Server merge

[Takumi El risitas]

No

We have suffered enough nighflips, and the only response we have had from enemies has been: look for people who play at this time lol

How many Latin American-Americans do you think play in Spain? PRACTICALLY NOBODY

NO MERGE #SleepPeacefully

[Barbancourt]

9 hours ago, koltes said:

Mate, I would be for all merges of dead servers to bring players together, but unfortunately I have so huge lag spites its not not playable for New Zealand and some parts of Aussie.

 

Mebbe need a new east asia-oceania style server... 

 

[Baptiste Gallouédec]

Merge can only happen if two things happens:

 

 -Either a solution to force balance in population between nations both in number and in timezones.

 -Or a solution so port contests between communities not playing on the same timezone can happen without forcing one or the other to play out of his primetime.

  I've already made a suggestion for landing operations port battles in that goal.

 Until then, separate server is an obvious choice.

[C R E W]

such a great game..such huge mistakes in development

[Skully]

52 minutes ago, rediii said:

The other way is to make grinds needed over 1 day and that basically creates grind/pve wars. Both are bad.

But if two opposing fleets are facing one-another we would still see the port flipping back and forth.

This was "eliminated" by the cooldown, which brought new bugs.

So what if, instead of a cooldown, can it be a warmup of 1 day?

The first flag / port battle signifies the initial hostility intent, the second flag / port battle (after 24 hours) the actual takeover.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Skully

[Rychu Karas]

After the merge, the population shrink even more.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Rychu Karas

[Vizzini]

The issues for most players is what happens during their prime time. I'm in England, have good quality Broadband and my ping on global is fine. I moved from the Eu server as I didn't think a 2-3 hour window was good for the game and if I couldn't make that time, shouldn't I look towards Global, the server that doesn't sleep. Not everybody is so lucky with the Internet connection and you're unlikely to get a consensus from people dotted around the globe.

 

If the devs get the game sorted , stop ignoring the problems that have driven the player base away and find a balance that we all can enjoy then this game would do well. I'm far from enthusiastic about lobby based World of Sail-ships but soon that might be all that's available soon

 

It's getting to the sort of numbers across both servers that a merge won't really achieve anything. Far too many times I have seen players turned away from clans because they don't play in the correct TZ and I don't see the majority of players (EU) wanting to put up with so called Night-flips because there isn't enough available to defend while they are asleep. These seem to be the main sticking points from before and nothing has changed.

 

It could be time to step away from PB's as they seem to create more problems than they are worth but that's another topic.

 

I'd put up with a merge if it meant a fuller and less drama driven server and player-base but I cannot see that happening

 

 

 

 

[Rebrall]

2 hours ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

 

Mebbe need a new east asia-oceania style server... 

 

Love this FYI 

[seanjo]

No merger. Unfortunately, I think "fixing the game" equates to make it easier to play. Ships with lives, cheap cannons, rookie areas.

 

I would look at port battles to start with, why all the aggression build up? why not make it so that a fleet of an appropriate number and types of ship can just sail to the port and take it, they have to occupy it for a certain amount of time and it becomes theirs, and of course the nation that loses the port can do the same send a fleet and take it back. Have the national capital as unconquerable with a minimum stock of needed resources also have a rookie/shallow trading area, so resources can be farmed and traded then one porting is never a resource problem.

My two pence worth...for what it's worth...

[Hodo]

11 hours ago, Bearwall said:

And just what do you expect a forum poll will show? - The players has already voted with their feet and they downvoted the idea of a global server. This is at best a less than worthwhile discussion that we have had so many times that it defies reason why we should have it again or at it's worst - a deliberate attempt to waste everyones time. The experience from pre-wipe is very clear - #NOMORENIGHTFLIPS! And most of those I've played with, talked to and fought both against and with will simply stop playing if the servers are merged i.e. create one big dead server rather than one dead (global) server and one that is actually viable to play at a certain hourly interval (strangely enough in the EU timezones).

 

#NOMORENIGHTFLIPS!!

Fact is the global server was mishandled by ADMIN not down voted by the player base.  

There was ZERO information put out on STEAM or through any other medium except this forum on the servers change.  So when the wipe happened 70% or more of the player base was caught off guard and had no clue what was going on.   

