Possible Solution to Server Merger and Game Pop. Discussion

[Babble]

To start,  Love the game.   POTBS vet.  Been searching for a similar game to capture the community atmosphere and true RVR and PVP ever since.  I see great things in the future for this game.  Goal here is to address a potential major concern this game may have in the future and one that it currently has now,  population.

The game world is massive.  Which is great.  Immersive.  Realistic.

However, apart from a few major hubs it is by in large, empty.

Problem:

Lets face it fellows,  the game is pretty niche.   My favorite niche, but niche non the less.   We cant afford to divide our population among so many servers.    People will come and go and the more alive a server feels the more people will be willing to stay and invest their time becoming part of the community.

Having the servers divided among US vs EU does nothing to help the situation and you'll find new players just choose whatever closer even though we all known PVP 1 is where the game is really going on which will lead people on the other servers to grow bored and leave over time.

Solution:

Merge all the like servers.   1 PVP server and 1 PVE server. ( we have all noticed ping is a non issue)

Issue:

Technical limitations of server infrastructure.

Proposed Solution:  (Shards)

       -1.)OW broken into 6 major shards: (Gulf of Yucatan(1), Gulf of Mexico(2), Panama(3), Antilles(4), The colonies(5), Bahamas(6))  (Details to follow)

            -A.) When sailing towards the  border between shards a warning is displayed on screen you are     approaching said region and will be transferred there in 30 seconds if you maintain your course.  If you maintain course you are transferred to region after a load screen.  (The loading screens in this game are seconds)

           -B.) Create Shard boundaries in dead zones of open ocean.   Rough boundary illustrations to follow.

    - 2.)Battle Shards:

           -A.)Every PB or instanced fight could potentially be hosted on a strictly battle shard.  Enter a fight connect to the battle shard where the conflict is focus.  Upon completion connect back to shard you left.  Relieve main server resources for duration of battle.

   -3.)Shard population Cap limit :

         -A.) To combat the potential for full shards restricting free movement hard cap shard capacity at 2,500-3000(whatever the developers have determined is the safe population for a single server) and cap the entire server population at 10,000.

              -1.) This would make it extremely unlikely that over 2,500 would be sailing in a given region at a given time.  And if for some unforeseen reason this becomes an issue (mirrored shards could potentially be researched.)

   -4.)Control Availability of resources per region: (to promote travel and boost economy)

        -A.)By making the availability of resources fairly equal among regions it ensures that no one region becomes dominate and gives incentive to conquer other regions via RVR in order to control a larger share of a given resource.

       -B.)Give each region a unique resource to promote commerce and trade( i.e. American Cotton, French wine, etc.

      

Proposed regional shards:

       -1.)Gulf of Yucatan: (South-Western Mexico)(Pictures Below)

                 Begin: Tip of Yucatan at the halfway point between "Tantun Cuzamil" and "Mugeres"

                          - Arcs out towards the halfway point between "Mugeres" and the tip of Cuba

                          - Loops around in a northwesterly direction to end at the halfway point between "Aransas" and El Ranco.

                         - Eastern boundary of the shard will reside in the Gulf of Mexico, west of "Alacranes"

                         - Western boundary of shard will be the coast contained within.

        -2.)Gulf of Mexico: (Southern Coast of U.S.)(Pictures Below)

                 Begin: Halfway point between "Manataca" and "Gasparilla"

                          - Proceeds directly west into the Gulf of Mexico to intersect with shard (1) north-west of "Alcranes"

                         - Northern and eastern boundaries are southern coast of U.S.

                         - Western Boundary is Eastern Boundary of Shard (1)

          -3.)Panama :(Coast of Central America)(Pictures Below)

                  Begin: Tip of Yucatan at the halfway point between "Tantun Cuzamil" and "Mugeres"

                            - Continue South-easternly towards the top pf South America

                            - Dividing the Open seas between ports such as: -"Serrana" and "Bone Cay"

                                                                                                          -"Misteriosa" and "Geroge Town"

                            -Boundary ending between "Rio de la Hacha" and "Santa Marta"

                            -Eastern, Southern, and Western Boundary to be the coast of Central America

      -4.)Antilles: (The Antilles)(pictures Below)

                   Begin: Mid-point between "Rio de la Hacha" and "Santa Marta"

                            - Boundary proceeds north-easterly to the tip of the Dominican Republic between "Sale-Trou" and "Barahona"

                           - Boundary continues from the northern side of "D.R." at the mid-point between "Samana" and "Macao" towards the North-Eastern edge of the map.

                           - Northern and Eastern Boundaries of the shard are the edge of the game world.

                           - Southern Boundary is the coast of South America.

          -5.) The Colonies: (eastern coast of United States and Bermuda)(pictures below)

                   Begin: Mid-point between "Cabo Canaveral" and "San Sebastian"

                              - Proceeds north-easterly towards the edge of the game world.

                              - Northern and eastern boundaries are edge of Game world

                              - Western boundary is coast of United States

      -6.)The Bahamas:(Cuba and the Bahamas)(pictures Below)

                   Comprised of the region contained within the boundaries of the other shards and game world.

                       - North-western boundary is Shard 1,2

                       - North-Eastern boundary is Shard 5

                       - Eastern Boundary is the edge of Game world

                       - South-Westen Boundary is Shard 3

                       - South-Eastern and Eastern Boundaries are Shard 4

 

Conclusion:

          - In theory this would create a much more rich game environment for all to experience.

          -Would make true RVR and actual possibility with the bolstering of population for the smaller nations.

          - Keep the majority of the community together to help build the bonds that will keep this game alive.

          - Generate  conflicts for National control of a Region

          - Make the game feel more alive.

 

Note: Boundaries and theory open to revision. We are just spit-balling here for the good of the game

*Screen Shots of rough boundaries attached.  Higher Res pictures available but reduced due to size limits.  Will post regions pictures below
 

 

Links to images of shard concept:

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9mOinkVxfkQQk9GVVVwa1JWODg/view?usp=sharing

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9mOinkVxfkQSWZUMU1rZ1VNWWM/view?usp=sharing

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9mOinkVxfkQcVhhZGdxamhrTU0/view?usp=sharing

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9mOinkVxfkQMkM3TzB0SnNlQU0/view?usp=sharing

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9mOinkVxfkQUFFYTVpOb2xqVG8/view?usp=sharing

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9mOinkVxfkQTkhxd3NsQVFPSjQ/view?usp=sharing

 

 

 

EDit:

 

Updated server setup implementing Mirror542's great idea which can be seen is his comment below

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9mOinkVxfkQc19DeEpma0pybFk/view?usp=sharing

 

 

 

 

The updated Concept requires 6-8 servers depending on decision to enable individual shards for battles or ports.

 

4 of the shards boundaries are displayed in green above.

2 of the shards are transitional boundaries. 

 

If sailing West from the far left edge of the map you are on Shard one.

       - every single player in visible distance to you is also on shard one.

       - As you approach transitional shard A you become loaded onto that shard as well as shard one.

                   - All of this is done behind the scenes with no interruption in gameplay.

                   - You would be able to see all players in your visible distance located on both shard A and Shard 1

 

       - As you cross the border between shard 1 and shard 2 (north of cuba in this example) your ship is loaded into shard 2 and removed from shard one. 

                  - All of this is done behind the scenes with no interruption in gameplay.

                  - You would now be able to see all players in your visible distance located on both shard A and Shard 2 (or 3 depending on which side of cuba you are on)

 

       - If you continue to sail west along the northern coast of cuba you would eventually be removed from Shard A and reside solely on Shard 2.

 

      - If we continue our example you would be loaded onto Shard B as well as Shard 2

                 - Again all of this is done behind the scenes and presents no change to gameplay.

                 - You would now be able to see all players in your visible distance located on both shard 2 and Shard B

 

      -And so on to shard B and 4 and then solely 4.

 

 

 

 

This becomes and effective way to join the entirety of the current player base to one "server" and resolve the issues presented by hardware.    If in the future the player base increases it is even infinitely
scalable by adding additional transition shards.   Transition shards for transition shards , ad nauseam.

 

 

Creates a truly alive world.   Doesn't impact game play at all.  Creates competitive RVR.  A need for trade and commerce in the upcoming player driven economy.    There is no reason more people playing together is a bad idea.

