To Merge or Not To Merge?

[Taranis]

I agree with Bach - the most significant point of the discussion concerns the consolidation of the US timezone player base which has been fragmented in favor of the pvp1 server.  If the servers do not merge, players on pvp1 will not be enticed to come back to pvp2.

[Jean Ribault]

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. 

 

 

Obviously either you cannot read, or won't take the time to read.  Which is it?  230 is NOT the number.  Neither is it what I said in my post.  over 500 spikes during a battle.  Don't misquote and build a lame argument over it.

[Jean Ribault]

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?

 

 

Your arguments are sound, except IMO that last paragraph.  The number is not 40 players and your view is shortsighted there.  The focus should not be on the number of current players, we are just testers and it doesn't really matter who quits now.  The focus should be on what reactions are targeted and likely to happen after the release of the game.  This is why the devs have stated what their long-term pvp server intentions are, because they are not trying to appease this testing crowd, but rather they are trying to make a game that is ultimately sustainable after release.  Now if you had speculated with your argument that the game could lose say 2500 of 4000 potential post-release sales, then this argument might have more merit.  But for today's player-testers your 40-quote is irrelevant, even if those 40 do eventually decide to rage quit.

[Angus McGregor]

Obviously either you cannot read, or won't take the time to read.  Which is it?  230 is NOT the number.  Neither is it what I said in my post.  over 500 spikes during a battle.  Don't misquote and build a lame argument over it.

 

I saw what you wrote and frankly didn't give it much weight. Of course there will be people who have poor internet performance from time to time. I certainly do in the evenings during prime video streaming time. My ping goes north of 300 and my speeds often drop off to <15Mps down and 4 Mbps up. Do I expect anything to be done to accommodate my intermittent issues? Not hardly. Again, in the constantly bad Aussie case, why aren't you arguing strongly for relocating PvP2 to the west coast or even better... Hawaii. I'll volunteer to maintain the server myself at a very reasonable rate.     

 

If you had said that there are some people who always have pings in the 500's to PvP1. How many?  If there's anything I've learned about forum participation, its that the loudest voices are usually not representative. And even if it is more than a few, are we all to just shrug and say "Well then, nothing can be done if it will adversely affect anyone. We'll all just have to suffer together."

 

Frankly it isn't the end of the world to lose a battle or two to things beyond our control. Especially if it means more battles for everyone one who wants them.

 

But for today's player-testers your 40-quote is irrelevant, even if those 40 do eventually decide to rage quit.

 

 

As has been said, the server populations are reaching the point that IS is effecting participation and likely affecting the quality of testing. I'll be charitable and say that I'm having a hard time understanding those who want to maintain the status quo.

Edited October 4, 2016 by Steadfast

[Mrdoomed]

I saw what you wrote and frankly didn't give it much weight. Of course there will be people who have poor internet performance from time to time. I certainly do in the evenings during prime video streaming time. My ping goes north of 300 and my speeds often drop off to <15Mps down and 4 Mbps up. Do I expect anything to be done to accommodate my intermittent issues? Not hardly. Again, in the constantly bad Aussie case, why aren't you arguing strongly for relocating PvP2 to the west coast or even better... Hawaii. I'll volunteer to maintain the server myself at a very reasonable rate.

If you had said that there are some people who always have pings in the 500's to PvP1. How many? If there's anything I've learned about forum participation, its that the loudest voices are usually not representative. And even if it is more than a few, are we all to just shrug and say "Well then, nothing can be done if it will adversely affect anyone. We'll all just have to suffer together."

Frankly it isn't the end of the world to lose a battle or two to things beyond our control. Especially if it means more battles for everyone one who wants them.

As has been said, the server populations are reaching the point that IS is effecting participation and likely affecting the quality of testing. I'll be charitable and say that I'm having a hard time understanding those who want to maintain the status quo.

So you are for merging US players into pvp2 or leaving things as they are? Good deal. Thats the best solution to a problem that only pvp1 players have.

[Jean Ribault]

I saw what you wrote and frankly didn't give it much weight. Of course there will be people who have poor internet performance from time to time. I certainly do in the evenings during prime video streaming time. My ping goes north of 300 and my speeds often drop off to <15Mps down and 4 Mbps up. Do I expect anything to be done to accommodate my intermittent issues? Not hardly. Again, in the constantly bad Aussie case, why aren't you arguing strongly for relocating PvP2 to the west coast or even better... Hawaii. I'll volunteer to maintain the server myself at a very reasonable rate.     

 

If you had said that there are some people who always have pings in the 500's to PvP1. How many?  If there's anything I've learned about forum participation, its that the loudest voices are usually not representative. And even if it is more than a few, are we all to just shrug and say "Well then, nothing can be done if it will adversely affect anyone. We'll all just have to suffer together."

 

Frankly it isn't the end of the world to lose a battle or two to things beyond our control. Especially if it means more battles for everyone one who wants them.

 

 

As has been said, the server populations are reaching the point that IS is effecting participation and likely affecting the quality of testing. I'll be charitable and say that I'm having a hard time understanding those who want to maintain the status quo.

