To Merge or Not To Merge?

[Macjimm]

Taranis. My point was that this poll is much too convoluted in the wording.

Your interpretation of the numbers is wrong. Currently only 46% of the population would want to see PVP2 removed. If we do so we run the risk of losing over half the population because we are forcing them somewhere they dislike.

: flawed logic= The population is low on two servers. We should force people into a server that they choose to avoid because making people do something against their will increase the population. ... It suggests that the players on PvP2 are just to stupid to know what is good for themselves and if we do not allow them to play the server they like they will be much happier. .... allow us to pick the type of gameplay we enjoy.

[Taranis]

Taranis. My point was that this poll is much too convoluted in the wording.

Your interpretation of the numbers is wrong. Currently only 46% of the population would want to see PVP2 removed. If we do so we run the risk of losing over half the population because we are forcing them somewhere they dislike.

 

 

3 of the above choices are in favor of a merge.  If you sum the votes, you get a rate which is about 67%.  Subsequent, is the decision of where the servers are merged...

 

IMO, the decision tree is as follow:

 

(1) Merge YES or NO?

(2) If Merge is YES: 

(a ) Merge PvP1 > PvP2?, or

(b ) Merge PvP2 > PvP1?, or

(c ) Merge PvP1 & PvP2 into new hosting center / location?

(3) If Merge is NO:

(a ) Allow players to move assets from PvP2 > PvP1?,

(b ) Allow players to move assets from PvP1 > PvP2?,

(c ) Allow players to move assets either way, or into new server?,

(d ) Do not allow any asset moves?.

 

We are not really discussing the removal of any servers, just whether they are combined. If so: where. If not: what can be done to make players whole.

 

True, only players with a "dog in this fight" should be expressing their views on 3.a-3.d above. 

 

If the merge does not take place, would it not be nicer for PvP2 to have its due population, which pvp1 has essentially siphoned off?  Why would US, Canadian, South American, Australian.... players that used to play on PvP2 and moved to PvP1 want to come back to PvP2 after all this time, now that all their stuff is on PvP1? 

Edited September 27, 2016 by TaranisPrime

[Jean Ribault]

...

We are not really discussing the removal of any servers, just whether they are combined. If so: where. If not: what can be done to make players whole.

...

 

 

Seems to be a moot point, based upon this statement from devs:

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14640-devlog-forthcoming-content-patches-plan/?p=316601

 

Sounds like if you start reading from the words "in the long term" they already have the pathway defined, only the exact timeline remains unknown.

[Guest]

Running a global server is just a massive headache - the French quitting RvR during the summer because of the Brit timers, the US being the least active (and possibly smallest playercount) yet second-largest nation behind an iron curtain of timers, the Aussies being pissed off at events taking place 3-4am their time e.t.c - and there isn't really any way to resolve it.

 

Even on a global server, the only way it even functioned at first was because the timezones who fought eachother were fighting in different parts of the map, but now that has crumbled. So what's the point of merging a server if those you interact with at that time are largely the same that would be on a localized server anyways? A division within a server isn't that different from divided servers.

 

The server localities should've been enforced from the start, and now that the playercount is dwindling we're just making it even worse (through merging) by dealing with the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. I'd much rather just see an EU server, a US server, and an AUS server (unless they consider themselves close enough to US timers to join that one, but it wouldn't be ideal).

[Taranis]

Running a global server is just a massive headache - the French quitting RvR during the summer because of the Brit timers, the US being the least active (and possibly smallest playercount) yet second-largest nation behind an iron curtain of timers, the Aussies being pissed off at events taking place 3-4am their time e.t.c - and there isn't really any way to resolve it.

 

Even on a global server, the only way it even functioned at first was because the timezones who fought eachother were fighting in different parts of the map, but now that has crumbled. So what's the point of merging a server if those you interact with at that time are largely the same that would be on a localized server anyways? A division within a server isn't that different from divided servers.

 

The server localities should've been enforced from the start, and now that the playercount is dwindling we're just making it even worse (through merging) by dealing with the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. I'd much rather just see an EU server, a US server, and an AUS server (unless they consider themselves close enough to US timers to join that one, but it wouldn't be ideal).