 

Game labs already is running several servers.   This would convert those servers to shards and rather then divide the player base per server use those servers to unite the playerbase.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Babble

[Thymoral]

wat

 

Do you even know what a 'server' is?? The point of having multiple servers is so all of the data is not in one massive repository.  You can't just jump from server to server, that would mean every server has all of the information...

 

Nice thought, but technically kinda silly.

[Prater]

wat

 

Do you even know what a 'server' is??

 

Actually, I would ask you that question.

 

 

The point of having multiple servers is so all of the data is not in one massive repository.

 

That is not the only point.  And in gaming, the point is not redundancy but in processing power.  That is the main reason for several servers in gaming, and that is what the OP is getting at.  Another would be location.

 

 

You can't just jump from server to server, that would mean every server has all of the information...

 

Why can't you just jump from server to server or shard to shard?  And why does it mean every server has to have all the same info?

[mirror452]

My thoughts on this topic.

 

https://www.dropbox....erver2.png?dl=0
The idea is that the world is devided in sectors. Every sector is handled by one server. However, the sectors overlap on the map, so that on some parts the player is in the area of two servers at the same time.
This would work as follows:
If you have the picture I sent you in front of you, assume the player starts on the right side of the map and travels to the left side. He would so be connected with Server "GREEN". As he continues to travel he would reach the region where "GREEN" and "YELLOW" overlap. As soon as he enters this region the game would automatically connect him with the Server "YELLOW" in the background, but would not break the connection with "GREEN".
He would thus be connected with TWO servers at the same time.
As soon as he leaves the shared area he would be disconnected from Server "GREEN". But there has to be some kind of timer that stops the constant reconnection and disconnection with "GREEN" if he decides to tack along the border of the shared area.

Then the player would be solely on Server "YELLOW". He would then enter the shared area of "YELLOW" and "RED" and be again connected to two servers. By the time he reaches the left map border he would again be connected to only one server... "RED".

Now the problem with two players being in the same area, but not on the same server... Since the client is connected to both servers he will also always see the position of everyone around him (overlapping areas have to be bigger than view range). Now I don't know if it's enough to just let the client do all the tagging in the OW, or if this can be somehow hacked. If it is a weakspot for hackers then neightbouring servers also have to communicate with each other.

The problems that I see with this system:
-It's fairly complicated, and will probably lead to many bugs that have to be fixed
-being connected to two servers will probably increase the ping. But in my opinion this is not a big issue because the ping in the OW is not extremely important.
-And of course synchronisation problems. For example, the client (connected to 2 servers) receives the position of Player B. Player B is connected to two servers too, so depending on the ping it could be that the client will receive 2 different locations for Player B. But I guess it's easy to fix if the client prioritizes one of the servers. It can lead to inaccuracies, but again... Not extremely important in the OW.

 

[Jager]

tbh what really is wrong with the current way? Is it just that you don't want to sail 1 hour to get to places if so then i'm sorry this game is not for you. The current way is the best way for a PVP Caribbean conquesting game. And being apart of a clan that took quite a few of those territories that will under your new proposed idea be split up into different (servers?) i feel like the question would be asked by many in the same situation why did we bother when were now only going to play on 1 server and not the rest?

[mirror452]

tbh what really is wrong with the current way? Is it just that you don't want to sail 1 hour to get to places if so then i'm sorry this game is not for you. The current way is the best way for a PVP Caribbean conquesting game. And being apart of a clan that took quite a few of those territories that will under your new proposed idea be split up into different (servers?) i feel like the question would be asked by many in the same situation why did we bother when were now only going to play on 1 server and not the rest?

 

Noooooo... What most of us want is ONE world where all players are instead of splitting the community. With my idea (if this is anyhow possible to implement) you wouldn't notice that you play on different servers in different regions.

[Babble]

Actually, I would ask you that question.

 

 

Thank you prater.

 

Apparently people don't really grasp the concept of what i am talking about here.

So i will try to approach it a different way or be more clear somehow.

[Babble]

wat

 

Do you even know what a 'server' is?? The point of having multiple servers is so all of the data is not in one massive repository.  You can't just jump from server to server, that would mean every server has all of the information...

 

Nice thought, but technically kinda silly.

 

Yes.  I'm sitting in the data center of a multi-billion dollar company right now.  Its where i work and have worked every single day for the past 6 years.

