Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Important information about the new EU server.


Recommended Posts

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.

I would have to agree with my fellow captain. I think syncing at least once daily (more frequently the better) would remove the need of more slots which is what the majority want and I must agree on pvp eu server 1.

 

I understand how different the games are but here it out. Playing arma 3 on KOTH community I/You the player can play on any and all of their servers with your character progression being the same and saved on all.

 

I reckon if syncing daily can introduce a similar system where you can play on both servers therefore reducing the queue but ensure there are always players on both of the severs it would improve the game a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

So do you wanna propose one mirror for each nation? Because there is no way to balance nation population. and Nation population is not the problem here, the problem is that people like me can't play the game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Hadnt thought of it in that way, is there not a way to make them both connected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. What if you had instant-sync for everything port-related?

 

  • Resource stock (every time someone bought/sold, or there is a capture it's synced)
  • Clients and open sea battles remain server-side.
  • Money and inventory and player position is sync'd once a day/week 
  • Once they log in to a server, they cannot log in to the other server until the daily/weekly merge or sync

What does this accomplish/ what are the advantages?

  • Because ports are insta-sync'd, there is no splintering of community based on trading
  • There are no merge conflicts for port ownership and stock contents
  • Groups/clans can decide each day/week what server they join, so they can play together
  • Reduced queue times (not as drastic as the complete division that happened today on the 26th)

What are the disadvantages?

  • Exploits still possible (e.g. bypassing barricades)

Any ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is, this seems perfectly sensible to me and I am struggling to understand why there are so many people here that don't agree with it for stupid reasons, are bitching about the downtime during the maintenance ( come on guys it's a game, an Alpha/EA game at that ) or they just don't seem to understand what's even going on at all.

 

It was written clearly, it's a new PvP server that mirrored PvP 1 and will not be mirrored continuously, it is to make it more enticing for existing players on PvP1 to swap over to the new server, so we can begin to balance population out between servers. It is a good and easy solution right now at this point in development, there is so much more work to be done to the game, with many features being created and existing ones fleshed out, it is best to focus on that.

 

Maybe in the distant future when the game is mostly complete they might think about a way to create a stable 'multiserver'  shard so that we can have 3x the players on one server, but I don't think some of you people realise that it's not as easy as clicking your fingers and throwing money at it to make that work.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proposal #2:

 

Areas of the global map are servers

 

ovQPa2N.jpg

 

Advantages

  • Solves most problems

Disadvantages

  • If you are making back-and-forth travels that happen to cross the boundary, it will be an annoying loading screen clustered experience
  • Could be exploited (ships can use the boundary to plan escapes or ambushes)
  • Possible that one "Region server" becomes full with 3,000+ players, (massive clan/fleet) which means it would be locked off for new people to enter
Edited by MR_BRONSON
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is, this seems perfectly sensible to me and I am struggling to understand why there are so many people here that don't agree with it for stupid reasons, are bitching about the downtime during the maintenance ( come on guys it's a game, an Alpha/EA game at that ) or they just don't seem to understand what's even going on at all.

 

It was written clearly, it's a new PvP server that mirrored PvP 1 and will not be mirrored continuously, it is to make it more enticing for existing players on PvP1 to swap over to the new server, so we can begin to balance population out between servers. It is a good and easy solution right now at this point in development, there is so much more work to be done to the game, with many features being created and existing ones fleshed out, it is best to focus on that.

 

Maybe in the distant future when the game is mostly complete they might think about a way to create a stable 'multiserver'  shard so that we can have 3x the players on one server, but I don't think some of you people realise that it's not as easy as clicking your fingers and throwing money at it to make that work.

 

I agree with your sentiment about "Game development" being the number 1 priority, above player experience at the moment - I don't think anyone is disputing. All things considered, this new server is a nice quick solution to a population problem.

 

I don't think anyone is "bitching" or disagreeing for "stupid reasons" - I can't speak for everyone, but for me, my input is just suggestions or feedback based on my experience. A forum like this can serve as a brainstorm. I think most of us are perfectly aware that it's up to the development team's discretion to handle the situation however they see fit - and we are all aware that our suggestions are totally dispensable (viable to be disregarded).

