Important information about the new EU server.

[Sir Texas Sir]

I appreciate that players do not want to split the community, but the fact remains that PvP1 is overpopulated, and actions must be taken to ensure a portion of that population wants to go to 3. 

Have ya'll thought that maybe, just maybe part of the over population is cause many of us US players and I assume other places play on PvP one cause it's the more populated server?   Other than  the pings I didn't even know that one was US and the other was EU.   There is is about  60-40 difference for me and it's not that bad to play.   Compared to other games.  So I picked the more populated server to play on as I assume many others have.   For future might check on some incentives to get the US players to play on there server than the more populated one and that would prob help with the que times.

 

 

 

Sadly from my short time on the US server I'm finding out that they don't do as much as for battles and such and prob would of made me bored with the game in a short time.  I know this is still a pre release time and I done many of these for other games as an Alpha and Beta player, but when you do opens like this many folks aren't use to the concept and think of this as a finished game.   Keep up the good work and I'll just jump back and forth from the main server I play on and the US one when your doing down time like this.

[mirror452]

What about a system like this? (with more than just 3 servers, ofc)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h0nqu8b3du957se/server2.png?dl=0

Means, you have overlapping servers, which means that even when tacking you would not switch all the time, and since the server borders would be so further apart than the view range you would also always be able to see other players... In fact, maybe no loading screen is necessary since you could in the overlapping area be connected to both servers.

Now that would mean that there need to be more servers, and the neighbouring servers would have to communicate with each other all the time, at least about the area that they share... I have no idea if this is possible.

[Wilberforce]

And that's the problem you run into, especially if you're beating up wind (tacking) and happen to be near a boundary.  It's critical that players in the same area always see each other.

 

 

Not necessarily, environmental anomalies (weather effects) could separate the regions or even just implementing particularly dense fog of war when approaching the boundaries. At the end of the day immersion is important, but game-play and entertainment should be the priority. Diluting the populations with multiple servers with such a huge OS map will directly effect game-play. 

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Have ya'll thought that maybe, just maybe part of the over population is cause many of us US players and I assume other places play on PvP one cause it's the more populated server?   Other than  the pings I didn't even know that one was US and the other was EU.   There is is about  60-40 difference for me and it's not that bad to play.   Compared to other games.  So I picked the more populated server to play on as I assume many others have.   For future might check on some incentives to get the US players to play on there server than the more populated one and that would prob help with the que times.

 

 

 

Sadly from my short time on the US server I'm finding out that they don't do as much as for battles and such and prob would of made me bored with the game in a short time.  I know this is still a pre release time and I done many of these for other games as an Alpha and Beta player, but when you do opens like this many folks aren't use to the concept and think of this as a finished game.   Keep up the good work and I'll just jump back and forth from the main server I play on and the US one when your doing down time like this.

 

I think over time you'll see the activity levels balance out.  Initially the locations were dropped with the idea that it would "balance" players on the various servers based on ping and not location.  For now, the players are still figuring out what they like/want to do, and I think you'll see lateral movement here and there as time goes on.  PvP1 was crowded initially because of all of the great Alpha Testers who have gotten to know one another and wanted to keep that dynamic going.  We're used to fighting each other, we have rivalries, and we wanted to keep our friends.  We're used to the mechanics and meta-game and therefore fight more and at different times than players who are new.  Newer players, as they figure out the meta and how things work, will begin to get more aggressive as they get more comfortable and you'll see that reflected on servers 2 and 3.

Not necessarily, environmental anomalies (weather effects) could separate the regions or even just implementing particularly dense fog of war when approaching the boundaries. At the end of the day immersion is important, but game-play and entertainment should be the priority. Diluting the populations with multiple servers with such a huge OS map will directly effect game-play. 

 

Even worse knowing where the line is.  You could jump just the other side of it and slip past another squadron, who, to stop you, must split themselves in half to cover both sides.  It's not as easy as you think.

 

I like that the community is applying their brains to helping to fix the issue, though.  Please keep thinking!  I believe everyone involved would rather see a completely unified server as long as it didn't negatively impact th game's goals.

[Wilberforce]

 

Even worse knowing where the line is.  You could jump just the other side of it and slip past another squadron, who, to stop you, must split themselves in half to cover both sides.  It's not as easy as you think.

 

Not claiming it is easy, I am hoping that it is a priority though. Jumping to the other side of the region is exactly how EvE jump gates operate. Is it perfect? By no means, but it achieves the goal of getting everyone on one server. As I saw PotBS go this multiple server route which absolutely killed its initial launch momentum. Therefore the megashard concept is worth sacrifices to achieve. 

[Sir Texas Sir]

For me I wouldn't even mind starting over on the US server, but it's only Rank XP.  They should of allowed Crafting XP to cross over too.  Starting over on the crafting system would suck.   I can all ways go out and cap new ships to get me up to something decent to grind in.

 

 

Any one know when they move on are they going to do any more wipes or is it all going to be soft ones?

[mirror452]

What do you think about my second seggestion, Henry? Is it possible to be connected to 2 servers at the same time, and having them communicate with each other about positions of players and such?

 

(In fact, now that I think about it, maybe the servers don't even have to communicate with each other. But that means that tagging other players would have to be done in the Client instead of the server. Maybe that can be a weakspot for hackers...)

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

No more hard wipes.  A hard wipe is defined as starting with absolutely nothing.  Rank XP is now permanent (bear in mind, however, that rank requirements may change if they need to - which means you'd retain the XP, but your rank might change). Wipes of assets, crafting XP, etc. will only happen if there is a large scale change to a related feature.

[Sir Texas Sir]

Not claiming it is easy, I am hoping that it is a priority though. Jumping to the other side of the region is exactly how EvE jump gates operate. Is it perfect? By no means, but it achieves the goal of getting everyone on one server. As I saw PotBS go this multiple server route which absolutely killed its initial launch momentum. Therefore the megashard concept is worth sacrifices to achieve. 

Part of the problem was PoTBS started with way to many servers so when they died down they had to start to combine them.  This happens with a lot of games that start with multi servers.   Many I seen started with 12 servers and now with 2-4  or even down to one.   I don't mind like what WoT did with regional servers.  Having one big EU server and one NA server, but than you prob have the poor Aussies and Asians complain about times.   

[Pedroig]

I'm not sure if you've ever developed software or handled large databases (if you have, my apologies). This is not going poorly at all. Backing up an entire database and restoring it to a new machine, then getting it reconfigured and set up to the point that you can log a few developers in and test it prior to reopening the source database takes a little bit of time. Planning and discussions to take this action have been going on internally for a longer time than you think. Please refrain from commenting on how well or poorly things are going when you are not privy to the Developers' conversations and procedures.

With that out of the way, the question remains, "how can Game Labs encourage at least part of the population of PvP1, which is overcrowded, to move to PvP3"? We have had a week of complaining about ping times to PvP2, massive complaints about waiting in Queue, and massive complaints about not being able to take all assets to a new server. There exists no tool that allows the Devs to press a button and have assets transfer. Heck, at the moment, there exists no tool to allow the Devs to rename someone or change their nationality. Tools like that will come when the feature list is far smaller and the game mechanics stabilize. So, given that the community just can't fathom the idea of starting on a new server with just their rank, given the community can't stand waiting in line to play the game, and given the community just can't tolerate the ping times to PvP2, what is the best answer? I'd say restoring a backup of PvP1 to a new EU based server is the best response to the community's complaints.

The fairest way to mirror the assets is to do so unannounced - otherwise you then get a rage thread where people yell about how they didn't know this was going to happen, and it isn't fair that others knew and were able to grind up their assets (or relocate them to strategic places to start an immediate offensive, etc). This means that PvP1 is now status-quo on PvP3. Those that decide to move servers will be in the exact same spot they were in, good or bad, and those that stay on PvP1 are in the same boat so to speak. I appreciate that players do not want to split the community, but the fact remains that PvP1 is overpopulated, and actions must be taken to ensure a portion of that population wants to go to 3. PvP2 is consistently low population, there is zero incentive for the Devs to encourage anyone to leave PvP2. The fact still remains that gold is easy, XP is hard.

Henry,

Going poorly, I am sure was based upon the observation that a 2 hour announced downtime was taking twice as long. See I don't do databases, but the people I hire who do know them don't tell me two hours if they think there is a possibility of taking three hours, much less four. So either the announcement should have been accurate on timeframe, cause it had been done before, or the announcement should have been downtime, will be back up as soon as possible cause we haven't done this before...

As far as server balance, it goes back to the now pattern of unannounced new servers. See organized groups like to play against other organized groups, which means if an announcement had been made, then the organized groups could have "paired off" so to speak on different servers. Instead, by NOT announcing new servers, ALL the organized groups stuck with what they knew. Now GL is doubling down on the problem by doing it again. it is not going to solve the population problem on PVP 1 because NONE of the major organized groups are going to move without coordination of other groups, allied and opponent alike.

Instead of opening new servers the time and money would be better spent on how to expand the current server capacity. Even 10,000 players is a very small number for 1.036 MILLION square miles of sea, that is just the Caribbean, not the US east coast or the Eastern Atlantic...

If you want any significant change in PVP 1 population, GL is going to HAVE to work with the major organizations in coordinating their placements in different servers so that they will have worthy adversaries and allies regardless of server.

Only sure way to make everyone unhappy, is to try making everyone happy. 80/20 rule gents...

[la Touche-Treville]

Clans will stick to one server... so no, it's will not at all be common that the same port is blocked in both servers. Even with a timeout server hopping is possible, and in my opinion immersion breaking.

I would rather have the world devided in 4 parts and spread on 4 servers, with a short loading screen when entering another part (entering would be possible across the whole "edge" of the world-part). Would bring the whole community back on the same world without demanding too much of the servers. However it would be annoying if you hop back and forth from one server to the other for some reason, since you would then have many loading screens. Maybe this could be reduced by having the sectors overlap, means the overlapping area can be played on multiple server... However that would mean that two players can be in the same spot without seeing each other because they are on different servers...

 

Would look like this

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vjsjan9jyruwzf3/server.jpg?dl=0

This reminds me of Age of Conan.

Played a very long time ago but remember very well how you'd cross borders from one kingdom to another and that essentially spawned you in a new instance.

But indeed in Open World, this would be tricky (but doable).

As for overlapping, this isn't great due to the fact that you'd get super confused by having 2 players in the same location not seeing each other.

 

However the map needs some serious thought on how you'd split it. Might require more time analyzing player demographics first hand though and then based on population concentration on the map, split these out as evenly as possible.

 

Hey, adding this extra server so fast is a great move anyway. Thanks!

[Preserved_Killick]

Are battle instances already on a separate server? If not, you could look into doing that in the future.  It won't provide a stable/consistent increase in performance but it could help with the load.

[James Rackham]

I welcome the addition of another server but can we also close the creation of new characters on the PVP one server for the moment or the queues will never come down, despite everyones best efforts i fear that new players will be attracted to the large player volume on PVP one server and not create an account elsewhere, please note i say a temporary ban to be lifted later on when the populations have balanced themselves out a bit.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Henry,

Going poorly, I am sure was based upon the observation that a 2 hour announced downtime was taking twice as long. See I don't do databases, but the people I hire who do know them don't tell me two hours if they think there is a possibility of taking three hours, much less four. So either the announcement should have been accurate on timeframe, cause it had been done before, or the announcement should have been downtime, will be back up as soon as possible cause we haven't done this before...

As far as server balance, it goes back to the now pattern of unannounced new servers. See organized groups like to play against other organized groups, which means if an announcement had been made, then the organized groups could have "paired off" so to speak on different servers. Instead, by NOT announcing new servers, ALL the organized groups stuck with what they knew. Now GL is doubling down on the problem by doing it again. it is not going to solve the population problem on PVP 1 because NONE of the major organized groups are going to move without coordination of other groups, allied and opponent alike.

Instead of opening new servers the time and money would be better spent on how to expand the current server capacity. Even 10,000 players is a very small number for 1.036 MILLION square miles of sea, that is just the Caribbean, not the US east coast or the Eastern Atlantic...

If you want any significant change in PVP 1 population, GL is going to HAVE to work with the major organizations in coordinating their placements in different servers so that they will have worthy adversaries and allies regardless of server.

Only sure way to make everyone unhappy, is to try making everyone happy. 80/20 rule gents...

 

Well stated and thank you for the clarification.  

I welcome the addition of another server but can we also close the creation of new characters on the PVP one server for the moment or the queues will never come down, despite everyones best efforts i fear that new players will be attracted to the large player volume on PVP one server and not create an account elsewhere, please note i say a temporary ban to be lifted later on when the populations have balanced themselves out a bit.

 

This would create a lot of angst for friends not being able to join their mates on the 1 server.

[Quineloe]

Problem is the hardware can only handle so many people, you cant excactly infinitely add more player spots. I dont know how eve handles it, but i know a lot of other games such as elite use instancing with max 64 players in an instance. 

32, but that's a technical limitation of the p2p tech they use. And that doesn't even work, I've never seen that many players in an instance. Maybe 20 at best. And sometimes, it's so poor that I jump into a system and I open a fresh instance when I know there is an instance with ONE player in it open already

 

It's really a hardware issue. Rendering too many ships will even bring modern cards to their knees.

[Nathaniel]

I really hope that there is a potential merger system already thought out and ready to be deployed relativly quickly. I think the knowledge that server bases can be merged relatively fast again will ease the anxiousness of most captains. Too many times have i seen, how big MMO developers first open a lot of servers, which is ok, if you are prepared to merge them quickly after the initial tide retreats. But one time after another it took them then a year or maybe even more to devlop a transfer system which they knew would be needed from the get go. I really hope we can avoid this pitfall.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Nathaniel

[Grunf]

Just a suggestion.

Why are servers not mirrored? Hereby I mean Pvp with Pvp ones pve with pve ones.

Then make only xp transferable between Pvp and pve. That way for me as a player the only difference when playing or choosing a shard is player count or clan preference.

I think it would help split the load

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

Just a suggestion.

Why are servers not mirrored? Hereby I mean Pvp with Pvp ones pve with pve ones.

Then make only xp transferable between Pvp and pve. That way for me as a player the only difference when playing or choosing a shard is player count or clan preference.

I think it would help split the load

 

Because it makes the conquest part of Naval Action worthless.  How can I deny an enemy nation resources if I must do it on three different servers simultaneously?  What's the point of trying to blockade a port if you can just change servers and sail in or out at will?

[Sir Texas Sir]

Just a suggestion.

Why are servers not mirrored? Hereby I mean Pvp with Pvp ones pve with pve ones.

Then make only xp transferable between Pvp and pve. That way for me as a player the only difference when playing or choosing a shard is player count or clan preference.

I think it would help split the load

Because of conquest between nations won't be the same on each server.  Though for me that would mean there shouldn't be any conquest on PvE servers right?  I would of loved to have my ships on that server while I waited for the down time to be over.

[Scream112]

Im wondering what the very well organized Swedish Nation will do now? As we just formed a clan under Swedish Flag because of how greatly organized this nation is on PVP1.

 

Does anyone from IKEA, HRE and other Clans that sail under Swedish Flag know if they will stay on PVP1 or move on to PVP3?

 

Im hoping the well organized Swedish Nation dont get split up.

[Bladerunner]

Mayby no short time solution, but...

 

what about instead of splitting the Region of the carribean sea, adding a new region like Europe with North and balitc sea and mayby even the Mediterranean Sea.

 

It would need work to build the map, which depends on the Game Engine the dev's use. If it's managable have the dev's to decide. So an Idea for the long run.

 

It would have the benefit, that you don't have to worry about what happens on the other PvP Server and allows you to syncronise Players on both Servers.

You could Keep your Money and XP, even your goods on both Servers without any harm, but would need to ship things from one Server to the other.

 

To get from one Region to the other there would need to be Transferpoints at the edge of each Region. They could act like those Portals, you spoke of, used in EVE (sorry, never played it).

 

Another benefit would be the bigger variety in Nations.

Depending on the map-size sweden and Denmark would gain some more ports.

You could intreduce Russia, prussia and even some smaller German states.

If you can cover the Mediterranean you can even add Portugal, Venice, the Ottoman Empire, Austria and others.

Mayby even introduce Mediterranean shiptypes.

 

The bigges benefit would be avoiding to split the Playerbase and force guilds to choose a Server.

 

It's just an Idea and the Dev's have to see if it is a possible solution.

[ArmoredKorps]

More slots on the servers... please.   or Sync the money between servers! Mirrors that work on this way don't solve anyone problems!
I do understand that you guys didn't expect this much people playing the game, but i'm here since january 2015, and now i can't play because the only time i have to play is the time that the servers are full!

I don't want to start over in other server i want to play my charecter in the server i chose first!
So Please fix this thing!

[OlavDeng2]

More slots on the servers... please.   or Sync the money between servers! Mirrors that work on this way don't solve anyone problems!

I do understand that you guys didn't expect this much people playing the game, but i'm here since january 2015, and now i can't play because the only time i have to play is the time that the servers are full!

I don't want to start over in other server i want to play my charecter in the server i chose first!

So Please fix this thing!

The thing, which has been explained about 1000000 times now is that the problem lies within port battles ans skirmishes, we dont want one nation which is steam rolling in one place to go to another and steam roll there, or maybe have a nation which bypasses a blockade, this would be bad for the game.

[MR_BRONSON]

If the intention is to keep the PVP (EU) community has glued together as possible, while reducing queue times by adding a new server then ...

 

... mirror at least once a day

 

Mirroring only once (26 Jan.) means that there will be a splintered community, and every hour spent on one PVP (EU)server (after 26 Jan.) is wasted if that person later on decides (because of their friend group) to go on the other PVP (EU) server.

 

I have already, today, had an issue where a friend continued on PVP 1 (EU), crafted/gained exp over the course of 4 hours (IRL), and the rest of the group had already joined PVP 3 (EU) out of excitement of not having to endure long queue times.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

You can't just mirror once a day, unless you want all the progress on one server or the other to be lost.  A mirror is just that - an exact copy of something.  If you mirror once per day from 1 to 3, then anything anyone did on 3 that day is gone.  What you're proposing is a merge - this is not easily done, especially not on a large scale.  Imagine the conflicts that would occur.