 

A shard system is a very common tactic used by MMO's and general databases.  Shards are used in order to work around the technical limitations of processing power of owned hardware, while still keeping the overall (RVR) elements across all players.

 

 

 

(Due to being at work i am limited as to what gaming sites i can access for examples)

 

Many many MMOs use some form of a shard system:

 

-Rift

-Wow

-EVE

- Shards Online (literally the name of the game)

-ect.

 

Please see the following for a better understanding of what I'm proposing:

 

Wiki on what a shard is -       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shard_%28database_architecture%29

 

Nice little blog post about the subject-   http://www.mmocompendium.com/why-still-shards-servers/

 

Excerpt from Book -    http://tinyurl.com/h455o2s

 

 

(Due to being at work i am limited as to what gaming sites i can access for examples)

Edited February 10, 2016 by Babble

[LeBoiteux]

I guess the advantage of the current system is that devs can add / remove as many servers as needed, depending on the number of actual players (cost adaptability). OP's system doesn't seem flexible : devs need as many servers as there are areas (6) + some battle shards (1 ? 2... ?), right ? May be an expensive system. If the traffic decline, will devs have to shut down areas making the OW smaller ?

[Babble]

My thoughts on this topic.

I like it.

 

Maybe something along the line of what you propose with the regions i proposed being the different servers.

 

Still hosted instanced battles else where to relieve processing power.

 

I would be willing to test such a thing despite any bugs considering this is the point of Alpha no?

[Powderhorn]

If the traffic decline, will devs have to shut down areas making the OW smaller ?

Or just merge shards so that one shard covers a larger map section.

[Babble]

tbh what really is wrong with the current way? Is it just that you don't want to sail 1 hour to get to places if so then i'm sorry this game is not for you. The current way is the best way for a PVP Caribbean conquesting game. And being apart of a clan that took quite a few of those territories that will under your new proposed idea be split up into different (servers?) i feel like the question would be asked by many in the same situation why did we bother when were now only going to play on 1 server and not the rest?

No.  Not at all what im proposing.  Has nothing to do with travel times and everything to do with not dividing the game population.   Im not trying to split servers at all.  In fact im proposing the exact opposite.

[mirror452]

I like it.

 

Maybe something along the line of what you propose with the regions i proposed being the different servers.

 

Still hosted instanced battles else where to relieve processing power.

 

I would be willing to test such a thing despite any bugs considering this is the point of Alpha no?

 

Just that there would probably be a few more servers needed to be able to make the world continuous and prevent loading screens.

Edited February 10, 2016 by mirror452

[Professurreal]

It's kinda what EVE does. The amount of required shards would be dependent on the population of an area. With the current amount of all players around 3 shards should already be sufficient.

It's actually much more flexible this way as the amount of shards is scalable and all players would be playing on one server cluster. That's how EVE manages to have 50.000 concurrent players all playing on the same "server".

 

The way it is now will be problematic if too many people leave. I play on PvP3 and it's usually qutie a bit lower than PvP1. If at some point too many players leave it will be dead and they'll either have to merge servers again or players have to restart (not XP but gold and ships) on one of the other servers. In the way the OP proposes the devs could just add or remove servers to the cluster depending on the size of the population.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Professurreal

[Ratline]

I do wish this was the direction they were taking, hopefully it's possible for them to consider switching to this model.

[Aetrion]

I don't think the major split between servers should be PvP and PvE, because it seems to me like the community divides way more over whether PvP should be incredibly cutthroat and punish anyone who's careless, or be more of an ongoing adventure people can participate in without much worry. 

[Babble]

I don't think the major split between servers should be PvP and PvE, because it seems to me like the community divides way more over whether PvP should be incredibly cutthroat and punish anyone who's careless, or be more of an ongoing adventure people can participate in without much worry. 

Well to be honest I'm in more of the cutthroat camp and find it kinda silly that people would want to play on a server in which they cannot attack other players at all but some people are into that.   The suggestion was to allow that type of player their particular game style by separating the servers in that manner.

If you don't think they should be separated by PVP and PVE what do you suggest?

[Xoosch]

Ohh please now.... no instances! It's good as it is right now. I mean it. NO INSTANCES!!!! NO, just NOOO.