 

Maybe I'm wrong and I just haven't come across enough comments that would inspire the same tone you're suggesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Proposal #2:

 

Areas of the global map are servers

 

ovQPa2N.jpg

 

Advantages

  • Solves 100% of the problems

Disadvantages

  • If you are making back-and-forth travels that happen to cross the boundary, it will be an annoying loading screen clustered experience
  • Could be exploited (ships can use the boundary to plan escapes or ambushes)

 

If we were to do something like this, id argue we should do different regions of the world rather than split a region, say pvp 1 is carribiean and pvp2 is the east indies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we were to do something like this, id argue we should do different regions of the world rather than split a region, say pvp 1 is carribiean and pvp2 is the east indies

 

Yeah, I painted the red and blue in 10 seconds - the point of that image was to illustrate an idea, not to propose how regions should be split.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

I most certainly do deal with software development and deployment.  I have to explain what went wrong every time I announce a downtime and exceed my schedule. I also let my customers know well in advance of long downtimes and what they are for.  As Pedroig pointed out already there are steps that could be taken to help make the new servers actually be effective.  Mostly it involves notice and communication.  Secondly I also feel that more should be done to increase server populations.  2000 souls is not much to fill 8 factions and all of that Ocean.  

 

 

Thanks,

 

Jern

www.sturmgrenadier.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Proposal #2:

 

Areas of the global map are servers

 

 

 

Advantages

  • Solves 100% of the problems

Disadvantages

  • If you are making back-and-forth travels that happen to cross the boundary, it will be an annoying loading screen clustered experience
  • Could be exploited (ships can use the boundary to plan escapes or ambushes)

 

 

What do you do when there's a massive fleet battle and more than 3,000 people try to pack onto a single server?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Limitations on a server cap is both hardware but also the software.

I dont know how Game Lab have done their server software but just from looking on how it behaves from 2200 players its amazing this far. 2200 players connected to the same server and several thousands AIs at the same time is not a easy task for the software or the hardware.

 

Also why is people complaining about the downtime? They want to make sure the mirroring of the server went correct and that there is no data lost or problem with the server. That prevents them from forcing to take down the server again. Let them use the time they need and plans changes.

Edited by Tomms123
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I believe i might have used the wrong term

 

I was thinking that the user's fleet, items, XP, and money are persistent across servers of the same type, (i.e. DayZ), but only XP synced between PvE and PvP. Hm, that being said you are providing my major problem with DayZ, so fair point.

 

What about GuildWars solution (if I am not mistaken), you queue for your main server, but during the wait are playing as guest on some other till your queue is up, if you then choose to leave ONLY XP, MONEY gained during the guesting session is added to main server. If you choose to remain on the guest server, then what you do will be stored there as it is now. Also there could be restriction that you can not guest 2x within 2hrs or more.

 

Just trying to come up with an idea to avoid waiting in queues for my favorite server.

Edited by Grunf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the same duplication be done for PVP2 ie copy the info from PVP1 to PVP2. When this was originally done all that went were ships and characters.

I was thinking the exact same thing, but i don't know how difficult this is for the Dev's to mirror the server data on a daily, weekly schedule? If it's not that diffecult,I would say pick this up in the daily server maintenance, or weekly?

So if you don't have worrie about "losing progres" if join PvP 3 instead of PvP 1 when it's to busy?

The only thing thats difficult about this is captured/lost ports, so i'm only speaking about mirroring the the players assets. And maybe put diffrent time periods on both servers (like PvP 1 1700-1750 & PvP 3 1750-1800)

Edited by Jacob van Heemskerck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the exact same thing, but i don't know how difficult this is for the Dev's to mirror the server data on a daily, weekly schedule? If it's not that diffecult,I would say pick this up in the daily server maintenance, or weekly?

So if you don't have worrie about "losing progres" if join PvP 3 instead of PvP 1 when it's to busy?

