admin Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 After long deliberations we have decided to go with the cities for names for servers. There are a lot of beautiful city names we have already on the map that sound neutral, do not provide psychological preference bias. All other options (winds, fishes, gods, ship parts) have the bias that could influence player's choice (tiger vs sheep) Proposed names Plymouth - PVP One EU West End - PvP Two USA Rugged Cay - PvP Three EU Cayo Romano - PVE One USA Additional servers will be based on free town or other neutral names from our historical research. Same names will be used for names of sub forums. 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marecek05 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) I really like Plymouth for PVP one EU! Edited February 8, 2016 by marecek05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Loe Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Very good names. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeBoiteux Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I think it weird to give city names to worlds. And I really don't like how Cayo Romano sounds. But it's just my opinion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. Rice Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 West end seems fitting as that is where i am at now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fellvred Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 (edited) The only one which might skew the server population is Plymouth on an EU server. This might pull english (choosing GB) onto one server the same way naming a US server Cape Canaveral would mess up the US national population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMNB_Devonport Wouldn't have too much of a problem with naming a US server Plymouth Edited February 8, 2016 by Fellvred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlavDeng2 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I like plymouth, takes me back to the days when we sailed there for the good old trafalgars 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matsje van Leeuwenhoek Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I'm w/LeBoiteux Not overly fond of city names for a world Im partial to Greek/Roman water Gods/mythological names for the servers, but thats me. I AM however, curious as to why there is not a complete merging of servers aka EVE? Not exactly sure why we've got a PvE server or a server such as US1-2 when ping is such a non-issue, grats on that part btw, thats like a Nobel Peace prize for the interwebs. Has merging servers been looked at again? Reconsidered? I just think the vastness of the world would lend itself much better to everyone being on one server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlavDeng2 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I'm w/LeBoiteux Not overly fond of city names for a world Im partial to Greek/Roman water Gods/mythological names for the servers, but thats me. I AM however, curious as to why there is not a complete merging of servers aka EVE? Not exactly sure why we've got a PvE server or a server such as US1-2 when ping is such a non-issue, grats on that part btw, thats like a Nobel Peace prize for the interwebs. Has merging servers been looked at again? Reconsidered? I just think the vastness of the world would lend itself much better to everyone being on one server. there are technical problems as to why this is not possible, there are also pvp and rvr reasons why this is not possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Tabernac Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Maybe you could have them named for completely disparate categories that can't possibly invite unfavourable comparisons a la Sheep/Tiger. Might I respectfully suggest: Cheese Wheel - PVP One EU Poplar Tree - PvP Two USA Honda Civic - PvP Three EU Soccer - PVE One USA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spitzenhund Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Sounds good. Very little psychological bias. Was worried you guys were going to do the Admiral names. Also can someone tell me what RvR is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Tabernac Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 ...can someone tell me what RvR is? Realm vs Realm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matsje van Leeuwenhoek Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 there are technical problems as to why this is not possible, there are also pvp and rvr reasons why this is not possible Hogwash Tech problems, I can potentially understand, I can toss a bone on that, simply because of financial reasons, holding/operating servers required for having everyone together may be more expensive, at least according to general conversations on the interwebs. PvE, PvP, RvR reasons, is not a reason. Its a decision, one, I dont agree with, and not because I'm a hardcore PvP'er, because generally speaking Im not. But, the vastness, the massive size of the map, the simple fact that we all know of certain areas on the map, that no-one outside of your specific nation ever goes that is more than capable of providing trade, PvE, economy, grouping of any type and never be deterred by someone of another faction. There's spots on the map, I've been on w/more than nation that I've played, attacked AI, traded, just wandered around and haven't seen a soul for 4hrs. Saying that PvE players need a specific 'don't touch me server' is just not correct. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlavDeng2 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Hogwash Tech problems, I can potentially understand, I can toss a bone on that, simply because of financial reasons, holding/operating servers required for having everyone together may be more expensive, at least according to general conversations on the interwebs. PvE, PvP, RvR reasons, is not a reason. Its a decision, one, I dont agree with, and not because I'm a hardcore PvP'er, because generally speaking Im not. But, the vastness, the massive size of the map, the simple fact that we all know of certain areas on the map, that no-one outside of your specific nation ever goes that is more than capable of providing trade, PvE, economy, grouping of any type and never be deterred by someone of another faction. There's spots on the map, I've been on w/more than nation that I've played, attacked AI, traded, just wandered around and haven't seen a soul for 4hrs. Saying that PvE players need a specific 'don't touch me server' is just not correct. ok then lets start 1. what if we split up the map in regions? and one region is full, what happens when an attack fleet of say 50 people attack the other region? well they cant come on 2. we cant synch the map across servers as that is open for abuse. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babble Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 ok then lets start 1. what if we split up the map in regions? and one region is full, what happens when an attack fleet of say 50 people attack the other region? well they cant come on 2. we cant synch the map across servers as that is open for abuse. What about a shard system and instanced system? Say every PB is hosted on a shard? Every battle? Every person docked in a port? You enter a battle you connect to a shard. Battle ends you connect back to the main server. You dock up you connect to a shard? Enter OW connect back to main server. I think this system would relieve a lot of the resource drain on the server at a given time. Honestly how many of the 3k people on peek hours of pvp 1 are on the open seas at a given time? I really do think it is a huge problem for the longevity of the game to have such an immense map and divide the player base. Its a niche type game as it is. We need a way to get the entire game population to be able to play together for the world to really feel alive. As is is now, unless your in a hub, you can sail for hours without seeing another soul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spitzenhund Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 I'm hoping that enough technical optimization and funds would have come in from EA that by release they can just release the game with a single OW. I find it very ineffeciecent to have the game spread across 4 servers. Only 1 ever gets filled up and the game is truely 'the more the merrier'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babble Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) I tried to start a thread under general with a detailed proposal for a shard based 1 main server which feel is very possibly even with the current infrastructure without breaking RVR or making exploits possible. It needs to be reviewed by the admins before it appears though for whatever reason. Please keep an eye out for the post and contribute to the conversation. Thanks, Babble Edit: Link http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/10213-possible-solution-to-server-merger-and-game-pop-discussion/ Edited February 9, 2016 by Babble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumisz Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 (edited) Why name one server from a great city, and the other 3 from mere colonies, or less known towns? I would like something like: -Plymouth -Portsmouth -Dover -Weymouth -Bristol Or, if thats too much english names, then: -Plymouth -Brest -Copenhagen -Toulon -Kronstadt -Feodosia -Göteborg -Cadiz -Gibraltar -Algericas (basically naval base cities) To me, it feels like a server named from a famous city will be more attractive to people, than some less important ports. Edited February 12, 2016 by kumisz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Tabernac Posted February 11, 2016 Share Posted February 11, 2016 Bonanza Chicken Pot Pie 12ga Wire Airplane Pilot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Bristol has to get on that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumisz Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Added it for you, just picked some random port names Bristol has to get on that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Ballard / oo7 Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 After long deliberations we have decided to go with the cities for names for servers. There are a lot of beautiful city names we have already on the map that sound neutral, do not provide psychological preference bias. All other options (winds, fishes, gods, ship parts) have the bias that could influence player's choice (tiger vs sheep) Proposed names Plymouth - PVP One EU West End - PvP Two USA Rugged Cay - PvP Three EU Cayo Romano - PVE One USA Additional servers will be based on free town or other neutral names from our historical research. Same names will be used for names of sub forums. Bump: So when will this be implemented/ voted for ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts