Give us regional servers

[Najwalaylah]

Regional servers may make sense from a technical standpoint, but it would split the playerbase and destroy part of the vision of Mortal Online 2.

I would much prefer SV keep to one global server but move it from London (or France, I can't remember)

Londom; the server in France was the one that got vandalised.

to somewhere like the US where the ping will be more evened out for the majority of players including myself.

There are parts of the East Coast of North America (if not of the USA) that are as close to parts of Europe (if not closer) than they are to (me in) California and points west (PNW, Alaska, Hawaii). Parts of South America (i.e., Brasil) may be even closer to Europe than that. By the time your Sixth Continent connection ping got evened out to, say, as comparatively bad as mine used to be, players from Finland & Russia would probably be having a very bad time (and my heart would bleed for you all). The single-server plan may just be too technically difficult given the surface of this planet.

And inside of the earth, at the core, it's too hot to run a server.

The only other alternative I would accept is a regional server for different continents that requires travel by sea on ships to reach them. The perfect compromise where players from different parts of the world can play on a continent server closer to them, yet still travel to another continent in keeping with the one world vision.

Then, when do they switch different continents to different locations in the real world? Once every 6 or 12 months? Or on the 23rd of Never?

 

[ElPerro]

Regional servers may make sense from a technical standpoint, but it would split the playerbase and destroy part of the vision of Mortal Online 2.

I would much prefer SV keep to one global server but move it from London (or France, I can't remember) to somewhere like the US where the ping will be more evened out for the majority of players including myself.

The only other alternative I would accept is a regional server for different continents that requires travel by sea on ships to reach them. The perfect compromise where players from different parts of the world can play on a continent server closer to them, yet still travel to another continent in keeping with the one world vision.

The vision doesnt work, its not viable to only have 1 server for a real time combat game. Regional servers wont split the playerbase, it will make it grow actually. If having only 1 server was sooo important for Heinrik then they should have gone for a tab target game that doesnt suffer from ping issues.

I like everyone being on one server, but I would like if each continent was located in a different region of the world. I would really like if Sarducca was in NA and say Herbalter was in Asia.

lol whats the point of having good ping if you can only play mounted on your contintent

 

[Jatix]

If they wanted multiple servers they would have had to choose that before making the world bigger. Multi servers would need a world the size of MO1's, or smaller (because if it was over crowded just make more servers).

With the massive world, especially when theres TC and stuff so everyone isnt living in a few towns, the world will be way too big to feel alive, if there were several servers.

Also a thing I noticed when I tried LiF and Gloria, which have servers, is if you play at night high time its dead. If you play US server at EU high time, its dead. Games like MO actually have a less extreme dip in players during low times, because NA low time can be countered by its not EU low time.

They just need to make combat less about ping and twitch parrying. More about landing good hits, sweetspotting, etc.

Assuming ping stays bad, just use a bow /magic / mounted. Foot fighters get no love in this game anyway.

 

[Backyard Employee]

Regional servers may make sense from a technical standpoint, but it would split the playerbase and destroy part of the vision of Mortal Online 2.

I would much prefer SV keep to one global server but move it from London (or France, I can't remember) to somewhere like the US where the ping will be more evened out for the majority of players including myself.

The only other alternative I would accept is a regional server for different continents that requires travel by sea on ships to reach them. The perfect compromise where players from different parts of the world can play on a continent server closer to them, yet still travel to another continent in keeping with the one world vision.

Yeah it's why this topic is so interesting and important to me, because sure SV is trying to push this idea that a single server can 'work'.. but I don't like how it alters the actual gameplay due to where and how it is done.

I do agree that a more meeting in the middle of approach would be moving the server to NA and making a lot of the mechanics sharper and more responsive so that other things can be better tuned to encourage skill-based gameplay.

 

[Backyard Employee]

If they wanted multiple servers they would have had to choose that before making the world bigger. Multi servers would need a world the size of MO1's, or smaller (because if it was over crowded just make more servers).

With the massive world, especially when theres TC and stuff so everyone isnt living in a few towns, the world will be way too big to feel alive, if there were several servers.

Also a thing I noticed when I tried LiF and Gloria, which have servers, is if you play at night high time its dead. If you play US server at EU high time, its dead. Games like MO actually have a less extreme dip in players during low times, because NA low time can be countered by its not EU low time.

