Jump to content


let's talk about this central server nonsense


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

otacon237 #21 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 22000 battles
  • 4,370
  • Member since:
    01-08-2012

View Post9435, on Aug 12 2017 - 19:05, said:

 

1.  THE NA East server used to be in Chicago, and no one had an issue then.

 

2.  Look at the EU and RU servers, they have 10 times the load we do and they run fine, so WG has the experience and tech to run large servers (not sure if they will spend the money on the NA/SA market for decent servers).

 

3 & 4.  The issues with WG all started after they moved to Cyprus.  They had the "Big Player Meeting" where they generated the 3 main problems with the game : "Maps, Light tanks being useless (mainly due to the maps) & SPG's".  What happens after that meeting?  WG with all it's brain power comes up with Arty changes, expanding lights to tier 10 and wait "NO MAP UPDATES" or changes.  Funny when all the players said that the MM, SPG's and Lights could all be fixed with better maps, WG in all its brilliance doesn't do a dam thing about the MAPS.  Instead they come up with OP premium tanks, different MM (better than the old but still crap), tier 10 lights nerfs and updates to the current tanks (that weren't needed), different game modes, and no new maps.

 

see below

View Postotacon237, on Aug 12 2017 - 18:59, said:

 

​1. EU isn't the redheaded rented mule of WG. 

2. False. go watch Foch, QB or Circon. they all experience lag and you can see the turret twitch in almost every video they make. how they react to it varies, but it's there. 

 

​also, the RU server DOES have issues. I speak Russian and watch Amway921, they have the issues. in fact WG signed a deal with ROSTELECOM (basically Russia's Comcast) for a preferred gaming connection specifically tailored to WG products to fix said issues. where do you think the t-44-100 came from? 

 

http://ritastatusreport.blogspot.com/2016/01/t-44-100-p-on-russian-server.html



BeanHoleBandit #22 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:15

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 12473 battles
  • 1,247
  • [M0B] M0B
  • Member since:
    12-21-2014

View PostCapPhrases, on Aug 12 2017 - 20:10, said:

I live midwest so a central server won't hurt me personally but i see how it might affect others.

truth is the game has no real audience over here since the devs only care for the RU server and what they want is seldom what NA or even EU wants. the choices wg is currently making have them pandering more to ru and leaving the rest of us to eat their sloppy seconds when we want something done better.

 

 

I agree to this fully.... 

China was the smart one..

 

America was stupid for the sign on to the game they should of made it where they had more control also like China did.  



ketchupboy2002 #23 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:15

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 3389 battles
  • 55
  • [BOOM_] BOOM_
  • Member since:
    04-28-2014

View PostBsan77, on Aug 12 2017 - 19:48, said:

Oh noez my ping will go up 20ms how can I play above 300 WN8??????/s I'm from Oklahoma, so I think it's hilarious to watch people complain. My ping will be better than ever! Ha, take that! :3

 

Being from Michigan, this should help me, but the post is saying that for majority of the NA players, they play on the East coast. Though I do have to agree that having a central server makes a whole heck of a lot more sense so you don't have those awful spots like California. Another thing that needs to be said that there is correlation between were the server is located and the amount of players. If someone gets on for the first time and has 500 ping and can hardly play, they'll leave. Hence the amount of people on NA East.

otacon237 #24 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:16

    Major

  • Players
  • 22000 battles
  • 4,370
  • Member since:
    01-08-2012

View PostBeanHoleBandit, on Aug 12 2017 - 19:13, said:

 

The compensations and easy rewards all all the Xp give away's and things.. Is arguably a reason for the increase in bad players at top tiers.. 

So are they really helping with all of this.. Its a mix..  If they didn't do anything would it make a difference.. Eh..  some times a good gesture don't have to be actually giving you something.. As much as real apologies and real feedback and really listening to the players in the first place.. 

Like a kid man or the movie Richy Rich.. The rich kid who got gave anything and everything but all he ever wanted is LOVE.. I mean if I feel you don't give a crap then why am i no matter what u give me.. 

 

this is exactly how I feel. I was going to powergrind for the foch but now I am on the fence.

 

it's like, yay I get a free tier 10 tank....in a game that is no longer fun and feels more like a chore at times. do I really want it that much? 



otacon237 #25 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:17

    Major

  • Players
  • 22000 battles
  • 4,370
  • Member since:
    01-08-2012

View Postketchupboy2002, on Aug 12 2017 - 19:15, said:

 

Being from Michigan, this should help me, but the post is saying that for majority of the NA players, they play on the East coast. Though I do have to agree that having a central server makes a whole heck of a lot more sense so you don't have those awful spots like California. Another thing that needs to be said that there is correlation between were the server is located and the amount of players. If someone gets on for the first time and has 500 ping and can hardly play, they'll leave. Hence the amount of people on NA East.

 

​hmm, I didn't consider that, good point. maybe more west coast players will join if they can have a better connection. 

