Servers and servermerges after lunch

Well the Lunch of the game may still be Years away, has there allredy been made some thinking of how to merge servers if needed after lunch?

while looking at New World which didnt had a monthly subscription fee to it, i still belive the game will be flooded with players after lunch and also that many will stop playing soon after it. cause it may not be the game for them. if i only take half the peoples that NW had at its peak for ashes it could be around 500k players and with each server only allow 8-10k that problably will lead to several half dead servers if to many players stop playing. if like 200k players stay meaning around 20-30 servers that would be very nice for the game.

but 500k would need 50 servers or maybe even more for lunch.

i think it would be best to have a plan, if the situation apears not that more players getting driven from the game due to low population of their servers.

like options for server transphere or server merges or whatever other system that will work.

hope it doesnt have to do transphers or merges, only time will tell

regards
Asraiel

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Strevi

I think low population servers, with 1000 players will be better than those with 10 000 because they will have more resources available. And they will know each-other better.

Craiken

I am very curious about how they'll manage server populations. Will moving characters between servers be an option?

Dolyem

Controlled mergers of low population servers onto fresh servers would be ideal. Transferring entire guilds as one onto the same server so they aren't broken. There isnt really a faction balance issue like in WoW, but I would say to group as many mega guilds as one can onto a single server. To do that I would allow for the option to reserve guild names, and add members to a roster and affiliate guilds so at launch they can all be assigned to a single server together.

Caww

as far as lunch goes I'll take a ham & cheese sandwich please, hold the pickles

Asraiel wrote: »

Well the Lunch of the game may still be Years away,

Songcaller

Caww wrote: »

as far as lunch goes I'll take a ham & cheese sandwich please, hold the pickles

Asraiel wrote: »

Well the Lunch of the game may still be Years away,

You got it too lol. After lunch would be an epic launch time. Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back in time for breakfast.

Xenotor

This problem can be mitigated if they make it easy to swich servers at launch.
Or just make the launch smooth in stat of absolut chaos like the current launches *Cough* New World *Cough*

I have quit a few launches behind me and in every singel one of them you had guild being unable to play together as the server cap is full and half the guild cant create a character while the other half cant delete their character to start together on another server.

Having a chaotic launch, frustrates many people and they rather quit completly then try again and again.
So just by having a smooth launch, servers wont empty as much.

That means:
-No login que due to overpopulation.
If the concurrent player limit is 10.000 then only 10.000 accounts should be able to create a character.
Afterwards the server is locked.
That means off course to limit each account to 1 character at launch.
This should the case for at least the first week. Both the character limit and the Character chreation.
If the active player population (The amount of people logging in within 24 h) is over 9000 then it stays locked. After another week 1000 additional slots can be opened.
All that to make sure that one does not have to spend 12 hours in que just to play the game. *I am looking at you new world*
After all many will take a couple weeks vacation for the launch. So Online times will normalise afterwards and only then can one take in data to see if certain servers should be open again and for how many accounts.

-1 Character per account on launch.
As stated above, limit the character creation to 1 per account for the first week of launch.
Afterwards people can create more characters but limited to the same server.
A month after launch minimum to create a character on another server without deleting existing character.

-easy character deletion.
To allow people to change servers if their server is full and their friends decided to go elsewhere, the character deletion should be simplified for the first week.
That means 1 click on Delete character + Writing DELETE should be enough.
No such thing as waiting 24 hours until character is deleted.
Something like this should come a week after launch.
Once a character is created, a slot opens on the server that character was from.

-Character creation before sever selection:
directly linked to the point before.
If people have to login to a server just to create or delete a character then its gonna be que chaos again.
There was an MMO (cant remember the name) where people spend 7 hours in que just to delete their character so they can make a new character on another server.
This should not be.
So following solution:
After starting the game, character selection should come first
The first thing when clicking create character should be server selection with a confirmation.
The moment you confirm a server, a slot is reserved for you and you can create your character in peace.

All that should mitigate the problem with people leaving within the first few days due frustration-.
Maybe as an addition if an account is not active for 5 days during the first 3 weeks, then a server slot opens up.
Chances are they left anyway.

As for server merges.
The problem is obvious town and castle ownership.
Another is crashing the economy with item and money influx.
As such if 2 servers are merged, a full server wipe for both.
Characters and their gear with maybe limited items.
The nodes and castles are fully wiped.
In a sense both servers would be getting a fresh start with already leveled characters.
Kinda sucks but is kinda nice as well.

Maybe create and in-game Question system that pops up the moment someone logs in and cant be clicked away unless answered.
"Your server population is very low, do you want to merge servers? You will only retain the gear you wore. No legendary gear or items.
You will start on a fresh start server with your leveled character"
YES / NO

The vote goes for a week and if more then 50% of all active players vote yes then they are merged.

Dolyem

As a pre-launch idea, I would say to have all players who make their character ahead of time also pick their server, while still being able to change it. Also showing the server populations based on these choices in real time so people can choose/change ahead of time whether or not they want to be on a server based on how many people are on it. I would also list character names so people can either join or avoid streamers.

SongRune

Xenotor wrote: »

As for server merges.
The problem is obvious town and castle ownership.
Another is crashing the economy with item and money influx.
As such if 2 servers are merged, a full server wipe for both.
Characters and their gear with maybe limited items.
The nodes and castles are fully wiped.
In a sense both servers would be getting a fresh start with already leveled characters.
Kinda sucks but is kinda nice as well.

Maybe create and in-game Question system that pops up the moment someone logs in and cant be clicked away unless answered.
"Your server population is very low, do you want to merge servers? You will only retain the gear you wore. No legendary gear or items.
You will start on a fresh start server with your leveled character"
YES / NO

The vote goes for a week and if more then 50% of all active players vote yes then they are merged.

I feel like deleting everyone's characters, which they may have invested thousands of hours in, without them having any say in the matter (the other 49 percent of players in your vote) is a very good way to permanently lose players, and some terrible PR for the game as a whole.

This may be less painful in the first week or two, rather than later, but that's also a worse time, because you're telling people who only have a week or two investment that if they continue to play, and invest more, they could lose it all at random. That's a really persuasive reason to stop getting invested in a game.

Losing large amounts of items has the same effect, and honestly doesn't even buy you that much. Let your players keep any investment you can possibly allow them to. You're already giving them a huge jolt. Don't add any more "we don't respect your investment and might take it away at any time" than you absolutely have to. The new server has more stuff and more people, but the actual amount of stuff per person didn't change.

The real challenge is nodes. You CAN'T let them both keep that. I don't know if there's a good system here, so I don't have much to say, but the core principle is the same. Don't erase your players investment and connection to the game and world if you don't absolutely have to.

I figure you could maybe just upgrade all the nodes from both servers and have a few months of competition where the players can siege nodes or support them, and the defeated or less supported ones fall until things fit the normal rules. It'd give a little agency back to players in a situation where you're forced to take a lot of it away from them. At THAT point, it's at least a lot closer to a major "world event" than a pure "you lose everything you worked for".

Savic Prosperity

Xenotor wrote: »

...
If the concurrent player limit is 10.000 then only 10.000 accounts should be able to create a character.
Afterwards the server is locked.
...
The vote goes for a week and if more then 50% of all active players vote yes then they are merged.

I think that no matter is done at that time. preventing friends from playing together is the worst possible decision. I know that it does help log in queues, but a reason for a lot of people to try a new multiplayer is to play it with a friend(s). So maybe the system would say estimated wait time to log in on this server is "5 hours" before creating the character.
Again though we are pretty far from then and server tech could change in a few years who knows lol

Galvyr

I think having a low population server might even be a good thing. Smaller guilds would have more control over nodes, maybe even a castle. There won’t be as much competition. Obviously this is entirely up to preference, but some people might want that and merging servers might ruin that for some people.

Xenotor

SongRune wrote: »

Xenotor wrote: »

As for server merges.
The problem is obvious town and castle ownership.
Another is crashing the economy with item and money influx.
As such if 2 servers are merged, a full server wipe for both.
Characters and their gear with maybe limited items.
The nodes and castles are fully wiped.
In a sense both servers would be getting a fresh start with already leveled characters.
Kinda sucks but is kinda nice as well.