They just need to make combat less about ping and twitch parrying. More about landing good hits, sweetspotting, etc.

Well again, you could play on all two or three (or however) many servers there are. You'd have a potential character slot for each and if your time playing is in the 'dead time' of the server they can play elsewhere.

This is one of the points I did list as both a pro and a con. But I definitely think the pro outweighs the con, personally. Would be interesting to see how multiple servers would develop into their own communities.

But uh, yeah. With the way it is now the game world might not even be filled to do the single server, because of the single server.

 

[Lord Hair Remover]

I just don't understand the reasoning behind a single server yet they're wanting it to be the biggest game possible player wise.

 

[XiaN]

Regional servers would provide the opportunity for Star Vault to better form the mechanics of the game. Anywhere from PvP to PvE content. This would also allow them the ability to vastly tighten things up rather than giving us buffers like that of ping normalization. Here are some objective facts, firstly the pros of having a single server; then the cons of having a single server. Then I will present the pros of regional servers, then the cons of having regional servers.

I ask that anyone who wishes to participate in this discussion to set aside your bias and want, whether it's to have a better advantage in-game or because you agree with the vision of a single world. Please put forward ideas and opinions that support a BETTER game. Any comments attempting to de-rail, bait arguments, troll, add nothing to the discussion, etc. will be reported and (likely) removed.


Pros of a single server

• A single server means a flat higher population inside of the game.
• Everyone can play together without having to choose a server / realm.
• Politics are much more interesting with the many different groups interacting.
• You get to meet people from around the world.
• There will always be players online (given a healthy population is present).
• Your actions in-game will have more weight to them, considering you can't just switch servers to start over

Cons of a single server

• Anyone who doesn't live near the server, will always be at a disadvantage in PvP & PvE.
• New players will be reluctant to play a game with no regional servers, given the ping.
• Combat has been significantly slowed down, and mechanics within it nerfed to give the appearance of 'fairness' to all players, which has resulted in a worse combat system.
• Much of the balance regarding PvP will always be done with the mindset that high-ping players should be able to play alongside others, which results in poor balance.
• Much of the balance regarding PvE will always be done with the mindset that high-ping players should be able to play alongside others, which results in poor balance.
• A decent majority of players you perhaps interact with will not speak your language.
• Inputs will more often then not always feel delayed due to how the ping normalization works, as well as given the server is an ocean away (depending where you're from.)
• Even with ping normalization, depending on where you are you will still encounter players or 'things' which are inherently laggy; or you yourself will experience a laggy, non-smooth gameplay experience. (i.e. Being in EU, and having to fight players in the Oceanic region.)

Pros of regional servers

• A more modern approach to server solutions.
• Players can play in their preferred region as not to deal with any potential latency / ping issues.
• Players can still choose to play on ANY of the regional servers, at any given time. (Allowing them the freedom of dealing with bad ping or not)
• Allows for the developers to better fine tune mechanics within the game, instead of altering / balancing them with high-ping players in mind.
• From a PvP perspective, it creates a more competitive, fair, and balanced gameplay experience for all. (Seeing as you wont be forced to deal with higher ping just to play).
• From a PvE perspective, content can be made much more complex and or harder to challenge the players rather then making them 'softer' due to high ping players not potentially having the ability to read or react to mobs.
• Regional servers is more appealing to newer players outside of the MO2 genre, which the game is aiming to attract.
• If you end up not liking the server you play on due to other players, guilds, etc. you can choose to play on another server. This could effectively save a player from being potentially griefed out of the game.
• Server cultures could form. (i.e. EU server is the PvP server, NA is a PvP server, Oceanic is a PvE server.) They wouldn't be -literally-, but players would flock to a specific server for a specific kind of experience but still have all of the same features in place after the players already in place labeled themselves as such in a majority.
• More character slots (via playing on a different server).
• If nothing is currently happening on your server, you can swap over to another server for the time being to play / have fun; or to entirely experience the different culture that has been created.

