| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (102)

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 10:21AM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@kjhasdfjkhk

Lucky you. /shrug
Reply

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 3:01PM Wensbane said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Utakata

Luck has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I can't speak about NA, but as far as European shards go, it was pretty clear which ones were going to end up with unbearable queues.

None of the people I know had any problems with long queues, even those that don't play in RP shards, like I do.
Meanwhile, the thousands upon thousands of sheep who flocked to Whitefall and Blightweald were crying that they had to wait in line for six hours!

It took me a five minute trip to the forums to know that Whitefall was going to be a nightmare. All of the threads saying that "if you want proper world PvP, you need to be at WF" were like a huge red flag.
Add to that the constant shard promotion by the (sizable) Russian community and you've got a recipe for disaster.

A lot of people just need to stop picking servers at random or going for the ones with the highest numbers (probably hoping that they will be more "active" and thus, more entertaining).

Do a little research, people. Picking a good server is, quite possibly, the single most important decision you have to make, before committing yourself to an MMO.
If you can spend hours reading about "spec optimizations", you can take five minutes to find out which servers are going to get flooded come launch. Seriously...
Reply

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 10:14AM Krayzjoel said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Lets hope the player base will sustain that many servers over the long haul.

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 10:18AM hami83 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Let's see. Company has two choices.

1. Leave the servers as is and let there be 3-7 hour queue times, doomsayers will claim the game will fail because they aren't doing enough to support the game.

2. Create new servers to handle the load and possibly merge servers later on when the numbers balance out more, this will make doomsayers claim the game will fail because they are doing TOO much, thus the game will implode like a star or something.

No company can win.
I'm REALLY curious what is going to happen when Blizzard launches it's new MMO. Will we have these same slack jawed locals crying the same thing? Of course we will. It's the Internet, home of the stupid and ignorant.

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 10:20AM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Apparently the Warhammer comparing retards didn't check in their idiocy when posting here. Lol? /sigh

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 10:30AM Fabius Bile said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
@Utakata another fanboi in denial? sigh
have fun in World of Riftcraft, I heard its truly original yo! not clone-ish at all!
Reply

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 11:12AM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Fabius Bile

Lol! Intersting claim, since I have no intentions of playing RIFT currently.

I am simply pointing out flawed denailist logic of you armchair developers when Trion in fact was planning to start out with a modest amount of servers for this game. But quickly added more because that goal became unobtainable due to the unexpected popularity of their headstart. Warhammer, started out with gobs of servers form the outset because they really believed at the time they would be bigger and better than WoW.

See the difference? It's pretty obvious isn't it. But running to spout off Fox News soundbites in comparing the two games demises because you have something to prove, overlooked this simple fact. I never said this game was going to be good or bad. But let's be objective when being critical of it. Non?
Reply

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 10:44AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
no new RP servers? mistake?

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 11:04AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sorry, but getting more servers isn't a bragging point, as far as I'm concerned. We should be driving toward merging more people into fewer shards. A million accounts and 100 servers means only 10,000 per server, which means probably 2,000 people playing with you at any one time. That isn't really what I consider "massively" in 2011. Especially when others with far fewer resources are able to achieve 300k or more per server and 60k or more simultaneously.

That is part of what kind of "breaks" the whole MMO experience for me, in fact. I want to enjoy a sort of fantasy MMO world in a single enormous universe, instead of being just one of a hundred copies.

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 12:57PM Vestas said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@(Unverified)
Who gets 60k simultaneously? Eve used to hold the record i the 30's. World of Tanks just convinced Guinness to give them the record at mid 50's, however world of tanks is just an instanced match based game, no more than 64 players per game. Hardly a persistent world game. Get your numbers straight before disparagaing.

Some other numbers you might want to know before randomly quoting bad server data. Traditional logic in MMO dev states that your concurrent load is rarely, if ever, more than %20 of the accounts registered to a server at peak load. Oddities include launch days, patch days or big global event days. So you're average 5k concurrent server (and that's about the average for sharded games these days) has about 25k account subbed to it.

Games that don't rely on shards are great, but the technology is nowhere near proven to work beyond current known limits. Even the wonderous EVE falls over if too many of those concurrent players play in the same spot. And the network scaleability limits pose real problems at that kind of concurrency for games. There are tons of pro's and cons to the technology and the necessary game designs.
Reply

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 11:41AM dudes said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It's like the Aion launch all over again.

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 12:23PM dudes said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Puremallace I meant they had a lot of servers too.
Reply

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 12:58PM ImperialPanda said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think the discussion is over.

Facts: On "launch" day, for European shards, during peak hours, all 12 new servers are low population, in addition there's 4 more servers that are low population. I think it's safe to say Trion clearly did not need any of the new servers at all, at least not at this time.

(And for those not familiar with video game sales, Black Ops sold 5.6m on first day, ~9m in first week, and ~16m after two months. A very significant portion of copies sold are during launch day and launch week. As some people correctly surmised, the actual launch was indeed at the start of "head-start".)

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 1:13PM ImperialPanda said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Puremallace

Maaaaaybe because 2/3 of the servers are locked? Look again. :P It will probably show something similar to European shards during PST evening.
Reply

Posted: Mar 2nd 2011 8:13AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ImperialPanda

Erm... I don't know exactly what you are talking about, but on 'launch day' you say and then you compare EU servers, while EU servers don't have launch until Friday, that's point 1.

Point 2 is that I don't know where you got that information, but I log on at peak hours, 8pm at night, and I check shard status constantly. There were only 4 low pop servers, the rest was medium and high, and three had queues.
Reply

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 1:28PM Harley Dude said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Personally, I'd rather start with too many servers and let them merge servers in 6 months if need be. I'm not waiting in a queue for hours to play a game. To me, that's no different than the server being down for hours during primetime. The end result is the same...I can't play, and I'm not paying for a service I can't use if I can help it.

Posted: Mar 1st 2011 8:15PM Mystal said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Not sure what the article is talking about, the RP-Servers have had some of the lowest or non existent queue times since launch. In fact, most of the people on the RP servers were overflow who couldn't get onto non RP servers.

At this point the only servers that are still showing long queue times are the launch day servers, especially the PvP servers. Lots of guilds chose those servers when the server lists were made available less than 24 hours before head start, and no matter what happens from now on, it's hard to get whole guilds to leave their characters behind.

Posted: Mar 2nd 2011 4:32AM Fabius Bile said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
welp, all new servers are low pop and some of the old servers are medium. I pity those who rolled in a new server, merges will be painful for them.

now let me say a big IN YOUR FACE SUCKAS to those that flamed me for pointing this would happen exactly as i said.

Posted: Mar 2nd 2011 8:15AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Fabius Bile

... the launch was not even 24 hours ago. The weekend rush hasn't even happened. I don't know what is wrong with you, but I think the list is quite long. Are you 12?
Reply

Posted: Mar 2nd 2011 7:22AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
More than 35 LOW POP servers after the first day in prime time.

That happens if you launch with a maxed out pop of ... 1500 per server.

read the IRC chat and the head developper of Rift. They targetted ... 1500 players per server.

That's a mere 700 players per side on each server.

This game is right on track to follow WAR as server merges is concerned.

BTW: it explains all: with a mere 150 K capacity on line, they have at launch around 400 K players (as 1/3 of their servers is already on low on prime time).

Silly copy game.

Featured Stories

MMO Week in Review: Happy New Year!

Posted on Dec 28th 2014 8:00PM

The Stream Team: Warlords of Draenor dungeon fun

Posted on Dec 28th 2014 7:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW