Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The catch 22 of servers and a New MMO.
robert4818
Member UncommonPosts: 661
MMO X is about to launch, Its hype, or at least the buzz around it, has spiked in the few months prior to its release. BetaReviews have put it as a fairly good game. Not a "WOW KILLER" but a game that satisfies and has potential for sticking around for a while.
Now comes the catch 22. Server numbers. Players and subscriptions are going to spike heavily in the first month or two after launch. If the game does not add additional servers to the mix, then there will be long login queues, poor server performance, etc. that will cause a massive hit in their subscriber base.
Of course the flip side is that once they DO add the numbers to handle the launch crowd, odds are that the game will not keep its initial playerbase for ver long. Very few games do, they may re-grow their player base, but the numbers usually drop dramatically about 30-60 days after launch. The solution to this number drop is of course to merge and trim the number of servers. Unfortunately this act is seen as an admition that the game isn't doing well, which again causes the skittish to move-on/leave the game. If they don't drop the number of servers, then the servers they have are "empty" causing the same effect.
Any option gets the game haters fired up as it is "proof" that the game is crap and is failing, or it doesn't know what its doing.
So long, and thanks for all the fish!
Comments
You could have just said "Rift" ya know?
The catch 22 is only an issue if the population goes down shortly after launch. We've gotten so used to seeing games do this that we expect them all to do this. It doesn't happen all the time. Popular games tend to grow for a long time.
The REAL issue here is people's perception that server merges means a game has failed. This is entirely untrue, but using it as a talking point is almost as bad as politicians shouting 9-11 to gain votes. In both cases I just ignore it and reduce the credibility of the one saying it.
Regardless, Its a good reason to not use the traditional server architecture. Why not have the logon server and character depot seperate from the servers hosting the game world? All the servers are identical and its not like players are leaving a mark on the game world like they did back in UO with player housing. One server is as good as another as far as I'm concerned. The populations are so vast that its not like I am going to remember who I have seen before and who I haven't. As long as the server remembers what realm you favor and shows how many friends and guildmates are on each server then there is no downside.
This is one (and possibly the only) thing that Cryptic did right.
Can you give examples of where this has been true in regard to entertainment?
Long queues have so little impact and the wait is so easily forgotten that most branches of the entertainment industry would rather choose them over the alternatives. In many cases, there is a certain sense of exclusivity on the part of the consumer that was able to get into the club, server, theatre, etc that tends to promote even more anticipation and willingness to wait by those that are still waiting to get in. There is a certain velvet rope perception that evolves.
If MMOs followed the rest of the entertainment industry, not only would people camp out ahead of time to get into the server but they would pay extra just to be one of the first ones in.
In the case of entertainment services such as cable or satellite TV, the companies know that even a three-week (which is insanely long) wait to get installed will quickly be forgotten once the customer has the service they wanted and are comfortably on their couch and watching their favorite shows.
I'd be very interested in seeing any data (anecdotal is not data) supporting the assumption that queues have ever caused a massive hit to an MMO's subscriber base.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Well another thing i think will not help RIFT is no comercials no adds and im from town called Rotterdam we have alot game shops here but all salesman dunno the game lol even the real specialized game shops still dunno RIFT.
Plus now its launhced i saw some shops selling only one box lol with timecard thats it no signs anywhere that shows that RIFT just launched.
I told on some english speaking forums and Mirc about RIFT most dont even know it or not realy intrested in the game.
This seems not a good sign these companys eather have no money to comercially advertise or think mouth to mouth is enough?
I dont like RIFT and im not gonne play it, still i hope it will have some succes even if its a themepark we need more then only WoW on market competiton makes the whole mmo market more healthyer.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
RIFT is one of the few MMOs that actually does have commercials, and their advertising campaign todate has been pretty spot on.
Serious question: Why do they need to put boxes in a brick and mortar in the Netherlands when they obviously reached you by plastering a skin on the forum you post on? It seems they are effectively reaching their target audience.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Since Steam has rift as one of the top sellers, I would wager its not that it doesnt have exposure the shops you go to are just lagging behind.
I thought a catch 22 was supposed to be an intractible problem, not merely something that can go awry in a badly designed game. The problem you describe isn't that complicated to solve, and has been solved in a variety of ways--and not just in theory, but already implemented in real games. See, for example, EVE Online, Guild Wars, or Champions Online. The last of those three did see an enormous population drop as time passed, but never suffered from the problems you describe.