 

Yup, agreed.  Which is why many of us playing on pvp1 started on pvp2.

[Mrdoomed]

Running a global server is just a massive headache - the French quitting RvR during the summer because of the Brit timers, the US being the least active (and possibly smallest playercount) yet second-largest nation behind an iron curtain of timers, the Aussies being pissed off at events taking place 3-4am their time e.t.c - and there isn't really any way to resolve it.

Even on a global server, the only way it even functioned at first was because the timezones who fought eachother were fighting in different parts of the map, but now that has crumbled. So what's the point of merging a server if those you interact with at that time are largely the same that would be on a localized server anyways? A division within a server isn't that different from divided servers.

The server localities should've been enforced from the start, and now that the playercount is dwindling we're just making it even worse (through merging) by dealing with the symptoms rather than the underlying causes. I'd much rather just see an EU server, a US server, and an AUS server (unless they consider themselves close enough to US timers to join that one, but it wouldn't be ideal).

At times it seems they are just using this game as a experiment and they want it to fail dont it? Just some of the stubborn and wierd moves they make in the face of an obvious problem just really seem they wamt it to fail or they are truly just making it for themselves and to hell with everyone else.

Im just along for the ride now lol.

[Æthlstan]

Read below, and read the post of mine that you quoted. Those lag issues. Not all of players in the US have a T1-T3 connection. Not all of us living in big cities with near direct access to nodes. Many of us cannot stand living in a city and therefore live in the suburbs or rural areas that have a good steady ping here in the US but a mere average ping to outside US servers that suffer massive lag spikes making that game worthless to us.

This should answer you question, even if previous answers somehow did not.

Bingo.

Now, perhaps these issues should force a redesign of how and what data is passed around between gaming servers and clients. Maybe what clients send to servers and receive from servers should be re-examined. I've been calling for this for decades.

I live out in the middle of nowhere and I have excellent ping. We dont have fast internet, limited to 50 mbps

[Yar Matey]

I got a better idea; how about the dev's improve the game by adding a user interface, adding pvp event hot spots where you can get rewarded with extra gold and better upgrades for winning, make port battles good instead of 3 magically floating towers out in the middle of the water, and then advertise the game so people know about it.  Then we wont be having these discussions about merging the server. 

 

We want to grow the player-base, not make people who are having fun on PvP2 angry.  I am currently playing on PvP1, but come from PvP2, and I still think merging the server is a bad idea.

[Macjimm]

3 of the above choices are in favor of a merge. If you sum the votes, you get a rate which is about 67%. Subsequent, is the decision of where the servers are merged...

IMO, the decision tree is as follow:

(1) Merge YES or NO?

(2) If Merge is YES:

(a ) Merge PvP1 > PvP2?, or

(b ) Merge PvP2 > PvP1?, or

(c ) Merge PvP1 & PvP2 into new hosting center / location?

(3) If Merge is NO:

(a ) Allow players to move assets from PvP2 > PvP1?,

(b ) Allow players to move assets from PvP1 > PvP2?,

(c ) Allow players to move assets either way, or into new server?,

(d ) Do not allow any asset moves?.

We are not really discussing the removal of any servers, just whether they are combined. If so: where. If not: what can be done to make players whole.

True, only players with a "dog in this fight" should be expressing their views on 3.a-3.d above.

If the merge does not take place, would it not be nicer for PvP2 to have its due population, which pvp1 has essentially siphoned off? Why would US, Canadian, South American, Australian.... players that used to play on PvP2 and moved to PvP1 want to come back to PvP2 after all this time, now that all their stuff is on PvP1?

Your explaination is complex in the extreme.

And I have no idea what old pvp2 players who now play on pvp1 want to do.

My point is simple. If you insist on shutting down PVP2 we will lose many of the players who enjoy it. They are not sheep or cattle.

Edit: but my opinion is moot. The developers do not intend to support two PVP servers

So in the long term we only need two servers. PvP (1000 players) and PVE (300-400 players).

