concurrent player ratio

A bit of concern on the 50,000 accounts to 10,000 concurrent players ratio - how are you going to ensure the first weeks/months of the game are not simply people stuck in queue; and how does this work given the prime time idea for scheduled events?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Karthos

I too am watching Jahlon and am curious about this.

Khronus

The servers will bust, there will be a queue time. You will hate the launch of the game. Assume all of these things and if I am wrong, we can be happy together.

Jamation

I think this question was asked numerous times in the live stream Q and A thread already in the exact same format.

Vhaeyne

I just hope they don't spool up too many servers. Server merging in a game like this would be a nightmare. I hope they just have the raw dog compute and bandwidth necessary to handle a large launch. That said I would rather have bad que times at launch than dead servers for the life of the game.

Khronus

Vhaeyne wrote: »

I just hope they don't spool up too many servers. Server merging in a game like this would be a nightmare. I hope they just have the raw dog compute and bandwidth necessary to handle a large launch. That said I would rather have bad que times at launch than dead servers for the life of the game.

Server merging would be horrible imo but I also want to make sure I get my guild together at launch so too little server would cause us a major headache after a year of recruitment and preparation. I am expecting to have 25-50 at launch and I kinda need us all together haha.

Warth

Khronus wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

I just hope they don't spool up too many servers. Server merging in a game like this would be a nightmare. I hope they just have the raw dog compute and bandwidth necessary to handle a large launch. That said I would rather have bad que times at launch than dead servers for the life of the game.

Server merging would be horrible imo but I also want to make sure I get my guild together at launch so too little server would cause us a major headache after a year of recruitment and preparation. I am expecting to have 25-50 at launch and I kinda need us all together haha.

you can ensure that through pre-registration. question is whether they get to play duribg the first 3 days

Maezriel

ashone wrote: »

A bit of concern on the 50,000 accounts to 10,000 concurrent players ratio - how are you going to ensure the first weeks/months of the game are not simply people stuck in queue; and how does this work given the prime time idea for scheduled events?

It's either have queues until the initial bubble of excitement dies off or risk having dead servers that need to be merged...which IMO would be the worst case scenario considering the amount of time invested into your nodes.

Cypher

Who’s to say they won’t be able to estimate accurately enough to only have a very small queue time? Everyone is assuming it’ll be either insane queues or dead servers. You’re leaving out the possibility that intrepid might crunch enough numbers to arrive at a good middle ground.

Let’s also not forget that we will have what, one or two headstart servers which open up 2 days in advance? They will certainly use that launch as a way to know if they’re about to get destroyed and can be more ready for the official launch.

Warth

Cypher wrote: »

Who’s to say they won’t be able to estimate accurately enough to only have a very small queue time? Everyone is assuming it’ll be either insane queues or dead servers. You’re leaving out the possibility that intrepid might crunch enough numbers to arrive at a good middle ground.

Let’s also not forget that we will have what, one or two headstart servers which open up 2 days in advance? They will certainly use that launch as a way to know if they’re about to get destroyed and can be more ready for the official launch.

That seems a somewhat deliriously optimistic take. Access to headstart servers are only owned by 10-25k players. Which isn't even remotely relevant to the amount of players that can be taken expected upon launch.
Just to put it into perspective.

Archage had a 6 digit player count during the release weeks
Bless online, even though it was known to be a dumpster fire and cost 40$ to get into, sold close to 200k copies within the first month.
For Ashes of Creation, we have had 3 Million (!) Sign Ups on the Website by November 2020.

Head start, as it is now won't even be remotely relevant to the stability within the launch periode.

Then again, this isn't even the problem. The problem are the hordes of tourists that try out the game, fill up all the servers (create queues) and leave them half dead a couple of weeks later.

Which, unfortunately, is a Problem, that appears in every new mmo. First you have a lot of tourists, then you can be happy if 10-20% of the players sticks. Which usually results in server populations massively dropping.

There pretty much are only 3 ways to avoid these problems:

a heavily staggered headstart system, which Intrepid can't do due to #No-P2W
creating a game, that grows post launch, to offset the tourists leaving over the next couple of months
the ability to signifiantly scale up the amount of players per server during the launch window, so the people remaining once the tourists leave will be somewhat comparable to the amount of players originally intended for the server

Option 2 is wishful thinking.
Option 3 can be implemented game design wise with a bit of hassle. The question is whether Intrepid wants to go through that (+ finds a good concept) and finds a solution supporting that on the hardware end.

Maezriel

Cypher wrote: »

Who’s to say they won’t be able to estimate accurately enough to only have a very small queue time? Everyone is assuming it’ll be either insane queues or dead servers. You’re leaving out the possibility that intrepid might crunch enough numbers to arrive at a good middle ground.

Let’s also not forget that we will have what, one or two headstart servers which open up 2 days in advance? They will certainly use that launch as a way to know if they’re about to get destroyed and can be more ready for the official launch.

Blizzard is the most experienced MMO company on the planet and even they frequently chug to a halt the first week or so of an expansion launch. To think Intrepid will hit the magic number is an incredibly utopian thought.

Cypher

Lol you guys are hilarious. I’m literally saying people are going to the far extremes in this thread, either ghost town or pure insanity at launch. I’m not being “utopian” or “deliriously optimistic” by suggesting that everyone might want to realize it can land anywhere in between those two extremes. I swear, some people 😂

Maezriel

I'm just speaking from experience and it's almost always one or the two and very close to never perfect. Even if they do nail it thought it's better to prepare for queues than getting upset over them.

Vhaeyne

When it comes to a "Smooth" launch a major problem is all of the tourists that show up with the start of a fresh game, xpack, or patch. A lot of people don't stick around after a few days to weeks, for bunch of different reasons. They think they like MMOs when they don't, They think they have more time than they do, They just want to see the launch, ect. Some clear examples of this behavior is if you watch any pro players of games on twitch. I am not big into e-sports, but I do follow a few smite pro league players and some POE speed runners on twitch. In the last year I have seen them all play WOW, NEW WORLD, Genshin Impact, RUST, ect. The thing is that they only play these games for like a day or two at launch. When something that I am hearing a lot about launches I will open twitch to try and see some gameplay. Without fail there are a bunch of people on the game those first few days that wont be there in two days. In my mind these are just the public figures I can see playing games, I feel like it's much worst for all the players who I can't see. There are a ton of flakes out there who just don't know what they want, and will throw the buy in cost at any game day one. Just to spend less than 10 hours on a game.

So it got me thinking.

A solution I have seen work is on 2b2t ("Minecraft's oldest anarchy server" TM). I don't actually play on this server, but I do keep tabs on it because the stories that come out of it are EVE online tier epic sagas that are 100% player driven. The stand out feature is that 2b2t always has a que, but they give senior players priority. A lot of people want to come and see what 2b2t is all about, but not very many people actually want to stick around. It is after a blood bath with a very high learning curve. Treating all players as equal when it comes to login rights does would not work for 2b2t. The high volume would mean nobody get to enjoy the server.

I realize that what I am about to suggest would be highly upsetting to some, but I want to throw it out there anyways. Feel free to hate the idea. I personally would prefer a system where the game looks at play time and uses that to prioritize position in the que to login. I also would want this play time to start as soon as possible. Even if they don't open alpha 1 keys to be sold, and my playtime counter is behind until alpha 2. I would like to see a system where those who are consistently playing the game get priority.

I realize what I just suggested is potentially very upsetting, but I would like to hear some thoughts as it is related to the main topic of this thread.

Noaani

Vhaeyne wrote: »

I realize that what I am about to suggest would be highly upsetting to some, but I want to throw it out there anyways. Feel free to hate the idea. I personally would prefer a system where the game looks at play time and uses that to prioritize position in the que to login. I also would want this play time to start as soon as possible. Even if they don't open alpha 1 keys to be sold, and my playtime counter is behind until alpha 2. I would like to see a system where those who are consistently playing the game get priority.

I realize what I just suggested is potentially very upsetting, but I would like to hear some thoughts as it is related to the main topic of this thread.

I would 100% support that - but I only see it as a solution for when they add major DLC to the game. Prioritizing people based on play time when everyone has zero play time doesn't seem like a good idea to me, and so since that initial few days would essentially be random, peoples total play time after those first few days would be 100% dependent on how much time they got in that rng of a first few days.

Again though, for DLC it is a great idea.

What I'd like to see for the games initial launch is for them to only offer 6 month subscriptions for the first 3 months, then add the three month subscription, then the 1 month subscription.

At least that way you are pricing the tourists out of clogging up the initial launch of the game. As long as it is clear at the games launch exactly what is happening, I think you would find more people ok with the idea than against it.

Samson1

Noaani wrote: »

What I'd like to see for the games initial launch is for them to only offer 6 month subscriptions for the first 3 months, then add the three month subscription, then the 1 month subscription.

At least that way you are pricing the tourists out of clogging up the initial launch of the game. As long as it is clear at the games launch exactly what is happening, I think you would find more people ok with the idea than against it.

I could see this helping a little bit and wouldn't be opposed if Intrepid Studios decided to do something similar at launch. But when it comes to giving certain players log-in priority on servers... that's an absolutely horrible idea, in my honest opinion. A total no-go for me on that one.

Noaani

Samson wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

What I'd like to see for the games initial launch is for them to only offer 6 month subscriptions for the first 3 months, then add the three month subscription, then the 1 month subscription.

At least that way you are pricing the tourists out of clogging up the initial launch of the game. As long as it is clear at the games launch exactly what is happening, I think you would find more people ok with the idea than against it.