It's silly for people to think server mergers are some automatic indication that a game is failing. It's simply a mindset that needs to change.
What's usually a red flag is when a company has three or four server mergers within the span of only a few years ala Vanguard and WAR.
I always liked how EQ2 handled high populations by implementing various copies of each and every zone. Of course, many of you hate the idea of zoning in contrast to an open world, but I feel as if it can serve its purpose to allow for greater numbers of players on each server or on a single server.
I think WAR would've turned out better if they didn't wait so long to merge servers. Yes server merges are a PR disaster, it sounds bad and all. But us paying customers like it, because it gets more people onto the servers I'm on.
So I think it's better to have enough servers so people don't have to wait in queue for a long time to login. But the company better be ready to merge servers when time comes. If Rift waits to merge servers as long as WAR did, it would end up losing a lot more customers just like WAR did.
It's not really a catch 22, it only is if they wait too long to do the merge when time comes.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
I agree with you, especially in this day and age where you have a lot of mmo players trying a lot of games.
One way developers/marketers could help themselves is to be clear about what the game is and what demographic it is for.
If it has some sort of world pvp then make sure that is clear. Heavy death penalty? Clear. Someone pats you on the head and gives you a cookie after death? Clear. Quest heavy, grind heavy, crafting heavy... clear.
This way they don't get huge amounts of people playing it who would never have tried it. I'm thinking of Aion in this case.
Also, don't talk about features until they are in your game. Make sure players are clear as to what will be in on release.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
To make my above point more explicit, there's no need to for server mergers unless the game has a bad architecture from the outset that doesn't scale well with the size of the player base. Server mergers aren't the problem in themselves; they're a symptom of bigger problems that are unrelated to the shrinking player base.
I agree with this, its a failing of the base architecture of the MMO
In agreement, as well. If these game worlds were designed to handle significantly more concurrent users then the changes within any one shard/world would have less of an impact.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
A "Catch 22" is a goal which keeps getting farther away. What you describe is "being between a rock and a hard place."
Hedonismbot: Your latest performance was as delectable as dipping my bottom over and over into a bath of the silkiest oils and creams.
Being between a rock and a hard place is exactly what a catch-22 is. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
No it's not. A catch 22 is: requirement A can't be met untill a prerequisite requirement B is fulfilled. BUT that Prereq B can't be met till the requirement A is fulfilled.
Rock and a hard place is a "you're screwed going either route".
I think that it would be a lot better for MMO's to make multiple instances of all zones, once each one hits a cap.
For instance, you are given a server # upon character creation. You stay in this server. Every week, servers are recalculated and if the latest one fell a significant number and isn't rising, those characters are placed in the server before it. (So server 15 merges with Server 14). As players subscribe, servers expand with room to grow, filling up slowly.
Characters are not kept on servers, but on one universal database. /tell names are based on account, so all names are free for characters.
I don't see why more MMO's don't do this. Some do, but WAR did not. Instead, WAR was severely hurt by empty servers. WoW was smart enough to FINALLY pick up the long-since-suggested idea to allow cross-server battleground queues.
If they did a simple one-server, multiple-instances type of system like I described which scales and merges as populations go down, it would always feel like a full world. There would be no need for multiple servers, which was a bad idea in the first place.
I'm not all for combining all players into one huge server so no one can ever make or keep friends, enemies, or familiar faces. But combining all the characters into existing as opposed to only existing per-server, is a good idea for any game.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
If you're stuck between a rock and a hard place, you can't go either route because you can't move.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Hahaha couldn't of said it better. However patience is a virtue and time will tell how things will go with any new release. If it were me i'd have less servers so that when things do calm down i'm not completely borked.
That's the route Turbine went and it worked well for them. Was odd to see that others didn't try to copy that.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Seriously... Rift is extremely advertised in a variety of ways.
I have seen about thirty RIFT commercials on primetime television.
RIFT ads everywhere on the internet, even on random websites that have nothing to do with games.
Every gaming website and store have Rift as the #1 ad to buy.
If being a developer means being quiet, mature, well-spoken, and disconnected from the community, then by all means do me a favor and believe I'm not one.
Look at the games that were not forced to merge servers shortly after release over the last 6-7 years. There are not that many.
