To many servers?

So we have 8 servers. In a game that's built around the concept of huge battles with hundreds of players. Wouldn't it make sense to have only 3 servers? An American, an EU and an Asian server. Obviously SOE would make these servers large enough and powerful enough to handle the large number of players and have the overheads to handle any increase in the player base.

But this would concentrate the players. We could see all continents full. See the huge battles at multiple bases that a vaguely remember from when the game launched. It would make this game what it's supposed to be.

Let's also be realistic are we ever going to see all 8 servers full? I doubt it.

Do you really want a server with 48+ vs 48+ fights everywhere on the map? I don't.

Yes I do. If I didn't I'd be playing bf4.

With the way the game works at this point of time (Player render distance issues, vehicle and air spam), having 48+ vs 48+ battles everywhere wouldn't be very enjoyable.

I don't think SOE's servers are of a high enough quality to handle that many people in a single server, nor do I think they would spend the money for servers that nice this late in the game. That being said I think 2 American Servers, 2 EU servers, and Briggs would probably be a good call once Hossin and the Battle islands come out.

/ Merge Mattherson and Waterson

I agree that just having 48+ vs 48+ on every lattice lane would be pretty awful.

If you don't play for the 48+ vs 48+, then what do you play for?

The PS4 release and the game leaving open beta will both bring marketing and likely population spikes. I don't think we're going to see any server merges before those two events. Connery's toaster will probably catch fire as-is, and a hypothetical Wattherson would be even worse.

As much as the current situation sucks, I think we're just stuck with it for now.

big battles = big troubles (high ping, lags, FPS drop)
i wasn't in switching continent queue a long time

The entire point of PS2 is the large battles. If you want 1-12 fights this seems like one of the worst choices of fps you could make.

/merge Waterson and Mattherson

I've come to realise the thing putting me off playing is to many small fights.

Ps2's USP is supposed to be it's huge scale and massive battles. It's one of the things that attracted me to the game in the first instance.

I think we need server merges. I'm happy to see if ps4 launch boosts numbers though I'm sceptical it'll do enough.

Merges are once again needed imo.

It is an overhang from the hysteria of members priority login, which from very hazy memory I only experienced once when it first launched.

The number of servers is supposed to reflect the number of players PLUS the need to have a members fast track login.

In reality the player base is and has always been so small - and I would be surprised if not evaporating on a daily basis as people question why they continue to put time into this 'game' - that login problems have rarely ever existed outside server side problems.

On the flip side - if they merge servers and for arguments sake halve them, would that not be a sane move but also indicate an admission of a falling player base, which in turn may make people leave the game?

This game has always needed fewer servers, but I think it is part of the game lore that there are a lot of empty servers to login to because there is such a massive player base that isn't actually there and never has been.

I think your quite right in saying many at soe and in the community would see a server merge as an admission of failure.

I built a beast of a gaming computer last Feb and I have a beast internet connection.... I want to play a beast of an FPS.

There is a reason I stopped playing the battlefield series at BC2.... because 32 and 64 player matches sucked. That being said I think we should wait and see how this pans out. Merging servers and then having a flood of new players would be very bad.

No that would be too much. During prime time you might have 3 territories on Indar with 48v48. More appropriate would be 6 48vs48 on all continents at all times. I think 3x the current populations could be a good number. On release we had 12 instead of 8 servers with 2000 players per continent instead of 667 and some servers were full. There are 6000 steam players today and it was 30000 back then.

I know this is inevitable, but I'll be sad when it happens. My NC and TR characters are on Waterson and Mattherson respectively and I'll be bummed when they're on the same server. It'd be even worse if they merge all three NA servers 'cause my Vanu is on Connery D:

That said, I'd like it if there were one global server that somehow supported players from all over the globe. Not sure if that'd be possible without breaking some people via latency but it'd be interesting. I'd still want the normal servers to exist, though.

Does anyone really think the ps4 release will bring in an increase in the number of players to the pc version to?

I'm not convinced. Though it depends how they advertise I suppose.

Actually, yes. That is kind of the point of the game.

The prerequisite for that is to have something better than 3rd world networking equipment...

I don't subscribe to this notion. I believe that the true nature of Planetside 2 is that there's something for every one. There's vehicles, aircraft, and infantry combat. If you want to, you can do nothing but fly Galaxies all day. By that same token, if you want large battles, you can follow zergs around. If you want small battles, you can act as a fast-response unit to small squads that are trying to push unguarded lanes and vice versa. The point of Planetside 2 is that you can't point at some one and say "you're playing the game wrong."

double post