Cons of regional servers

• The developers will pay more in server costs, resulting in a need for more players to be present.
• The population (currently speaking) would be split across regions.
• Players would be less likely to interact with people around the world.
• Regional servers would make it difficult for pre-established friend groups, clans, guilds, etc. to all play together.
• The game would have an 'X' amount of "story lines" as each server would play out differently, losing the one world aspect.
• The game would have to exceed much more in its mechanics, rather then relying on its 'game hooks' (i.e. Open world PvP, full loot, hardcore, sandbox, crafting, skill systems, etc.) Meaning the base mechanics would have to be MUCH BETTER to pull players in.
• Favoritism could perhaps be a thing across regions. (i.e. EU has better GM Staff, where as NA GM Staff are rude, unhelpful, etc.)

I'll also leave a poll on the thread for people to vote. If you believe you have an unbiased view point that could be added to one of the four sections, then PLEASE do say so. If I feel the point is biased, I will attempt to have a civil discussion as to why you think 'X & Y' should be added as a point.

Please do not flame anyone in the thread. All I want is real reasons, whether objective or anecdotal to back up your views on how you perceive this topic of interest.

I've also provided two additional poll options for players who would be okay with either outcome, as well as those who think the 'server by continent' idea is a good idea.

Server by continent essentially means when a new continent comes out, rather then host it in the EU; it would be hosted elsewhere in the world to benefit players from there. But many of the reasons above still apply to this idea (To a significant degree).

Thank you.

while its understandable that ppl who arent close to the server would like a regional one for better connection speeds i dont think the playerbase should be split in a niche game like that. i guess most here have witnessed what that has done for darkfall back in the days. with the server beeing located in london (afaik) i think they made a good choice. so no to regional servers.

 

[Backyard Employee]

while its understandable that ppl who arent close to the server would like a regional one for better connection speeds i dont think the playerbase should be split in a niche game like that. i guess most here have witnessed what that has done for darkfall back in the days. with the server beeing located in london (afaik) i think they made a good choice. so no to regional servers.

How can it be a good choice if it harms systems in the game to compensate for it.

It's like being apart of a sports team and instead of improving the worst player (or just getting rid of him), all the other players now suffer due to the coaches inability to make the tough decision.

 

[Tzone]

One server is more for RP reasons and a safety net if the game flops.
Still should just centralize the server to NA east so the differences between ping is shorter.

 

[Amadman]

I could see moving the single server as possible. But will be issues for some no matter where it is at.

Different continents hosted in different locations was said to have been discussed in the past. But they seem to have distanced themselves from the idea more recently.

As for multiple serves, I don't think this will ever fit in the vision of a single world game. So it is probably not even worth bringing up.

 

[XiaN]

One server is more for RP reasons and a safety net if the game flops.
Still should just centralize the server to NA east so the differences between ping is shorter.

uhm no? london is a pretty good spot. probably the best they can get. normally you would put gaming servers in frankfurt as thats the biggest backbone in the world. i suppose london was chosen in regards to the NA population. its a fair compromise.

 

[XiaN]

How can it be a good choice if it harms systems in the game to compensate for it.

It's like being apart of a sports team and instead of improving the worst player (or just getting rid of him), all the other players now suffer due to the coaches inability to make the tough decision.

ye i rather have a few players lag abit than 2 empty servers. this isnt a mainstream game. if we have 5k players 2 months after launch we´re lucky and you wanna split that up into 2 servers? no ty. really bad idea.

 

[Sayton]

I think we need to start a petition to get rid of the Atlantic ocean and move the continents closer together.

 

[Lord Hair Remover]

Hopefully no one ever let's @XiaN near any kind of game development or we'll have another idea butchered in the process for some silly reason like one world.

There's a thousand people playing it right now and admittedly you see people fairly often in some places, World of Warcraft had a bigger map during its release and its optimal player count was two thousand players.

Only difference is in it you could fly, teleport, take transit and the likes.

 

[ElPerro]

uhm no? london is a pretty good spot. probably the best they can get. normally you would put gaming servers in frankfurt as thats the biggest backbone in the world. i suppose london was chosen in regards to the NA population. its a fair compromise.

pretty good if ur eu

ye i rather have a few players lag abit than 2 empty servers. this isnt a mainstream game. if we have 5k players 2 months after launch we´re lucky and you wanna split that up into 2 servers? no ty. really bad idea.

your gonna end up with 1 empty server like mo1, very few players are gonna pay a monthly $15 + box price to "lag abit" in a full loot fps slasher game where having good ping is the difference in keeping your gear/loot.

this kid is prob some eu that doesnt mind watching aus players skip a bit here and there so its no big deal for him

 

[Backyard Employee]

ye i rather have a few players lag abit than 2 empty servers. this isnt a mainstream game. if we have 5k players 2 months after launch we´re lucky and you wanna split that up into 2 servers? no ty. really bad idea.