Maybe create and in-game Question system that pops up the moment someone logs in and cant be clicked away unless answered.
"Your server population is very low, do you want to merge servers? You will only retain the gear you wore. No legendary gear or items.
You will start on a fresh start server with your leveled character"
YES / NO

The vote goes for a week and if more then 50% of all active players vote yes then they are merged.

I feel like deleting everyone's characters, which they may have invested thousands of hours in, without them having any say in the matter (the other 49 percent of players in your vote) is a very good way to permanently lose players, and some terrible PR for the game as a whole.

This may be less painful in the first week or two, rather than later, but that's also a worse time, because you're telling people who only have a week or two investment that if they continue to play, and invest more, they could lose it all at random. That's a really persuasive reason to stop getting invested in a game.

Losing large amounts of items has the same effect, and honestly doesn't even buy you that much. Let your players keep any investment you can possibly allow them to. You're already giving them a huge jolt. Don't add any more "we don't respect your investment and might take it away at any time" than you absolutely have to. The new server has more stuff and more people, but the actual amount of stuff per person didn't change.

The real challenge is nodes. You CAN'T let them both keep that. I don't know if there's a good system here, so I don't have much to say, but the core principle is the same. Don't erase your players investment and connection to the game and world if you don't absolutely have to.

I figure you could maybe just upgrade all the nodes from both servers and have a few months of competition where the players can siege nodes or support them, and the defeated or less supported ones fall until things fit the normal rules. It'd give a little agency back to players in a situation where you're forced to take a lot of it away from them. At THAT point, it's at least a lot closer to a major "world event" than a pure "you lose everything you worked for".

I sayed nowhere that they should delete characters.
Just the items so the economy is not broken.
A broken economy is just as much of a population killer.

Its not about node level as much as node ownership as well as castle ownership.
Both leading guilds owned the same castle so who keeps it?

Arch age showed me that people are surprisingly open to full on fresh starts.
Nothing quit like expiriencing the joy of launch again without having to start on an existing server.
Even better if you can keep your character. No need to level your class or professions.
You can jump right into the action.

Savic wrote: »

Xenotor wrote: »

...
If the concurrent player limit is 10.000 then only 10.000 accounts should be able to create a character.
Afterwards the server is locked.
...
The vote goes for a week and if more then 50% of all active players vote yes then they are merged.

I think that no matter is done at that time. preventing friends from playing together is the worst possible decision. I know that it does help log in queues, but a reason for a lot of people to try a new multiplayer is to play it with a friend(s). So maybe the system would say estimated wait time to log in on this server is "5 hours" before creating the character.
Again though we are pretty far from then and server tech could change in a few years who knows lol

So you trade friends not being able to play on the same server unless the one who started deletes him character and they go together to a new one,
for friends not being able to play together be-course one of them sits for the next 12 hours in que while the other is already online.
And that will be the case for everyone on the server.

Not limiting the account server register to the active player limit will make everything worse for everyone rather then making it worse for a few people who have to fresh start.

Dolyem wrote: »

As a pre-launch idea, I would say to have all players who make their character ahead of time also pick their server, while still being able to change it. Also showing the server populations based on these choices in real time so people can choose/change ahead of time whether or not they want to be on a server based on how many people are on it. I would also list character names so people can either join or avoid streamers.

This should be standard.
I believe SWtor did that in some regard.
But they did not limit it to the active server pop so again que simulator.
Had they not done that, then the launch would have been smooth.

Guilds should be formed pre server launch.
The guildmaster can register for a server and everyone will get a place reserved.
If there is no space for the entire guild, then the guild master cant register on that server.

Having all guilds be registered and locked to a server 48 hours before launch.
The general public should be able to change up to 24 hours before launch.

People who where registered as part of a guild cant change servers on their own without withdrawing from the guild on the official website.

Again during the last 24 hours no more changes until launch.

Additional have Families formed just like guilds.
With Guilds > Family
Meaning that the guild master registering for a server superseeds the family head registering for another server.
If both chose separate servers, the person has to chose to stay in the family and leave the guild or leave the guild and stay in the family.

Everything to make the launch as organized and smooth as possible.
This would also take a load of people who cant come online when server selection goes live.
Having the guild leader take the entire guild to a server means that no member will be left behind due to real life obligations.

