Question for a Dev..

https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/addressing-latency.282286/
I was reading this article on latency in EQ and I found the following paragraph interesting.

If this is true, I am curious why the classic-velious "pick" thresholds are always set to a number of players beyond what the zones can realistically support to play in it. If there are only 3 of 27-28 expansions live on a TLP, can't the threshold be lowered to support more players?

LOTRO is experiencing massive lag, like not seen in years, because of the anniversary event, and all the free stuff they gave players. It would seem that older games have similar issues, maybe not the exact technical workings. I wonder how next gen MMOs, if we ever have any truly in the kind of scope as EQ, will handle things.

So what did the server upgrade help with? I assume this article is prior to the upgrade.

Man, if only you could read the article literally linked to you.

Even games like WoW experience open world latency issues when things get busy. They have a more distributed model where instances are hosted on separate hardware from open world though, so at least content like raids tend to perform consistently. Pretty sure EQ doesn't do that.

Congratulations on being the 1000th person to ask this question.

First off, all expansions live on every TLP from launch. TLPs use the exact same codebase as Live servers. Most zones are locked and so can't be accessed by the players, but they still exist on the server and take up virtual memory and other resources. Their presence does not in and of itself contribute to lag in active zones, since the server doesn't need to do anything with them, but it does bear on how much free virtual memory is available for opening copies (picks) of active zones. If all zones were not loaded onto a server at launch, they would have to be added in every time an expansion unlocked, which would necessitate a server reboot at every unlock, which would in turn change a few-minutes process to a several-hour process, rinse and repeat.

The pick thresholds for the most popular zones are not just numbers pulled out of the air, they have been tweaked by devs over the course of TLP history due to sometimes painful trial-and-error. When certain zones had lower thresholds, we saw occasions of not only server lag, but outright server crashes due to virtual memory limits. This is why the private picks some players keep asking for are impossible. Note that switching to a 64-bit server engine does not affect this, since the limiting factor is the physical capacity of server hardware. EQ isn't using blade server "mega server" technology as you can see in ESO and other modern MMOs.

Your definition of "what a zone can reasonably support" is likely quite different from the devs. Players are thinking in terms of the ready availability of camps, where the combination of mob density, respawn rates and total player count in a pick are all factors. Devs are going to be thinking in terms of how many players can fit into a pick without lag becoming a problem. Server stability dictates they have to make a concerted effort to keep the total number of picks across all zones down, as much as possible. Having more open camps won't do you any good if the server crashes 2-3x a day.

As I'm sure you know, there has been some dev turnover lately. I'm not a dev and can't speak to what the current team thinks is the quality of the latest set of choices for various pick threshold limits. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any detailed response from them right now, with new server launches about to happen. I would also recommend using Discord if you are keen to lobby for any changes to any particular zones.

I detect sarcasm.. but thanks I don't spend much time on the forums unless I am waiting on a TLP release. The thread Accendo posted this past Wednesday didn't really cover picks, so I figured it was worth asking.

I'll admit I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to tech issues but if what you say is true, could
they not start a server with only Classic-PoP loaded to free resources and allow more picks? Then deal with a several-hour process to load the rest of it before GOD release? I could deal with EQ being down for a few hours if it would create a better game play experience for the 1st year or so.

I don't know the costs that would be associated with hardware upgrades if that's what it would take to make it happen. If people could play more accounts, wouldn't it be worth the investment?

I am aware that Players and Devs have a different perspective regarding picks. Obviously no one wants to deal with lag and cashes. They haven't invested to fix this issue in many years, so maybe it's not worth it to them. *shrug*

I will try that, thanks.

It wouldn't buy you what you think you'd get, though. The ability to run, for example, 10 more picks of LGuk would just bring more players to LGuk who are otherwise willing to go level someplace else. There are actually a lot of good leveling paths in early EQ, but the game's racing and min-max culture has become obsessed with just the one true path, which devs don't particularly care about. There is no incentive for the devs to fuss over the status quo when they see perfectly good levelling zones sitting empty. Personally, a better gameplay experience means exploring more of the world, and seeing more of the lore quests I didn't get to the last time around.

World of Warcraft also uses "sharding" a locus around the players in an area on one server, if the same cell has only 1-2 players in the same area of a different server, they're moved in a locus and players from both servers play together, this lessens how much overworld has to be generated systemwide. It also utterly destroys community as you can't invite them to a guild /etc as they're from a different server.

I agree that exploration creates a better gameplay experience. My friends and I went on a mission to explore all of the dungeons, especially those we didn't visit much or at all during our first time playing EQ. That said, there are clear reasons why some zones are more popular than others. Lguk is great XP and has a ton of loot drops. A lot more than you'd get in some alternatives for the level range. I would like to see a return of hot zones to reward a bit of extra XP for zones that don't drop nearly the same amount of items and are a pain in the rear to get to. A little incentive to venture out to new places. Otherwise, I don't see the current trend changing much.

Please keep the conversation going in the thread that was linked.