The only thing thats difficult about this is captured/lost ports, so i'm only speaking about mirroring the the players assets. And maybe put diffrent time periods on both servers (like PvP 1 1700-1750 & PvP 3 1750-1800)

Been explained multiple times, the assets would also be disruptive as if you are dominant in one server, but not the other you use your power in one server to get the resources needed to steam roll the other server or vice versa, it will not be good for the game, also the merging of databases(from what henry(i think it was) and from what i have read generally) is not the quickest and easiest thing to do, i dont think doing it weekly would make many people happy due to the extended maintanence, and i dont think the devs would want to do so weekly either(heck, dont think they ever want to do it)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Been explained multiple times, the assets would also be disruptive as if you are dominant in one server, but not the other you use your power in one server to get the resources needed to steam roll the other server or vice versa, it will not be good for the game, also the merging of databases(from what henry(i think it was) and from what i have read generally) is not the quickest and easiest thing to do, i dont think doing it weekly would make many people happy due to the extended maintanence, and i dont think the devs would want to do so weekly either(heck, dont think they ever want to do it)

logical and clear explanation For a layman like me on this matter, thanks!

Generally i don't mind to wait +/-30 minutes to join the server, but i and other people work alot and sadly don't have much time to enjoy this beautiful game en build up character assets on 2 servers, hence i wait to join the PvP 1 server and the DAS clan set there sails there so it's worth the waiting ;).

But all in all, what can't be done, can't be done

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EvE handles this by jump gates and jump gate queues. You are on one megashard but form the server perspective you are in Amarr server, or Jita server. When you jump through the gate you load into another subserver. 

 

I don't know yet how to implement jump gates in the open sea.

Maybe take one Server only for OW. Battles and even harbors can be run from multiple other servers. This would probably incraese the loading times a little bit but might allow you to add a fe more thousand players to one server.

 

But then i dont know your netcode maybe you are already doing it like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like at least a one time copy of assets from PVP1 with its lousy ping to PVP 2 which is a far better ping. This is or has just been done for 1 to 3 so being able to go from EU to US servers would make a whole lot more sense for the many players suffering lag on PVP1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EvE handles this by jump gates and jump gate queues. You are on one megashard but form the server perspective you are in Amarr server, or Jita server. When you jump through the gate you load into another subserver. 

 

I don't know yet how to implement jump gates in the open sea.

 

Instead of jump gates on the open sea why not jump gates between Open World and the Battle Instances?  One server hosting Open World, and several hosting the battles?   or is this what already happens?

 

Oops didn't get all the way through the thread before posting... I see others have the same idea..

Edited by SKurj (ex JW)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like at least a one time copy of assets from PVP1 with its lousy ping to PVP 2 which is a far better ping. This is or has just been done for 1 to 3 so being able to go from EU to US servers would make a whole lot more sense for the many players suffering lag on PVP1.

One thing which has been mentioned before, PVP3 was a new server, copying a database and implementing it on a new server is a relatively simple task, merging databases from what i gather however is not so easy, and we are talking about a small dev team, the way to do it easily would be to wipe pvp US and then copy the data from PVP1, however then you shaft the people who play PVP US, or you can just move over from PVP1 and take your losses, i dont think the merging of the databases is a way to go, you either got to deal with it or switch servers imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey! lets just play and let them sort it... this must be a major headache.

I think the main headache is that people refue to move from PVP1, and more new people keep on joining there(which is for the most part something that is a no no imho right now)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i can understand the ppl not wanting to move. ya have friends on there and enemies that well to b honest ya dont want to miss. they gave a choice that all they could do at this point. i am veryh appy they did. ya cant force ppl to move. hell who will you force and who will you not ? not allowing ppl to join pvp 1 is also no solution , most players have friends there and they wantt play with their friends. i can understand so the way devs r handeling it is the best way imho. if ya want to play on pvp 1 , u can , just have to wait to get on. the structure can not b easily upgraded , admin stated that a few times and we all know that by now. u can log on to naother server get set and then we server pvp 1 is full or they queue is too long ya can log on there and gain xp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...