Instead of placing the Global server as the top server on the top of the list or having further information on the servers themselves.  

That was a soup sandwich all around.  This is why Global slacked in population.  

[Sang Noir]

41 minutes ago, Hodo said:

There was ZERO information put out on STEAM or through any other medium except this forum on the servers change.  So when the wipe happened 70% or more of the player base was caught off guard and had no clue what was going on.   

Thank you for bringing up the communications issue (Sorry for going off topic, I still consider this related though). Anyone who isn't constantly reading up on the forum doesn't know what is going on in the game. All it needs would be a news board added to the login. I only knew of the wipe from hearsay in the Nation chat. Any kind of information system within the game would be great. 

I don't really understand why port battles and flipping has been introduced before a system for city raiding was implemented. It would have been the more logical next step. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by Jean de la Rochelle

[Jean Ribault]

11 minutes ago, Jean de la Rochelle said:

...Anyone who isn't constantly reading up on the forum doesn't know what is going on in the game. All it needs would be a news board added to the login. I only knew of the wipe from hearsay in the Nation chat. Any kind of information system within the game would be great...

 

This is true.  It's why I mentioned earlier in this thread that the poll would be better in-game.  Poll aside, what you say is needed, is really needed.  There's no substitute for information during a development phase, and no excuse for not communicating properly.

Also, I understand now we have to Twitter to get info ?

[Christendom]

I've always been a proponent of a 1 server type of game, but at this point NA is basically on life support.  A merge needed to happen a month+ ago, now it'd just be trying to throw a couple empty cans of coffee together hoping you have enough left for a cup.   

The game needs to be fundamentally fixed at the development level first, though I'm not so sure the inclination is there.  There's a reason why EU went from pop numbers over 1300 to barely cracking 350 2 months later, there's a reason why global went from 400+ down to 100 most nights.  Right now we just play other games and hope that in a couple months NA legends is good enough to scratch the same itch than NA did.  

[Hodo]

2 minutes ago, Christendom said:

 Right now we just play other games and hope that in a couple months NA legends is good enough to scratch the same itch than NA did.  

Not even hoping on that.  Legends was never going to be what I was looking for, so I just went back to a game that actually gives me what I am looking for.

[George Washington]

10 minutes ago, Christendom said:

I've always been a proponent of a 1 server type of game, but at this point NA is basically on life support.  A merge needed to happen a month+ ago, now it'd just be trying to throw a couple empty cans of coffee together hoping you have enough left for a cup.   

The game needs to be fundamentally fixed at the development level first, though I'm not so sure the inclination is there.  There's a reason why EU went from pop numbers over 1300 to barely cracking 350 2 months later, there's a reason why global went from 400+ down to 100 most nights.  Right now we just play other games and hope that in a couple months NA legends is good enough to scratch the same itch than NA did.  

Life support? Wait until NA Legends release. Developer thinks Legends will boost population in both games, but the risk here is too great. If Legends fail it will drag the whole company down to the bottoms. Take a break and return after January 1st to find out the outcome. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by George Washington

[VirtuallyIdiotic]

Vote against. It wont change anything for American players that is for sure seeing how what Europeans we did have on PvP Global and how our times did not lined up well. Even when I did play on the EU server way back felt like the exact same as Global is dealing with right now. No significant change will occur. Only reason I see a merge worth anything is for the Dev sake of dealing with two servers rather than just one.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Davos Seasworth

[Koltes]

This is the reason Aussie/NZ cant play on PVP EU. Here is comparison of routing and spikes we are getting from Global and EU


GLOBAL SERVER. Casual spikes up to 334ms (comes from the IP in New Jersey) with an average of 200ms. Not great but playable in NA due to slower battle mechanics. Can't play WOT competitively with 200 ping for example.




EU SERVER. Casual spikes up to 741ms (heaviest coming from Dusseldorf, Germany) with an average of 350ms (Global has 350ms spikes while EU is averaging that). When it hits 700+ it renders unplayable.
During peak times spikes are worse, they are even higher and comes a whole lot more often.

Edited August 30, 2017 by koltes

[Skully]

7 hours ago, koltes said:

EU SERVER. Casual spikes up to 741ms (heaviest coming from Dusseldorf, Germany) with an average of 350ms (Global has 350ms spikes while EU is averaging that).

There appears to be an issue with the pipe between AMS-IX and DUS-IX. I haven't figured out what yet.

 6  * be3065.ccr41.ams03.atlas.cogentco.com (130.117.14.1)  10.538 ms !X *

he.net can probably route your traffic faster to EU server through LON-IX. You should take to Vodafone NZ whether they can change their routing tables (but usually this is tied up in deals...).

Edited August 30, 2017 by Skully

[Guest]

On 29/8/2017 at 3:33 AM, Rebrall said:

I fully understand we're he comes from to be honest you're clan has done it to mine regularly not intentionally btw so I hold no grudge at all it's part of the game in my eyes, that's the Beauty of playing a game with the rest of the world, and id love for him to give an idea what he would say was fair if we had only one server other than quit the game, so what would his idea as a fair option if only global existed? If that makes sense 

I say the current EU server is fair. By the very definition of PvP EU and PvP Global the devs gave players a choice. They chose. What is NOT fair is to "jam" global down every players throath just because global ended up being (surprise) a bad idea. It is not up to me to come up with a mechanic that will allow a servermerge - I don't want a servermerge. It is up to the community that desires a merge of the servers to come up with ideas as to how this would be achievable without losing the EU playerbase that most certainly will not accept another half ass solution nor even a month of nightflips - We've already tested that and it made a lot of players quit. This is not achieved - surprise - by putting forth another assanine poll.

 

EDIT: And please to repost every moronic PB mechanic idea out there. Most have been discussed and dismissed for a reason. If you come up with a suggestion then please research wether or not the idea has been discussed beforehand. Chances are that it has.

As I've pointed out - repeatedly - in many, many, many, many different threads - there is no difference wether you call the RvR segment clans or nations. No difference. What does change is the need for national based factions at all and if we remove those we might as well remove the map and envision a far more suited map in regards to gameplay. We do however lose something important along the way, one of the very reasons why this game has any attraction at all.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Guest

[Skully]

25 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

As I've pointed out - repeatedly - in many, many, many, many different threads - there is no difference wether you call the RvR segment clans or nations. No difference. What does change is the need for national based factions at all and if we remove those we might as well remove the map and envision a far more suited map in regards to gameplay. We do however lose something important along the way, one of the very reasons why this game has any attraction at all.

Denying folks the option to fight is a sure way to lose players.

I agree that Nations must have a place in NA, but not to the point of denying combat.

[Guest]

49 minutes ago, Skully said:

Denying folks the option to fight is a sure way to lose players.

I agree that Nations must have a place in NA, but not to the point of denying combat.

The alliance system is not part of the discussion about the servermerge, but I'll bite anyway

A limited return of alliances would in my opinion increase the frequency and quality of port battles & PvP in the current iteration of NA. One of the main stumbling blocks to PvP is the sailing time and the fact you get landlocked once in an area the enemy controls. This would (partially) be fixed by an alliance that would allow for OP construction closer to the enemy via another nations ports. We could ofc argue that nation A could cap nation Bs ports in order to get closer to nation C but this would deny the central premise that PvP and RvR is actually two different things. I enjoy PBs with the swedes, but I love hunting brits. (as an example). The issue however is wether or not make the alliances clan based or nationbased. If we make them clanbased we encounters two problems, one is the fact that nations becomes redundant as the clans basically takes over central functions that in the 18th century were no longer the domain of the nobility but solidly within the domain of the sovereign. Another problem becomes the fact that the game is built upon a historical base - the ships are historically founded, the nations are and even the map is derived in part from historical experience with the carribean. 

Another issue is how the alliances should function? An entirely different discussion but one I feel is worth having.

[Skully]

41 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

The alliance system is not part of the discussion about the servermerge, but I'll bite anyway

I'll pick up my posts as quotes as I'll try to explain.

On 8/24/2017 at 10:14 AM, Skully said:

I grow weary of the discussion to merge or not to merge. It isn't even a question.

To solve it we need to agree on premises.