Edited September 28, 2016 by Macjimm

[theTopsail]

No merge! Leave the pvp servers alone. I play on pvp2 and would get a terrible ping if the servers are merged!

[Jean Ribault]

I had never played on pvp1 prior to today.  With all the conjecture about ping I needed to see for myself.  I am USA east coast, Maryland.  I created a character (French of course), did 1 mission and hung out for a short while there.  My ping was 100 the whole time and good FPS.  For reference on pvp2 I usually get around 20 ping all the time with also good FPS.  Still doesn't change my view on a merge, I am not for it.  BTW, there were between 700 and 800 players online on pvp1 at the time.

[Loco Bandito]

I play on a ping of 290 all the time and it's fine. Or I've gotten used to it. Lol.

[Elric]

I would prefer to play with players in my approximate time zone.  Some PvP games have at least 3 geographic servers - Europe, USA, Asia-Pacific.

 

If the game gets enough players, I hope they can accommodate this.

 

Ironically, with Blizzard's Diablo 3, I would get fewer hops from the eastern USA into their European server than into their west coast USA server.  So I often played on the European server for performance reasons.

 

I have a PvP1 character and overall the ping is acceptable for me - in the 150-200 range - not bad.

[Angus McGregor]

It sure would be refreshing for a certain segment to stop citing ping rates >100 as a reason they'd stop playing NA. It may be game-breaking for a lot of first person shooters, but it's a total strawman argument here. It isn't significant or even detectable 99% of the time. Kindly stop squawking about an extra 1/10th of a second delay ruining your day.

 

I could easily make an argument that more lag makes the game much more realistic. There's no precision electronic fire control in the age of sail. It was squinting through acrid smoke, officers yelling, yanking firing lanyards, gunpowder igniting and a hefty metal ball being ejected from an ill-fitting smooth bore barrel on a pitching and rolling deck.

[Jean Ribault]

In the end it's the dev who will decide if they can substain 2 PVP servers.

...

What was funny after that is that a lot of European players complained about the players from other countries... Asking us to go play somewhere else. But we stayed and since have been accepted.

 

 

True, it doesn't matter in the long run what any of us really wants.  Our input will be considered, but the game should make money, be appealing, and work, essentially that's it.

 

It sure would be refreshing for a certain segment to stop citing ping rates >100 as a reason they'd stop playing NA. It may be game-breaking for a lot of first person shooters, but it's a total strawman argument here. It isn't significant or even detectable 99% of the time. Kindly stop squawking about an extra 1/10th of a second delay ruining your day.

 

I could easily make an argument that more lag makes the game much more realistic. There's no precision electronic fire control in the age of sail. It was squinting through acrid smoke, officers yelling, yanking firing lanyards, gunpowder igniting and a hefty metal ball being ejected from an ill-fitting smooth bore barrel on a pitching and rolling deck.

 

 

Not sure why you would make this post.  People who bought this alpha are testing everything including response times, and response time is critical in players' satisfaction of gameplay.  That discussion is extremely relevant here, especially in light of the discrepancies folks are having not only between east and west coasts of the USA, and Australia, etc, but also between folks who even live in the same area.  Don't presume to tell everyone else what is important to them, this obviously is.

 

Also, we are not talking about an extra 10th of a second here.  If you read these threads about pings, you'll see people are spiking hundreds of milliseconds for periods, over 500.  This can be critical in winning or losing a battle sometimes.  In my view, that factor alone makes this conversation very relevant.

[majorhandicap]

Actually the devs said they would a while back in one of there patch plans.

I play on 300 ping and I'm in Australia.

The devs said it was "under consideration". Not that they would do it. They are two different things. 

[majorhandicap]

Poll stand at 37 to merge vs. 15 for no merge and 2 voting other.

So >66% of the players that bothered to answer this poll would prefer something other than what we have now.

Do we merge, do we not merge that isn't really a question for the devs. The devs aren't stopping us from merging ourselves anytime we want to. I would suggest some of us give a serious attempt to playing on the other server. If you don't have a terrible connection there are a lot of advantages to PvP play on pvp1. If you have a bad connection or like to play with low population or solo then there are advantages to Pvp2.