I could see this helping a little bit and wouldn't be opposed if Intrepid Studios decided to do something similar at launch. But when it comes to giving certain players log-in priority on servers... that's an absolutely horrible idea, in my honest opinion. A total no-go for me on that one.

Is there any particular reason you wouldn't want to see a priority as per outlined?

The way it would work seems fairly good to me. Since everyone that has been playing the game for the duration of a content cycle obviously fits on the server just fine, and since these people would all obviously have more play time than people that haven't been playing the game and thus higher priority, the game is simply prioritizing people that have been playing the game all the way through, rather than the people that are likely only going to be there for a few days or week.

To me, if someone did have to sit in a queue for a while, it should be the people that are only coming to check the new content out, not the people that have been playing the game solidly the whole time. Prioritizing based on played time does exactly that.

If you are a casual player that has been playing the game through that whole content cycle, you would still have more hours logged than the players that haven't, so even the casual players that are playing the game constantly - even if casually - would get priority over the people just there to check out the new content.

Vhaeyne

@Noaani
In order to get any benefit at launch they would have to start the "playtime timer" in alpha.

@Samson
I do understand that a lot of peoples gut reaction would be a swift "Hell No", but I am curious as to why you dislike the idea?

When trying to attack my own idea. I can only come up with "We all pay the same sub we should all have equal access" as a rebuttal. Net Neutrality also comes to mind, but I am not 100% sure that applies here as I am not a "law talking guy".

Samson1

Noaani wrote: »

Is there any particular reason you wouldn't want to see a priority as per outlined?

The way it would work seems fairly good to me. Since everyone that has been playing the game for the duration of a content cycle obviously fits on the server just fine, and since these people would all obviously have more play time than people that haven't been playing the game and thus higher priority, the game is simply prioritizing people that have been playing the game all the way through, rather than the people that are likely only going to be there for a few days or week.

To me, if someone did have to sit in a queue for a while, it should be the people that are only coming to check the new content out, not the people that have been playing the game solidly the whole time. Prioritizing based on played time does exactly that.

If you are a casual player that has been playing the game through that whole content cycle, you would still have more hours logged than the players that haven't, so even the casual players that are playing the game constantly - even if casually - would get priority over the people just there to check out the new content.

I know you guys are just trying to offer up a potential solution, but I just personally think the idea of giving server priority is flawed and would be harmful to the game/player base in general.

I mean, of course the people with priority will have the most time played... because THEY are the ones that are able to access the server and play!

Their time played will, of course, continue to accumulate as others are left to twiddle their thumbs while watching their queue timers slowly tick down.

Entitlement should be thrown out the window in this case... and ALL players should have equal access to play the game regardless of how much they have or plan to play.

EDIT: Also, wouldn't granting server priority be a prime example of Pay-to-Win? Especially if the timers began in Alpha... where players had to pay to participate in the first place?

Vhaeyne

Samson wrote: »

I know you guys are just trying to offer up a potential solution, but I just personally think the idea of giving server priority is flawed and would be harmful to the game/player base in general.

I mean, of course the people with priority will have the most time played... because THEY are the ones that are able to access the server and play! Their time played will, of course, continue to accumulate as others are left to twiddle their thumbs while watching their queue timers slowly tick down.

The rich getting richer is a totally valid argument that I was not thinking of.

Samson wrote: »

Entitlement should be thrown out the window in this case... and ALL players should have equal access to play the game regardless of how much they have or plan to play.

I am on the fence about if I consider it to be Entitlement or not. I am a strong believer of "Equality of opportunity" over "Equality of outcome". On one hand I think that anyone who has the time to play a MMO, and own a PC capable of running ashes, should have the money to get into the alpha, and be able to invest their time if they wanted priority under my hypothetical system. On the other hand, what I just said is not exactly true. I know a lot of people, would like to play other games while they wait for ashes, and may be waiting to upgrade their rig as close to launch as possible to save money. A priority system would force them to play when they are not ready, just out of FOMO for the day one experience.

Still, seeing it work for 2b2t so well makes me think it a possible solution for MMOs.

Samson wrote: »

EDIT: Also, wouldn't granting server priority be a prime example of Pay-to-Win? Especially if the timers began in Alpha... where players had to pay to participate in the first place?

I was hoping for the term "Play-to-Win', but you are technically right.
The game is so hyped, there is bound to be an astronomical amount of tourists.
It's not like I can't handle large ques, I just hate waiting 6 hours to login when I know 75% of these bozos won't be around next week. Happens every time.

Noaani

Vhaeyne wrote: »

@Noaani
In order to get any benefit at launch they would have to start the "playtime timer" in alpha.

I'm not super keen on the idea of anything from alpha/beta giving players an acta advantage once the game goes live.

If they did it this way, people that were in alpha/beta, both of which cost money to get in to, would have a real advantage once the game is live.

I'm sure you can see how that wouldn't be a good thing for Intrepid.

Child Item