1. The game does not model real life alliances at all. And we game by those alliances, not by what the game dictates.
2. You can only fight who is in your timeslot, regardless of Nation, Clan or alliance.
3. A 25 (PB) Fleet must be able to defend/hold a port, unless defeated directly in a 25x25 fight.
4. You bickering buggers are not entitled to hold more than 1 port.

41 minutes ago, Bearwall said:

One of the main stumbling blocks to PvP is the sailing time and the fact you get landlocked once in an area the enemy controls.

12 hours ago, Skully said:

It's not the old (broken) alliance system that you miss, it is the lack of a proper alliance system. It was very much broken because devs saw a need to force balance and fairness... 

Right now if a Nation (/Clan) finds itself surrounded by "friends" (whether real or not) it has no options anymore.

The same can be said for the old Flag timer system, if a Clan (/Nation) finds itself facing opposite timers then it has no options anymore.

Which would leave us with only the alliances based both on timeslots and map location to worry about.

Right now the quick fix @admin has in mind is having the ability to create Neutral towns from which your allies can sail.

But it is a bit twonky. So is "ditching" Nations in favor of "War Companies".

7 hours ago, Skully said:

8 hours ago, Teutonic said:

National allies was a mistake and I hope it does not come back.

Although, allowing clans to choose their allies within the nation and clans from other nations I would like very much and hope that gets added in the next patch.

Which brings us nicely around to the multi-sided RoE issue. 

This one I can't quote, the issue is literally too big. 

But here is a TL;DR of ^

On 8/29/2017 at 6:37 AM, Skully said:

But needing Clan vs Clan RoE runs into the highly controversial  (and bannable ) trouble of questioning the shortcoming of the great and excellent Combat engine for not being multi-sided.

Maybe it is a solution, maybe not, but it would be a fundamental undertaking.

So to be able to merge, we need to be able to fight at the location of our choosing and the time of our choosing, for which we need alliances that do not impede the notion of Nations. (Choosing being a relative terms, because sometimes/often the enemy makes the choice for you. )

Except for our homebase, which must never be "night"-flipped.

On 8/22/2017 at 8:49 AM, Skully said:

How about, a Clan can set a PB timer in one port only? Other same Clan ports owned will have no timer, because

On 7/10/2016 at 2:31 PM, Skully said:

It is a known exploit to set ports to anything other than no-timer. Since all of you here are of good sportsmanship, I expect it won't happen again. 

PS. Can I now get a t-shirt, or at least some reward? 

 

Edited August 30, 2017 by Skully

[PIerrick de Badas]

The game is worst now than before but not due of splitting server. Splitting server is what make people still play although Devs forget their soul somewhere and start a farming game

[Barbancourt]

9 hours ago, Bearwall said:

I say the current EU server is fair. By the very definition of PvP EU and PvP Global the devs gave players a choice. They chose. What is NOT fair is to "jam" global down every players throath just because global ended up being (surprise) a bad idea.

What's this nonsense about Global being a "bad idea"?  Global just didn't have enough players to operate successfully.  What we were given was a NON-CHOICE: Europe-centric time windows, or not Europe-centric time windows.  That doesn't offer a "choice" for most of the world.

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Barbancourt (rownd) said:

What's this nonsense about Global being a "bad idea"?  Global just didn't have enough players to operate successfully.  What we were given was a NON-CHOICE: Europe-centric time windows, or not Europe-centric time windows.  That doesn't offer a "choice" for most of the world.

 

 

Now that is nonsense. Global had 400-600 players to start with and they melted away. This can be attributed to several factors, the major being the grind in the start, the ship "skill-tree" (I still can't see the relevance of grinding a mercury in order to be able to grind a reno). Another attributing factor that can be added is the toxicity among the community but global can't be said to be any worse than EU, and finally the fact that RvR loses it's meaning (but not it's impact) when one side flip in the EU TZ and the other in the US TZ i.e. negating any and all chances for meaningfull PBs. The fact is that EU players were presented with a choice - nigthflips or no nightflips. And they chose. The rest of the world were given a choice - 20/7 RvR or not. And they chose and in the end negated on that choice. Global was a bad idea to begin with and will always be a bad idea.