Volgaris

Pre-launch server join is a good idea. Week/Month early or whatever. Shouldn't be too hard for them implement something like this. It'll make it easier to avoid streamer servers too.

Asraiel

Xenotor wrote: »

This problem can be mitigated if they make it easy to swich servers at launch.
Or just make the launch smooth in stat of absolut chaos like the current launches *Cough* New World *Cough*

a little system is allredy mentioned by the devs:

kickstarters wiil be able to start 3 days befor lunch
alphas 2 days
betas 1 day

incase some bugs occure that need fixing and so the servers dont get overruned

also will it be possible to character costumistion in advance so you can directly start and charnames will be saved in advance for those 3 groups. for a later transit it matter if names are global or server related and if several chars can have the same name.

but these groupes of players will problably play several k hours

those that comes after is more the problem probably

Aerlana

Strevi wrote: »

I think low population servers, with 1000 players will be better than those with 10 000 because they will have more resources available. And they will know each-other better.

But no T6 or probably even t5 nodes.

The risk is mainly if the game is hyped or not and get a large communication. More than new world i look at Lost Ark... The lead dev said he aimed around 200k activ player, and at release we reach more than one million concurent players (1m3) on lot of overcrowded servers (mainly in EU servers) making insane queues so there were more people who wanted to play than those 1m3 during this peak. (seeing the queues and hours made lot of people a simple reaction : try game later)
And i said it on LA forums, with how LA is designed, never it deserved those 1m3 on western audience. (and i love LA, played a lot before it even released in west). But the hype around it, people speaking a lot, and so, overselling its greatness made it. And it will be the same for Ashes.

BUT ... LA remains an instanced PvE game with PvP arenas.
AoC aim a total different design that most current MMORPG, and while there will be a huge peak, then a decrease the first few months, the fact all is open world, the uniqueness of nodes, a comeback to slow leveling (while being decent, not stupidly slow as old games...) can seduce people who find back such thing they didnt even understood it was what they liked before... but also a far younger audience which never really played in such game environment. so the population can decently increase.

Server merge will be for a big decrease and than a stagnant or really low increase on long term.
Also, there are 2 different thing : activ population, and concurent population. if servers are meant to have between 10 and 15k concurent players (in peak time) it needs far more players on it. On first days, there will be lot people, but also people spending far more of their life time on it than later. (I am sure some there will try to get their hollidays to fit AoC release... don't lie ! ) While the rush of the release will fade, people going back to work, but also enjoying again other games, servers will need more players to not drop too much in concurent players... even if no one left the game.

The solution is maybe try to deal with overpopulated server early, and let decrease of population AND gametime do the work. It will be for sure, at release far more high cost for IS to have "stronger" servers. but it would avoid any need of merge. of anykind.
AoC is a game where if there are too low overall gametime on a server, the world will realyl be empty, with only low nodes and this can be a problem.

The problem with this idea : if the population and gametime doesnt decrease enough, but i think the hype will be strong... so the decrease will also be strong.

Asraiel

the biggest diffrent between AoC and NW or LA is that it has a monthly subscribtion fee to it. most games with a subscribtion will provent peoples to play it so i would not say it will have a 1 million peak. there is wow or eve with sub and some others.

but that pay2play system isnt all that favorized by the masses. free2play games draw in way more peoples specialy at start. after the first month it will show the peoples that gonna stay on the game.

aoc also is from its content in case of time consumation more like EVE it is more directed to hardcore players. i do hope it will also have a decant amount of casuals or players that are located between the to extrems. and with 15 USD (or what it then may be) per month that isnt to much for a subscribtion, however even that small amount drives away peoples. but thats ok AoC isnt made for everyone and the Sub brings benefit to counter a bit the mass overflow at lunch.

problem is those that wanna stay in the game wanna feel the game lifely and filled with players but if to many stop on a server, something has to be made fast. and i think beeing prepaired with a solution ahead, will have a positive impact once something has to be done. and may even be partly programmed into the game for then. not that some stuff will be tryed out that may fail and cause the game to getting bughell, or the player feeling left alone, cause ithink even when the game is nearly perfect programmed with little to none bugs the supprt will be flooded at lunch. which could result in playerloss.

Child Item