Look at the games that were forced to merge servers shortly after release over the last 6-7 years. There are a lot that fall into here.
The difference between the two groups is that games in the former catagory are known for solid gameplay, polish and stability.
While groups in the latter have been heavily criticized for poor gameplay, performace, bugs and design flaws. Generally games that were rushed to market to soon.
Generally speaking, It really isn't a matter of odds in regards to steep drops in population after release. IT all has to do with the quality level of the game.
At this point we've reached a point where we are nearing having anyone who would consider playing an MMO already in the games. People will always simply go check or try out a new MMO and go back to their own flavor, no matter the enticement. I'm a person who LOVES to beta MMOs I have no intention buying a boxed copy of sometiomes just for the experience of trying a new game. I might stop long before the end game if I buy a box, and it may have nothing more to do than wanting to go back to WoW. (literaly)
Game companies need to at this point forward anticipate this early flux and try to time things better. Imagine a 14 day trial of the game within 2 months, or even on release for it on full servers? what if people had to go into a game knowing their sandboxes could be poured into each other? This is a very important thing companies need to be honest about these days, it is certainly possibly to anticipate.
I agree, when i started my first MMO (WoW) there was many nights i was #400-500 in queue to get into my server and it didnt turn me off from the game at all, if anything it made me want too play more as i was sitting there waiting too get in, and knowing tons of people are playing right now.
They should release games with much less servers these days, let there be some queue for the first 20-30 days, nobody cares! just alt+tab for 10-20 min or something.
Currently Playing Path of Exile
Its almost no win. Since people know server merges will happen in the future it make sense at launch to join the most populous server so you don't whacked when the merges come. What they need to do is raise the cap for the number of players per server reducing the need for extra servers, then when the pop lowers and stablizes, they can lower the cap of players per server. I know that having too many players can cause problems but I think in the long term they'd be lesser problems then the bad publicity that comes with server merges for potential players and the grief it causes to current players who get merged.
Or games need to get with the one server or one server for each type.
Nicely stated.
I agree completely that there is the need to add additional capacity during the launch phase of games to avoid the issues you talk about. These issues are compounded in games with very few starting areas as you're trying to push a lot of players through one or two straws.
So, management strategies?:
1) Staggered launches. We've seen recent games advertise "head-starts". Not only do these offer the rabid playing public the chance to play a couple of days earlier, it also decreases server load at launch. Quite a clever idea really. The guys in the head-start think they're winning, but really they're helping to manage the server load by getting in a week or so early and clearing out of the starting areas in time for the day1 guys to start. Could we stagger this further? Would the consuming public pay extra to get in even earlier, or be willing to start a week or 2 later if they got a couple of dollars off the retail price?
2) Server capacity growth and consolidation. Yes, I see your point about the trolls grabbing hold of the headlines "developer Y cuts servers!!". Even members of the general public will see that as a negative, but there has to be a more intelligent way to manage this. Maybe developers need to "re-brand" the server consolidation process as a natural exercise following release. I would far rather they addressed this agressively than let the servers die because they're too embarrassed to admit they need to decrease servers. WAR took some ground-breaking steps in server/player management, but a lot of it came too late. I was a die-hard fan, but by the time they consolidated the servers I was sick and tired of my server being a ghost-town, and I was gone.
3) Multiple starting areas. It's not only the server capacity that limits the no. of players, but the no. of players you can fit into your starting areas as well. WAR did some interesting things here. They opened with 6 areas which worked well and allowed a large no of players to simultaneously access the game without massive waiting times or having to kill mob x. Later on, when their numbers were down, they streamlined the starting areas to 2 defaults (although the other 4 were available if you were a paying customer and wanted them). This approach meant that they dealt well with big numbers at launch, but later on when the game was quieter and there were fewer lowbies, you had more of a chance to find group-mates etc. This is an extreme example, but is there any reason why they couldn't be more lowbie capacity at launch? I'm not a big believer in instanced areas (like Champions Online where you may be in Millenium City no. 99), but I think I might be willing to put up with this (if possible) as a temporary launch measure in the starting areas.
It will be interesting to see how RIFT and other games yet to release approach these challenges. I hope at the end of the day the developers ignore what the nay-sayers say and do what is best for their paying customers and the game itself. Especially in games where player number are important (PVP/BG's/Raiding/RVR/PQ's etc), letting player numbers get too low on a server can be catastrophic.