" that can carry maximum 15,000 players. Events on one instance should impact other instances (Node being successfully sieged on one instance, so all the other instances the node will be destroyed as well).

Why post an idea that is not feasible and would break the core concept of the game? The mega server theme park is well represented in the MMO space. Even if this was possible to implement, why would you want another garbage Mega server with instanced content?

Do you also want a dungeon group finder with instant travel so you can rush through content you don't care about with people you don't care about?

It's a good thing this idea is impossible, because it would literally destroy the game and break every promise intrepid has ever made.

Fantmx

We have said for a while that the servers should be reset. Death and destruction. Time to rebuild. New alliances. New people to double cross.

Noaani

Fantmx wrote: »

We have said for a while that the servers should be reset. Death and destruction. Time to rebuild. New alliances. New people to double cross.

The game world resetting isn't really that good of an idea.

It means things like reputation, wealth and influence are only going to last as long as that server cycle. It essentially takes an MMORPG with a persistent world and turns it in to a lobby game that just happens to have "matches" that last weeks or months instead of 30 - 45 minutes.

Persistance is the most important aspect of MMORPG's in general.

Jwscoot

I seam to have this problem whenever I engage with the ashes community on YouTube as well.

Someone makes a suggestion like: "the bread should be toasted and buttered". Then, before that debate can happen, someone jumps in saying they hate bread. Another person chimes in saying gluten bread is bad for you. And then another person posts a historical defense of bread in 3 parts.

We are having bread people! How do you want your bread?

We are having 15,000 player capped servers. Low population servers will need to merge. How would you like to do that?

Fantmx

Noaani wrote: »

Fantmx wrote: »

We have said for a while that the servers should be reset. Death and destruction. Time to rebuild. New alliances. New people to double cross.

The game world resetting isn't really that good of an idea.

It means things like reputation, wealth and influence are only going to last as long as that server cycle. It essentially takes an MMORPG with a persistent world and turns it in to a lobby game that just happens to have "matches" that last weeks or months instead of 30 - 45 minutes.

Persistance is the most important aspect of MMORPG's in general.

You expect server merges every few weeks????? What madness is that. If there are server merges every few weeks or months why would you be worried about "reputation, wealth and influence???" There would be much bigger issues at hand including not having a large enough community to worry about those things.

Noaani

Fantmx wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Fantmx wrote: »

We have said for a while that the servers should be reset. Death and destruction. Time to rebuild. New alliances. New people to double cross.

The game world resetting isn't really that good of an idea.

It means things like reputation, wealth and influence are only going to last as long as that server cycle. It essentially takes an MMORPG with a persistent world and turns it in to a lobby game that just happens to have "matches" that last weeks or months instead of 30 - 45 minutes.

Persistance is the most important aspect of MMORPG's in general.

You expect server merges every few weeks????? What madness is that. If there are server merges every few weeks or months why would you be worried about "reputation, wealth and influence???" There would be much bigger issues at hand including not having a large enough community to worry about those things.

It doesn't really matter how long - as much persistance should be maintained as possible.

If it is something that happens every week, as much persistance should be maintained as possible. If it is something that happens once every few years, as much persistance should be maintained as possible.

blat

Jwscoot wrote: »

I seam to have this problem whenever I engage with the ashes community on YouTube as well.

Someone makes a suggestion like: "the bread should be toasted and buttered". Then, before that debate can happen, someone jumps in saying they hate bread. Another person chimes in saying gluten bread is bad for you. And then another person posts a historical defense of bread in 3 parts.

We are having bread people! How do you want your bread?

We are having 15,000 player capped servers. Low population servers will need to merge. How would you like to do that?

Ha - well said! It happens in almost every thread!
People seemingly going purposely out of their way to totally miss the point / derail yet another attempt at a constructive debate.

blat

Jwscoot wrote: »

I have been saying for a while that low pop servers should trigger world threatening events that the server population can rally together and face to save the server.

If they succeed, they become a host server for low pop servers that fail. If they fail, the players will have the opportunity to caravan their goods to the divine gateway, which would be how they show up in the world of their new server. In this way, they keep the server storyline intact.

Imagine your world of Vera is threatened by a world destroying comet that can only be averted through special religious quests related to the constellation system. Imagine your server is unable to stop the disaster and the comet grows larger in the night sky over a week while players rush to save what they can and bring it to the portal, while bandits wait on every road looking to profit from the chaos.

Imagine you make it through to an alternate reality where the world has not fallen and your caravan, loaded with goods, is protected and brought to a nearby city where refugees are greeted with offers of citizenship and your housing certificate can be traded in for the gold cost of your original home or freehold. Struggling cities would compete to attract these immigrants to strengthen themselves and grow to new heights.

This is the way. Not the loss of your server, but the conclusion to its unique story. Not a restart, but instead, the beginning of your characters next grand adventure.

I love this idea btw. The best ideas are always the ones that never occurred to you and yet seem obvious in hindsight. I'm all for it.

Arugan

Jwscoot wrote: »

I have been saying for a while that low pop servers should trigger world threatening events that the server population can rally together and face to save the server.

If they succeed, they become a host server for low pop servers that fail. If they fail, the players will have the opportunity to caravan their goods to the divine gateway, which would be how they show up in the world of their new server. In this way, they keep the server storyline intact.

Imagine your world of Vera is threatened by a world destroying comet that can only be averted through special religious quests related to the constellation system. Imagine your server is unable to stop the disaster and the comet grows larger in the night sky over a week while players rush to save what they can and bring it to the portal, while bandits wait on every road looking to profit from the chaos.

Imagine you make it through to an alternate reality where the world has not fallen and your caravan, loaded with goods, is protected and brought to a nearby city where refugees are greeted with offers of citizenship and your housing certificate can be traded in for the gold cost of your original home or freehold. Struggling cities would compete to attract these immigrants to strengthen themselves and grow to new heights.

This is the way. Not the loss of your server, but the conclusion to its unique story. Not a restart, but instead, the beginning of your characters next grand adventure.

Love this idea!!! I saw your comment/idea on YouTube and it’s getting positive traction.

Fantastic to the server merge issue. Makes it very interesting.

Maybe even include a time concept. Like if there are a lot of servers then the first server to defeat this event is the host server winner.

Jwscoot

Love this idea!!! Fantastic to the server merge issue. Makes it very interesting. Maybe even include a time concept. Like if there are a lot of servers then the first server to defeat this event is the host server winner.
[/quote]

For the sake of balance I suppose you would kinda have to do it this way. I'm on the fence about whether the players should actually be made aware of the progress of the other server making it a true race.

Wouldn't it be more immersive for the players to only know that the threat is time sensitive? Wouldn't this make the threat more urgent regardless of if one side is way ahead?

I'm also not thrilled about pitting two servers that are about to merge against each other, which is the other popular idea I have heard. Even if it isn't some PVP invasion type mechanic, would the losing server feel they are being forced to merge with a group of players that had a hand in destroying their word?

Child Item