About the only reason I can think of for forcing a merge would be to increase large port battles in us time zones. With the new conquest system coming along I'm not even sure that matters anymore. I suspect the US server has a yearly lease so there really is no reason to merge until the lease is up.

I wan't to point out, that this isn't a poll. This is a self-selected opinion poll with intent behind it. Started by someone who isn't an admin and isn't a dev. The dev's have said it's not going to happen. They said it was under consideration, but then said it wasn't going to happen because they got a real feedback loop. You can maintain "but they said..." in your head all you want, but they didn't. They said it was under consideration. 

My god folks, give it up. You have numerous players saying they will quit. You have people saying that the game is unplayable for them on PVP1. If they want to release the game and have a world wide player base, all the standard measurements, of which ping is one, needs to be under consideration. New players will not join a game where there is 300+ ping. They won't stick around on a server to learn how to compensate for 300+ ping. All the "trust me it's fine..." or "I do it..." is the problem. You keep beating a dead horse. This isn't about you. This is about a company making a game that they want to sell and make money. Right now, the way they can keep making money is by having multiple servers. So if you want to play on PVP1 by all means, play on PVP1. Stop telling me where I should play and giving me reasons why I must play there. I'm playing on PVP2 because that's where I want to be. And spare me the coming insults about not being much of a player, because that poison is why people have left the game. 

[Macjimm]

Seems to be a moot point, based upon this statement from devs:

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/14640-devlog-forthcoming-content-patches-plan/?p=316601

 

Sounds like if you start reading from the words "in the long term" they already have the pathway defined, only the exact timeline remains unknown.

Not sure why people keep saying that the Devs may keep two PVP servers. I wish that we could keep two but if you read the link that Captain Ribault provided it is clear that the devs intend to have only two servers . One for PVP and one for PvE.

[Mrdoomed]

Not sure why people keep saying that the Devs may keep two PVP servers. I wish that we could keep two but if you read the link that Captain Ribault provided it is clear that the devs intend to have only two servers . One for PVP and one for PvE.

Yes it does seem this is a game being designed for European players and only using the funding from the rest of the world to.get it finished.

Oh well. Ive been looking and there are alot of very good games coming out in this genre.

[Rikard Frederiksen]

My vote, initially, was a selfish one. After years of US-based servers for various games (whether the only server, as was the case for WWIIOnline, or due to a server set up in a certain way for a game/mod but located in America) and having to play with high pings, my initial reaction was to vote for PvP2 merged into PvP1 - as I said, purely selfish as it safeguards my playability. However, after reading responses in this thread I amended my vote to leaving the PvP servers as they are - PvP1 EU, PvP2 US. Whilst a 24/7 server with something going on almost constantly would be nice, the practicality of the situation does call for two servers.

[Sir Texas Sir]

I would prefer to play with players in my approximate time zone.  Some PvP games have at least 3 geographic servers - Europe, USA, Asia-Pacific.

 

If the game gets enough players, I hope they can accommodate this.

 

Ironically, with Blizzard's Diablo 3, I would get fewer hops from the eastern USA into their European server than into their west coast USA server.  So I often played on the European server for performance reasons.

 

I have a PvP1 character and overall the ping is acceptable for me - in the 150-200 range - not bad.

I use to do a lot of travel for my work and when I was in Singapore for work the WoT Asia server was worse ping than playing on the west cost server until they got the server moved.  That was why a lot of the Aussie players played on the NA server instead of the ASIA one.  So some times the placement of servers isn't all ways good.  When I was in the Cannary island I got better ping on the NA server than the EU server.   Though I'll play on EU when I was in South Africa, Egyt, Norway or Ireland.    So really it's all about the infrastructure of that country and where they have the best lines ran too.  I couldn't play at all in a few other places but than again they where third world countrys and it was like having dial up.

 

 

Most the folks I'm seeing posting that aren't having problems with PvP1 pings and are US base all seem to be East Coast.  Some are very close to the PvP2 server too which is based on east coast.  I think it would of been better if they had a west coast location since that would put it close to the ASIA/AUSSIE players and the US.   

