So with the Revelation that you can now instance zones based on capacity... how long before we are all playing on the same server?
Wondered that myself, but guess the world server to keep track of our toons is the bottleneck at the moment, but this instancing feels like the obvious first step to help capacity planning.
I expect merges to come within 6 months or so and that's before I even heard about load balancing and multiple instances of the same base zone.
Am I the only one that thinks that *some* mergers are a good idea? No, we definitely are not at a point to consolidate to a single server but how often are TDS zones camped on your server? How many people regularly are LFG? Is your guild having trouble finding quality apps unless other guilds are folding? The answers are likely: never, few, and yes. With raid content instanced, most current zones empty, and the vast amount of group instanced content available, yes, please increase server populations. Wouldn't it also be a good money saving move from the business standpoint? Less servers, less cost? I'm not versed in that stuff so I'm sure someone knows better.
First off, instancing isn't coming to Live anytime soon. Likey it's being tested out on the new progression server first and they'll gather data there. That means that we're looking at at least a year before we get it on Live. There are other issues associated with server mergers to consider. One obvious one is character names. Merge the servers without some kind of plan for names and you are going to have a LOT of very upset people.
Read Absor's post in https://forums.station.sony.com/eq/index.php?threads/load-balancing-zone-instances.219615/ Quote (Abridged): As to why we never used it before, and why we are limiting its use now (and plan to do so in the future), it's simple. Some of you have caught on to the issues. As soon as we make a zone into multiple versions of itself we have problems. It becomes annoying for groups to play together. Even if we let you swap between the instances, it's an additional hassle. What instance are you in, Dzarn? Lavastorm 3? Ok, let me find it on the list... Every new version of the zone increases the rate at which "stuff" enters the world. Want more plat sinks? Well, this is the opposite. Any zone that is instanced this way destroys any possible economic calculations. NOTE: We take this into consideration for raid and mission instances when we determine drop rates and lockouts. In fact, this is one of the major reason we have lockouts. We want people to play together. This is the foundation of EverQuest, all the way back to when people had to help each other find out how to do a quest or beat a boss. Splitting people up is not good for the game. NOTE: Raids are a different beast on this point, because that is a task you take on as a preset group, and having access to other people would not generally be beneficial. So don't expect this technology to be used anywhere else. As fortuneteller mentioned, it could be abused, and there really is no way to make this sort of thing functional and not abusable. Just get X people together, kill the rares in the zone, then have those friends jump in and spawn a new one. Rinse and repeat. This isn't a thing we want to have happen. This is doubly bad for raid targets that are not currently instanced. Those raids were not designed to be taken out infinite times a day. And setting them up to have lockouts... that's the time we don't have. Basically, it would require reconfiguring them to work like new raids do, and that isn't not a simple task. Also, philosophically we don't think it's a good idea, especially for a "classic" or progression server. A
Mega server is the way of the future. In fact, I'd say it is the way of now. Many games have already transitioned to mega server design...and I don't know too many new upcoming games that don't have it. I hope EQ will utilize mega server sooner than later. Segregating playerbase by servers is old school, it's not future proof and it causes a lot of problems as we see in EQ today. It also forces companies have to do the dreaded server merges, which is always bad for PR. And yeah it does make more sense from the code & server space standpoint.
Mega Server = Veiled Transfer off of FV strategy. Seriously, if there is a mega server, anyone on FV (or Zek) will want a ticket....
Mind you live servers have had this ever since Gloomingdeep. It's not a real important zone, but the technology has been there.
They've talked about why they don't just merge until the load forces them not to merge anymore in the past. In short they don't want waiting lists for desirable static camps/congestion. And as noted above they don't just instance everything because they want to regulate the "rate at which "stuff" enters the world". As things stand now the hardest of the hardcore camp the things they want in early content and move on. Others arrive later and if a camp is taken they do something else (there are a lot of Merc and Partisian tasks) and wait until the camp is free. Etc. until the last of the reluctant heroes decide they'll give that camp a go. All the way to the most casual players who only skim the surface. That scheme works great on normal rules servers with no drop gear. Unless something is unbelievably good nothing gets permacamped. (Things are different on FV where no doubt there are no drop items permacamped regularly since you can sell them - horrible system). In short new content is as crowded or open for you to enjoy without others camping things you'd like as your ability and willingness to take risks/do unfamiliar things permits. Stick a quarter in the slot and pull out a candy bar (instance) is an entirely different beast which unfortunately has to be tolerated in raids since 54+ people are dependent on Space Mountain being available Sunday at 7:30PM. They don't have 200 other things they could do instead. Glad to see we're not going to have inter-server trading. With some server economies inflated to a fare-thee-well it would be a shame if they could buy up all the good stuff while in cross server groups. I hope Daybreak keeps an eye on this to make sure lower level characters don't find a way to abuse it should they ever do cross server grouping (maybe prohibit bringing Prestige items into cross server instances). The last thing I'd ever want to see is a mega-server with cross server instances exposing normal rules players to rule sets (or the consequences of those rules) they've rejected. ...well, a lobby with a group signup queue and an insta port to an instance when you got a group would be pretty awful too - not very multi-player. <- likes his neighborhood and the people who hang out in it.
I think it is entirely feasible to do it in a way where everyone (player and developer) would be reasonably happy with the result. It just requires a thought out approach.
Here's one possible name workaround. Mega server can remember previous server of character. Tack an "x" (or "xx", or "xxy", or whatever) to make name unique. When Jane sends tell to John (who is now Johnxx), mega server checks to see Jane's previous server was Bertox. Then checks any "John" (Johnx, Johnxx, etc.) for previous server Bertox and we have a match. If Jane met John while on mega server then she already knows him as Johnxx. If Jane knew John as a cross-server friend then she could use cross-server syntax and mega server does lookup to find the target Johnxx. Of course, some people will not like being renamed Johnxx. Give them a no-fee one-time rename.
Good grief, Mega-servers? Spare me, please! If this idea ever actually lands on Live servers as opposed to some TLP server, if nothing else is done please increase the number of characters one can put on ignore!
well if they ever do have just one server then i guess its time for me and my wife to move on to other games. i dont have the time to sit LFG or looking for a camp to be open if everyone was on the same server. even with zone balancing then the plat farmers would just generate tons of instances of good camps and i still couldnt get my own loot without having to pay someone else for it. i dont even want to see more server merges. things seem just fine the way they are.
All I see when anyone posts about server mergers is me losing my characters name to someone who hasn't logged in since 1999 because they made their character first. I've had my characters name for 16 years now...I'm not going to give it up easily to someone who never logs in anymore. Unless you are willing to improve the way character names are assigned where duplicates occur don't bother trying to merge servers. Its not like its even hard to come up with something better than whoever was made first in a 16 year old game where over 95% of the population hasn't played in 10 years. Also...if the issue causing us to need to merge servers is lack of people in zones on current servers...then how does replacing that system with instancing help anything? Either merge servers with the intent of making big zones that will become overcrowded on purpose, or don't merge servers and don't implement instancing...we don't need both. ~MrGPAC
