population and conflict ain't intangible on a game that needs that to run, otherwise it would be chivalry...
Give us regional servers
- Thread starter Backyard Employee
- Start date
I now question why you put up a poll at all, if it's not representative nor does it indicate significant popularity.
Because a statement of opinion without a poll is just that, a single person's opinion, which is not at all useful. So I give him props for putting up a poll, but yeah if a poll is not representative since we're on forums, why are we having discussions or trying to persuade here at all?
I may have inadvertently made a very good point.
When Henrik talks about getting player feedback, he usually mentions the forums somewhere near the bottom of the list.
Regional servers would be nice, but for that to be viable there would have to be a significant player base to be able to fill the servers to make it justifiable. It would be something to consider post full release, like a month after when SV could gauge what the player base would be, past the initial hype.
Nothing would be worse to have multiple servers(EU, NA, SEA etc) on release with 2000+ concurrent players each, then a month later each server is down to 200 - 500 players each concurrently. Game would become a nomad/walking simulator trying to find activity.
Nothing would be worse to have multiple servers(EU, NA, SEA etc) on release with 2000+ concurrent players each, then a month later each server is down to 200 - 500 players each concurrently. Game would become a nomad/walking simulator trying to find activity.
I think you are 1000% right.
They have a huge massive world right now and their main priority over arguments about how many frames you have to predict a block based on location is "Do we have the right size of landmass/server infrastructure to accommodate the number of players that will be playing the game on release?",
If they get fewer players than they expected, then the game will be more empty than expected (as it is now) and adding more servers/continents will just make it it moreso. If they have a huge amount of players and the current single Myrland gets crowded, then great, they probably have the funding to hire more devs and prioritize creation of another continent.
But to ask for any sort of intervention around server structure/splitting things up at this point is like trying to decide on what exactly you might want for lunch before you arrive at a place and can look at the menu.
This. The people who I agree with on everything else, have the opposite thought of me when it comes to servers. Every other problem in the game hurts my gameplay more than my not perfect ping. The game doesnt want me to play it, and wants to punish me for anything I can think of doing, and then wants me to waste a ton of time dealing with "the consequences for my actions" because I killed someone in a open pvp game, who may have wanted to kill me not at a safe zone. If I even find any players out in the world at all, which wasnt likely. Thats a much bigger issue than my ping, in the fight I didn't get because this games anti pvp. And when you do get a fight, it was prob like 12v4, and you got slammed or rolled them regardless of ping. I dont count fake organized pvp, if people want that they can go play any generic sword game, which gives fair fights and better combat lol.Interesting. In other threads the players protest agins the changes with killing new players, ruin their game to force quit and keep playerbase low. In other thread people want regional server while we dont have enough people for one server.
As someone with the highest ping (stable) I would still vote for single server as that is one of the things that make the game different.
i think One Game world, with continents spilt into EU,NA,Oceanic is a fantasic solution. Gets all/most of the Pro's of single server solution and can allow for more competetive PvP (just need to fight in your own continent). You can still explore the other continents and have some 'temporary' lag while you are there, but given you can always go back to your local continent, and have great ping makes the game so much more marketable and appealing.
It seems like the fairest solution - I know people on the fence or outright not ready to buy and sub for a game server located in EU.
Populations might vary from continent to contient, but nothing is stopping you from travelling across, except some ping.
Not spliting the continients to EU,NA,OCE servers seems like a big F-you to anyone that doesnt live in EU.
I think the Devs should strongly consider announcing (and following through) that continents will be region-split.
Or failing that, opening new servers(all continents each on their own NA,EU,OCE server), allowing transfers, with potential to merge them all back to EU when the population dies. Currently the population can't even fit on the one server and this also seems like a feesible solution for the current time being.
Either option has to be better than the current situation (only 1 EU server).
It seems like the fairest solution - I know people on the fence or outright not ready to buy and sub for a game server located in EU.
Populations might vary from continent to contient, but nothing is stopping you from travelling across, except some ping.
Not spliting the continients to EU,NA,OCE servers seems like a big F-you to anyone that doesnt live in EU.
I think the Devs should strongly consider announcing (and following through) that continents will be region-split.
Or failing that, opening new servers(all continents each on their own NA,EU,OCE server), allowing transfers, with potential to merge them all back to EU when the population dies. Currently the population can't even fit on the one server and this also seems like a feesible solution for the current time being.
Either option has to be better than the current situation (only 1 EU server).