 

 

Best kill this thread then burn and bury it.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Xoosch

[BlindProphet]

Issues with your proposal in no particular order:

1) Loss of immersion

2) Exploitation of regional boundaries

3) Cost, both direct Server cost as well as development time

4) Doesn't at all promote some of the things you say it does (trade, controlling a particular region, etc)

[Babble]

Ohh please now.... no instances! It's good as it is right now. I mean it. NO INSTANCES!!!! NO, just NOOO.

The game is already instanced to a degree.

 

Every battle is an instance.

 

Every port is in essence and instance.

 

With a melding of what i proposed along with what "mirror452" proposed earlier in this thread there would be no additional loading times.

 

Simply a unified player base.

[Xoosch]

The game is already instanced to a degree.

 

Every battle is an instance.

 

Every port is in essence and instance.

 

With a melding of what i proposed along with what "mirror452" proposed earlier in this thread there would be no additional loading times.

 

Simply a unified player base.

That's not the same and you know it. If i sail in a Region i want to be able to meet ALL people in it not just the 30% in my instance. I had my fair share of instance based Games (Elder Scrols Online anyone) to be sure that this would be a Dealbraker for me.

[Babble]

Issues with your proposal in no particular order:

1) Loss of immersion

2) Exploitation of regional boundaries

3) Cost, both direct Server cost as well as development time

4) Doesn't at all promote some of the things you say it does (trade, controlling a particular region, etc)

Using mirror542's proposal to augment my original would resolve the issues you pose in points 1 and 2.

 

3.) is valid in regards to development time.  Not sure in server cost as they are currently already running several servers that divide the population.

 

4.) Potentially valid.  I truly believe with a high population regional conflicts would be a greater focus as it would be difficult to rapidly expand a nations territory as seen on PVP 1 by the United States due to other nations being able to actually field a defense against port capture.

End goal is not dividing player community.  As stated very open to suggestions.

[Månis]

What the OP is talking about is  that you only have one server to choose from and instead let the rest of the servers handle different sectors ( or shards ) instead. This can be done without any loadingscreens etc.

 

Instead of having for example 10 choosable servers which needs 10 server to run smoothly, he wants 1 choosable server which need 100 servers to run smoothly. ( well... you get the idea... )

[Babble]

That's not the same and you know it. If i sail in a Region i want to be able to meet ALL people in it not just the 30% in my instance. I had my fair share of instance based Games (Elder Scrols Online anyone) to be sure that this would be a Dealbraker for me.

If your instance, or shard, can hold 2500 people as proposed, then I feel as though the  region you are in would most likely accurately reflect 100% of the players in that region across all shards.

With a total server population cap at 10,000 players and a regional shard cap at the proposed 2,500-3000 players I don't believe the need for several instances of a given region at a given time would be necessary very often if ever.

Thats not to say that if for some reason 3000 players were filling region "The Bahamas"(1) that "The Bahamas"(2) wouldn't accurately display all of the available open sea battles which you would be able to join as every battle in the game is already instanced and could be hosted by themselves on a additional battle shard. 

Capping the total server pop at 10,000 players and capping the regional shard(server) pop at 3000 would largely eliminate the need for and mirrored regions.   Most likely it would only be one shard for each region.   The likely-hood that 3000 players would all be logged in at the same time sailing around the same Open Seas region in a game with this population player base is extremely unlikely.

 

Currently the games player base is divided heavily by prime time of play due to time zones.  (EU and US)

           - Pvp1 reaches capacity and que login during peek hours but i highly doubt any of the other pvp servers ever reach capacity.

 

 

The model proposed would not add any additional loading times or possibly a second or two loading into a battle or port.  

To the player it would appear as if nothing was different apart from the fact that the game was much more alive with players.

 

RvR is the endgame here.   Its the only thing that will keep a playerbase around long term.

With a map this immense you cannot have meaningful RVR with a server cap of 3000k players. 

 

The proposed solution solves this issue with little to no change to user experience.

 

 

Apart from "No, just no" do you have any logical reason as to why this would not work or negatively hurt the game?

[Månis]

IT can be done..

 

 

Eve Online, created in 2003 but is still going strong had an impressive battle event back in 2013.     +3000 player ships  vs 1 capital ship.   3000 Players in the same battle ( no instance like NA has)   Surely with the hardware etc we have today, it should not be a problem?