 

I'm in central US now and my pings go from 50-60 on PvP2 to 130-160 on the PvP1 and I started on PvP1 and switched over when they mirror that server.   To be honest they just need to allow transfers either way one time.   The numbers are prob just low like it does every patch.   Folks come on and play for a while and than get board cause of lack of content.  We will see our numbers go up when the next patch comes out.  Hell we say numbers go up for the events even after the first two and every one was complaining about them.

[Angus McGregor]

People who bought this alpha are testing everything including response times, and response time is critical in players' satisfaction of gameplay.

 

No, in reality this "satisfaction" with ultra low ping rates is an illusion. The difference in game play between ping timing 30 and 130, even 230 is insignificant as long as it's consistent. If you don't believe that then I guess the Aussie players may as well rage quit playing right now. The reality is that human reaction time to visual stimulus is around 250 ms. Any results that seem better than that is caused by anticipation of events, and your system will adjust to compensate for consistent causal lag. 

[Bach]

Cold hard facts time. You of you are grasping at political style spin arguement said to back your stances. So as someone seriously playing both servers the following is what you should be considering and arguing.

This game currently covers a large play area. The competing teams are dispersed across this play area. It doesn't matter for PVE server. But to fully utilize the game feature in each nation a certain threshold population is required. 114 players online in PvP2 USA evenings ain't it. Meanwhile pvp1 USA prime time runs higher in pop than pvp2 by about 10-20%. Somehow you need to combine North American player bases together. I sail for an hour in pvp2 an never see another player who isn't an ally. To PvP this past week ALL we ever do is goto MT. Just that one spot on the map is all that works for practical player hunting on pvp2. On pvp1 we goto KPR, MT or Sunbury. Not much better but still better. Somehow you need to get the North Americans together.

Ping isn't a very good arguement for having two servers. This game euro pop is almost 4 times larger than the two North American pops put together. Like it or not it's a euro game currently. If a player plays on pvp2 to get a good ping that is just a patch to a symptom of the main problem. Which is that the main server probably isn't good enough. You might save the Aussie players that will put up with low pop a RvR but you end up losing the other North Americans that crave high pop RVR. You make it sound likes its all about keeping the low ping guys. It's not. If you have to cut them loose the get even more high pop players then you cut em loose. Unless you can show figures that there is this huge Aussie population that would love their own server. If not it's a safe bet to assume there are more high pop RvR preferring USA players out there that have already quit player due to low pop on both servers.

[Jean LaPointe]

What are we really trying to accomplish with a merger? From the base of it you had some guys leave PvP2 for PvP1 now they want to go back to PvP2 (yes I am over simplifying it). And they want to bring their hard earned rewards with them from one server to another, or even simpler combine the cached goods and have access from both PvP servers.

Well, you might as well start to be mentally prepared for the release now and quiet worrying about your goods and kingdoms you've created because when the testing is done all we have left will be a cutter, our rank , our crafting ability and a fishing pole to start out with all over again.

Does it matter if you cannot take your stuff from one server to another? No!

Servers right now are testing platforms. You can play on either one, so why would you care to have everyone on a single server, now? This is a test. The devs can see who plays on what server. They can see preferences, they can tell if a connection to a server is from a tight local group or a widespread group. It is this information they will utilized in final decisions concerning how many servers and where the server could reside.

You think there is not a difference, play both and decide for yourself. There has been plenty that perfect one server over the other for many reasons that really only pertain to that player. Trying to convince a player who experiences more difficulty on one server over the other because you don't experience the same thing he does is just plainly inconsiderate of that persons experience.

Is having more people on one server worth loosing the interest of those who wish not to be part of a merger. I don't think so. If you want a larger population on a server so you can have the kind of battles/entertainment you want at the expense of someone else, then you are delusional in thinking it will solve the problem you see with having two servers. Look, very simple here, I play PvE on the PvE server. I ALSO, play PvE on both PvP servers. Has my presence on any server made any difference in the way you want to play this game, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Do you think merging will make a difference in how you experience the game today, I really don't think it will.

What until it goes live, then we will see.

[Bach]

What are we really trying to accomplish with a merger? From the base of it you had some guys leave PvP2 for PvP1 now they want to go back to PvP2 (yes I am over simplifying it). And they want to bring their hard earned rewards with them from one server to another, or even simpler combine the cached goods and have access from both PvP servers.

Well, you might as well start to be mentally prepared for the release now and quiet worrying about your goods and kingdoms you've created because when the testing is done all we have left will be a cutter, our rank , our crafting ability and a fishing pole to start out with all over again.

Does it matter if you cannot take your stuff from one server to another? No!

Servers right now are testing platforms. You can play on either one, so why would you care to have everyone on a single server, now? This is a test. The devs can see who plays on what server. They can see preferences, they can tell if a connection to a server is from a tight local group or a widespread group. It is this information they will utilized in final decisions concerning how many servers and where the server could reside.

You think there is not a difference, play both and decide for yourself. There has been plenty that perfect one server over the other for many reasons that really only pertain to that player. Trying to convince a player who experiences more difficulty on one server over the other because you don't experience the same thing he does is just plainly inconsiderate of that persons experience.

Is having more people on one server worth loosing the interest of those who wish not to be part of a merger. I don't think so. If you want a larger population on a server so you can have the kind of battles/entertainment you want at the expense of someone else, then you are delusional in thinking it will solve the problem you see with having two servers. Look, very simple here, I play PvE on the PvE server. I ALSO, play PvE on both PvP servers. Has my presence on any server made any difference in the way you want to play this game, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Do you think merging will make a difference in how you experience the game today, I really don't think it will.

What until it goes live, then we will see.

 

I think you might be missing my point. Most of you all are arguing the wrong thing. You are arguing to KEEP the north American time zone players separated. This is not a good thing as the isolated populations are to small to fully utilize the games functions. Even for testing.  The issue should be that the chosen main server can not support the ping of world wide customers and should be moved.  It has a 2500 man limit and back in January we actually hit that resulting in pvp3.  The game most certainly has a critical population mass for the size of play area. For example: lets say pvp2 was the Baltic Sea and only had four nations. At this size 200 players would be enough to utilize many of the mechanics and aspects that get left out of PVP2 and north American time PVP1.  Quick example is econ. PVP2 has almost no economy to speak of.  PVP1 does because ship selling and goods selling is a 24/7 activity and so has 1000+ players competing. However, PvP1 north American time is abysmal for port battle mechanics since the players are spread all around. Ofcourse pvp2 isn't much better.

 

I do not know that there are any or many pvp1 transfers actually looking to get back into pvp2. There is on average more pvp on pvp1 and the weekends with the euros are a treat.  Short of Tuetonic I don't know of anyone that wants pvp1 gear moved to pvp2. I certainly do not.

 

As to your second comment. Ys I have and do play both servers. The nuances of each are no stranger to me.  Though there may be good things to each the underlying issue is the north american zone population is divided for no real good reasons.  Pvp2 has no economic game, it has almost no privateering game. It does have port battles of limited nature and players currently schedule PBs to have some opposition. When you are scheduling your port battle with you enemies so they show up you are no longer RVR simulating a war. PVP1 offers more than pvp2 if you can stand the connection but even it is lacking in conquest mechanics participation. which will also hamper testing the new mechanics some what.

 

Lastly "Is having more participation on one server worth losing those that don't want the merger?"  Quite frankly yes. There is nothing making them so special as to regard special treatment around the rest.  Point in fact this week I was asked to explore two pvp2 clans potential of returning. (OMG and Purge) Both were highly active French and Pirate clans on pvp2.  After some discussion I asked what was there greatest issue with returning. Bear in mind both are showing interest in the new conquest system. However both groups essentially sited the lack of the merger as the greatest deterrent to conquest pvp and they're return.  Now these two clans are one example of players that left pvp2 both clans are 20 men each. So that is roughly 40 players. Now to put this in perspective that 40 players is roughly 30% of the ENTIRE population playing PVP2 at any given day.  So I would ask you what makes the hold outs more special than the rest?

Edited October 4, 2016 by Bach