Improvement: Dynamic Servers

NewSith · 2012-05-18, 03:43 AM

The idea is simple:

Simplify the character transfer process. We all know how it turned out when you had to merge servers in the original.

It's very important to do, concidering we're going to have a supposed server cap of 6k players.

VelRa · 2012-05-18, 10:43 AM

What confuses me the most is that the devs plan on adding more continents, and that means raising the server caps and reducing the number of servers... I think they are probably going to have periods of free character transfers, but always free character transfers I don't see being worthwhile.

Purple · 2012-05-18, 12:21 PM

Originally Posted by WildVS

That's a good point. When conts get added servers get merged. And one of the things in other MMO's that signals the death knell more than any other is server merges. I hope players in this game understand this is not the case

maby not. we could see more players join to fill the gaps.

VelRa · 2012-05-18, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Purple

maby not. we could see more players join to fill the gaps.

True. Server caps could be lifted and the battles would thin out. Maybe each release of a continent would require a new promotion, then, to get more people playing...

Gonefshn · 2012-05-18, 03:51 PM

just because they add more continents doesn't mean they need to merge servers. In PS1 there were many continents with nobody fighting on them at a given time. The main fight moved from continent to continent and that worked fine. In fact I almost like it better because that way the battle is more dynamic because the location is constantly changing.

Down the road when we have 7 continents or so I'd love to see them go to the old PS1 way were the continents can be totally captured by an empire.

Or atleast make 4 nuetral totally capturable ones and each empire have their own with a foothold.

I see no problems with free character transfer really except I don't think its necessary just yet.

Raka Maru · 2012-05-18, 06:53 PM

If this is done right then it would be almost seamless to the player. Think WindowsLive ID.

Player logs in, chooses default server or if capped, go to another one. This could also mean character can use any server if they build it right with universal player ID's.

Xyntech · 2012-05-18, 07:09 PM

I like that Raka. I would like to see universal player ID's that can be transferred from server to server.

The biggest downside would be the lack of persistence. You fight all day on one server, then log into another one the next day and it's totally different. I guess that's where the option to jump around will be nice, but players will still tend to find their favorite "home" server.

Of course, 3 continents may not be as bad as we are imagining. Remember that the first Planetside only allowed 500 players per continent, and during its peek populations there were only the initial ten continents to fight over.

That's 5000 players at one time on a PS1 server, vs 6000 players in PS2. If they add a couple more continents, PS2 will have double the server population limits with only half as many continents.

That is of course assuming they hit their goal of 2000 per continent.

Still, fluctuating player numbers and an increase in numbers of continents will certainly make mergers a necessity. Planning ahead will definitely make it go smoother, whatever the solution is.

Raka Maru · 2012-05-18, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

I like that Raka. I would like to see universal player ID's that can be transferred from server to server.

The biggest downside would be the lack of persistence. You fight all day on one server, then log into another one the next day and it's totally different. I guess that's where the option to jump around will be nice, but players will still tend to find their favorite "home" server.

Of course, 3 continents may not be as bad as we are imagining. Remember that the first Planetside only allowed 500 players per continent, and during its peek populations there were only the initial ten continents to fight over.

That's 5000 players at one time on a PS1 server, vs 6000 players in PS2. If they add a couple more continents, PS2 will have double the server population limits with only half as many continents.

That is of course assuming they hit their goal of 2000 per continent.

Still, fluctuating player numbers and an increase in numbers of continents will certainly make mergers a necessity. Planning ahead will definitely make it go smoother, whatever the solution is.

Thus the DEFAULT server concept that can auto login if it isn't packed. The main authentication server can be shared, so there will actually be no problem with server merges because your stats/layout etc are on the authentication server or one of the farms.

If things go good, add new servers to play on. If things slow down drastically (God forbid) take a server offline. Planning for growth is always good.

Now for the player, the choice will be where is the lowest ping or where do my buddies hang out.

Xyntech · 2012-05-18, 08:03 PM

I'm hoping for growth, but I think new continents will be more than enough to handle that if done in a timely manner. Given the 2000k per continent target they are shooting for, new continents may even dilute the population even while the game adds new players.

Preparation is good whichever way it goes.

But yeah, it would be nice to see players and even entire outfits be less constrained to play on one server. I don't really see much good reason for it.

Raka Maru · 2012-05-18, 11:14 PM

The developing different "shards" is necessary for server load for the actual world servers that you decide to play on, but accounts and characters do not have this limit because it is just metadata and settings/stats.

LOTRO did it differently with "zones" that put you in a different layer in the same city when there was a big population in that area. I personally would not like to see this for PS2.

Planetside has an awesome dev team, wish I were working on this project with them.

I hope they make the right decisions for the new world we will be playing in and I have confidence that they will be continuing to use the bleeding edge technology they are known for.

Karrade · 2012-05-21, 05:33 AM

Less servers more continents

. More of an epic feel, more fresh landscapes and zones. More, More, More - Not a bad word at all here, abundant and good. This would, for me, make reducing the number of servers a positive thing!! Very slick move there dev team

Yes for server transfers, because it gives freedom to those playing as to where they want to go and who they want to be with.

Baneblade · 2012-05-21, 07:16 AM

The only end user con to Universal ID is that it will probably mean no alt characters in the other factions.

But then, to me, it isn't much of a con... maybe even approaching a pro.

VelRa · 2012-05-21, 01:50 PM

Characters aren't just metadata when you involve their outfits, however... Moving a character would involve moving outfits. I'm generally against the notion of dynamic servers because it violates the persistent nature of the game. I'm all for paid character transfers and free transfers for when servers merge, but I think there's a lot to say for fighting with and against the same group of people on one server and making it your home. Dynamic servers would only encourage lone-ranger playstyles, which is okay I suppose, but guild/outfit loyalties/rivalries are a big part of what drives MMOs...

Raka Maru · 2012-05-21, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by VelRa

Characters aren't just metadata when you involve their outfits, however... Moving a character would involve moving outfits. I'm generally against the notion of dynamic servers because it violates the persistent nature of the game. I'm all for paid character transfers and free transfers for when servers merge, but I think there's a lot to say for fighting with and against the same group of people on one server and making it your home. Dynamic servers would only encourage lone-ranger playstyles, which is okay I suppose, but guild/outfit loyalties/rivalries are a big part of what drives MMOs...

This brings on another point, if the leader moves, or plays on that server, that is where only he is for that night, he has to let his people know. Yet more metadata and stats tied to the universal ID. If an outfit member logs into the wrong server, his outfit exists there also (it's universal) but his leader and members are marked offline for that shard.

Having GUID's for characters and outfits will be overall good programming and database design. (yes, I do this for a living) Expansion (of the game such as adding servers or merging) would be seamless to users, and you can stay or leave a shard whenever you wish, with or without your outfit.

Of course as you mentioned, there are a lot of guild politics involved in this and it is a good idea to have a "home" shard. I for one, hardly ever change from the server I choose, unless a buddy tells me he's been on one shard and I should come over, but then I'm a newbie again.

Then there's ping. Living in Hawaii now, was in Florida, and then Texas. Do I endure the pings from the east coast or start anew?