 

 

I don't know, I guess you simply singled out my posts and feel like arguing for arguments sake and again didn't bother to read them, or else feel like taking them out of context, because some of my posts WERE about making this playable for the Aussies.  And I'm not arguing for a relocation to ANY specific area.  I DO want the Aussies to be able to play, and I'm not an expert on server relocation.  Those that create the game ARE experts, presumably.  And by the way, I suspect you aren't an expert either on locations, are you?  All of us should be focusing on whether the game is marketable after release, and I mean marketable to the world, not just to our little world of alpha testers.  IMO we have a pretty good variety of locations represented right now that point out both the strengths and the flaws of the current server locations.  If you want to focus on the west coast, feel free.  But I think(?) we want the same end result, so why continue with these silly arguments?  

[Bach]

Your arguments are sound, except IMO that last paragraph.  The number is not 40 players and your view is shortsighted there.  The focus should not be on the number of current players, we are just testers and it doesn't really matter who quits now.  The focus should be on what reactions are targeted and likely to happen after the release of the game.  This is why the devs have stated what their long-term pvp server intentions are, because they are not trying to appease this testing crowd, but rather they are trying to make a game that is ultimately sustainable after release.  Now if you had speculated with your argument that the game could lose say 2500 of 4000 potential post-release sales, then this argument might have more merit.  But for today's player-testers your 40-quote is irrelevant, even if those 40 do eventually decide to rage quit.

 

If the NA Devs have a business head on their shoulders they will time the release to match  the new "Pirates of the Carribean 5" movie release in 2017. If not the release at least plan a short marketing blitz around it.  I think the initial release/blitz population under such condition will be at least what we saw back in January and probably even more. I think we will see x3 pvp servers required at first. Even though this is an alpha, in reality most of the players are treating it as the real play and as such it is still a mini example of what we should expect of player behaviors following release. So we should see initial high interest tapering down after 6 months. Followed by a sort of leveling out period at 9-10 month.  At the end of which we will likely be back down to 1 server maybe two.  To avoid these issues we're seeing today, I think the Devs should acquire access to a server that proves to be reliable for world wide customers. This should then become the main server.However to be sure, it wouldn't be a bad idea to test putting the world onto the euro server now to see how it truly effects low ping countries. This is assuming they're business model prefers to favor the current euro based server for their own reasons. Following release I see no issue with having x3  servers again. But after about 8-10 month players will likely need to be consolidated again. But hopefully, this time the server is planned ahead of time to be the one offering the best world wide ping. 

Edited October 5, 2016 by Bach

[Sir Texas Sir]

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.

 

 

Want to have more PvP?  Stop voting alliance with the other big nations and than you will have more options to fight.  Right not it's pretty much every nation against the pirates.  No one else is fighting each other.   This makes a very stale game to be honest considering Pirates isn't that big of a nation. 

[Mrdoomed]

Want to have more PvP? Stop voting alliance with the other big nations and than you will have more options to fight. Right not it's pretty much every nation against the pirates. No one else is fighting each other. This makes a very stale game to be honest considering Pirates isn't that big of a nation.

Did you realy expect anything less? I mean giving try hards and carebears the option to force peace with anyone who could hurt them is like an answer to thier prayers.

Ive talked to several brit and US player who want to fight each other but because try hards vote no they have nothing to do.

[Bach]

Want to have more PvP? Stop voting alliance with the other big nations and than you will have more options to fight. Right not it's pretty much every nation against the pirates. No one else is fighting each other. This makes a very stale game to be honest considering Pirates isn't that big of a nation.

Playing France here. Only alliance I ever vote for is Sweden. I'm pretty sure that's not swinging the map strengths.

To a degree the Pirates brought this situation on all of us and especially themselves by playing "port pacman" with all the undefended frontiers around pvp2. You can expect anyone who looks at the map to view pirates as anything other than the major threat of the server. Did they need all those unused ports? No. Unless a player takes the time to study the political grid votes it's hard to look beyond the map to determine active player strengths. If you look at total votes and divide by roughly 8 you can determine a nations active player base. True, some will be those that avoid hard PvP but you still get the rough head count. On a server pop this low, logically a high pop nation should never ally to a another top pop nation.

Edited October 5, 2016 by Bach

[Lurken]

merge all servers, its not enough people in the game anyways. 100 people online on a map that is extremly oversized, people are only around their capital, if you wanna go to someone else's capital, you sail in an empty world for 2 hours then you see some people again, could be just the capital area and a loadingzone to the next capital area, map is 95% deadspace.

 

that or make the map smaller, like 1/3 in width and height

[Mrdoomed]

merge all servers, its not enough people in the game anyways. 100 people online on a map that is extremly oversized, people are only around their capital, if you wanna go to someone else's capital, you sail in an empty world for 2 hours then you see some people again, could be just the capital area and a loadingzone to the next capital area, map is 95% deadspace.

that or make the map smaller, like 1/3 in width and height

Yes. Merge them into pvp2. Of course since Europe has a higher population than the Americas they will pretty much dictate everything that goes on in that servers and while anyone in Canada or Americais alseep or working those players are pretty mucb just an afterthought in the server.

Yes doit now!