A few players?

Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Chileans, Argentinians, Australians, Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians.. I'm sure I could name a few more if I go pull up some maps.

But please. A few players lagging? Really? What is your definition of lagging. Mine is being above 100 ping as it's shown consistently across MANY games once you cross that threshold you are at a disadvantage (and some even lower like Mordhau!)

You're right, it isn't a mainstream game - but it's trying to be. It's trying to go on Twitch, YouTube, Twitter, Steam, journalist websites, UE Grant Rewards, etc. Just because it's a niche genre doesn't mean it couldn't be mainstream - it just has to be a quality game.

Bro I was playing MO1 when it had sub 300 players. All the way until it was in the double digits. You know what's funny, the game still felt somewhat alive with 200 players and that was just a very sad number, and you're worried about splitting 5000 people? Do you actually even realize what you're saying, or do you just follow the numbers around?

"doesnt have 3000 players? must be dead game."

Another guy put it pretty well with WoW. Not sure who has played private servers before but I have, and I'm sure some others here have to. 5000 players on a WoW server is a blessing, regardless of the expansion.

I've even said it as well in the past on these forums. MO1 was ""alive"" at 200 players, and if the world is 6 times larger by that logic we'd need 1200 players at the minimum. We're already touching 1k before release, and while I think these numbers wont realistically all stay - if we actually had a game where people weren't at a disadvantage (and then no told about it). Literally doesn't state in on the store page, there is no in-game ping check.

Game has some bad design choices in it and a single server in London is one of them. Get out of your bubble and show some care for the game at large.

 

[Tzone]

uhm no? london is a pretty good spot. probably the best they can get. normally you would put gaming servers in frankfurt as thats the biggest backbone in the world. i suppose london was chosen in regards to the NA population. its a fair compromise.

You are entirely wrong. Just use a latency checking website and it will show you the best place for a server is eastern US. Especially when you have SA and AUS player base. Also the NA player base is slightly larger then the EU.

SA and AUS will have lower ping, NA pings will decrease by 80. We have some people in then upper 200s on the west coast here. Most EU ping will only rise to acceptable levels at around 70-90. EU ping will be similar to 2/3rds of the US's ping. Only Russians who already have very bad internet will get worse ping.

If there was 2 servers a NA east and a EU central, most of the player base would play the NA one. Even some of the brits would play NA east like they do in planetside 2. SA, AUS, and Asian players would choose NA. Only RUS and EU would be on EU and even then some EU players would play on the more populated NA server.



The lag is getting really bad right now. People are hitting each other from 10 feet away, attacks are going through parries, people teleport as well.

 

[Backyard Employee]

You are entirely wrong. Just use a latency checking website and it will show you the best place for a server is eastern US. Especially when you have SA and AUS player base. Also the NA player base is slightly larger then the EU.

SA and AUS will have lower ping, NA pings will decrease by 80. We have some people in then upper 200s on the west coast here. Most EU ping will only rise to acceptable levels at around 70-90. EU ping will be similar to 2/3rds of the US's ping. Only Russians who already have very bad internet will get worse ping.

If there was 2 servers a NA east and a EU central, most of the player base would play the NA one. Even some of the brits would play NA east like they do in planetside 2. SA, AUS, and Asian players would choose NA. Only RUS and EU would be on EU and even then some EU players would play on the more populated NA server.

View attachment 2924

The lag is getting really bad right now. People are hitting each other from 10 feet away, attacks are going through parries, people teleport as well.

I watched someone from the US play yesterday for about 3 hours as he went and did PvP.

People were just teleporting around, swings going through one another, he even crashed twice (lol).

 

[Anthius]

you wont have enough ppl to populate the map if there are multiple servers. most ppl are soft and wont play this game long. Id rather the continents be hosted in different countries though.

 

[Backyard Employee]

you wont have enough ppl to populate the map if there are multiple servers. most ppl are soft and wont play this game long. Id rather the continents be hosted in different countries though.

They're making the game more casual.