Slim_Shadee #26 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:21

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 6266 battles
  • 82
  • Member since:
    03-04-2011

Over reaction and typical WoT player response to a change that is based on financials. No reason to duplicate personal on two coasts for the purpose of serving 5000 players on West coast and 10,000 on East coast. Included in those numbers are SA an Central America.

 

Face the facts OP the NA server even at its peak didn't financially deserve the investment made in placing two servers for NA.

 

Your premise that most SA countries are to poor to populate a free to play game. Is frankly off base. Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and list can go on have enough of their population that does well enough economically for them to spend $8 to $10 a month ( which is what the average per customer spends on WoT) on a game if they choose. Sorry to move you OP into this century they all don't farm bananas and ride donkeys to market anymore.



Trigz420 #27 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:22

    Corporal

  • Beta Testers
  • 9328 battles
  • 49
  • [_E_] _E_
  • Member since:
    01-21-2011

I am curious to see what the server pop is after the move.  I cant see it changing that much total, but the MM may be better all on one server.  Im in the west but all of my friends play east so I generally toon there.  For me west=30ms, east is 100.  Still playable.  

 

Either way its purely a business decision, they arent going to change their mind.



Ken_McGuire #28 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:25

    Captain

  • Players
  • 25567 battles
  • 1,264
  • [O-VER] O-VER
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

View Postotacon237, on Aug 12 2017 - 13:40, said:

I see a lot of people are excited about this central server and quite frankly, I don't think it's a good thing and I think it needs to be discussed in a sober light

 

1. the majority of the current players, those on the East Coast, will not benefit from this, since i'm guessing the server will move from DC to a more Midwestern location. NA west will benefit, which is all good and well, but from a strictly statistical perspective, the majority of the players will not. 

 

2. the server will experience more load, we already know how well WG's server's function

 

but these are merely "technical" concerns, and not really looking at the big picture. here's what I find personally really troubling.

 

3. the NA server is hemorrhaging players. (edit)

 

4. this is not a "fix". this is cutting their losses. (edit)

 

1. I am not aware of any maps showing where WoT players are from. I assume that WGNA can find this out by mining their server logs. For the USA, it likely largely follows population density, which is largest on both coasts. But that is just a guess. And while a decent estimate of server delay is indeed physical distance (the speed of light does put a hard limit on this), really this is dependent on the actual internet infrastructure and what actually exists for the backbone. I would hope that there are IT guys who work for WGNA who know all this and know the actual physical details to tell them what server offers are truly too good to be true - because they are.

 

2. The combined server should experience more load in the sense that more users will be logged in at once. But it will also not have to worry about mirroring every account detail in real time to the other server. I would certainly hope they do regular off site backups of user accounts, but this does not have to be at quite the same level as needed to allow a user to log into - and switch between multiple servers. And while I have certainly gotten frustrated at how some lag problems get worse on East when there is a relatively high population, I also have to admit that I regularly see numbers higher than this on EU and certainly RU servers. So it does sound like Wargaming knows how to handle that many users. They just seem to have a problem with NA East for some reason...

 

3. Yes - the NA server does seem to have declining activity. I have seen the graphs. But I have not seen enough yet to show that this is not a long term stable, manageable - and profitable for WG decline. They have expanded into smart-phone market which seems to be the growing market. I admit I have not followed how successful they have been in it, since I don't want that experience...

 

4. No - this is not a "fix" for population issues. If they get a good server with a good connection to the internet backbone, it might be a fix for some of the server lag issues. We will see.



BeanHoleBandit #29 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:26

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 12473 battles
  • 1,247
  • [M0B] M0B
  • Member since:
    12-21-2014

View Postotacon237, on Aug 12 2017 - 20:16, said:

 

this is exactly how I feel. I was going to powergrind for the foch but now I am on the fence.

 

it's like, yay I get a free tier 10 tank....in a game that is no longer fun and feels more like a chore at times. do I really want it that much? 

 

Man its times 5 today and i'm fighting right now is it worth it..   Not because I feel more bad people come out but, cause of the changes they made that has " tanked " this game.. 

Like you said after the recent patches I feel now its more of a chore to play it than actual fun..   The super Heavy's on small maps with massive DPM or whatever.. 

The arty just spamming over and over.. On top of just more OP tanks. I mean its just got crazy..   I mean i think I joined a year or two ago..  And was told get the IS7.. What is that tank now?  Even what they are changing isn't going to make it like OMG its the tank to have now.. Its still meh at best..

And thats all I find myself doing POWER GRINDING.. Always always always.. Never catching up to the Meta..   They Just added the 5A power grinding up to that..  Still trying to get to the Type 5 because of its OPness.. Now they are adding the TD line of Chinese that is going to be insane.. About to drop another Tech Tree.. 

If they would step away from making new tanks.. ANd fix the ones we got a new maps.. This game would surge.. All they are worried about is new tanks new tanks new tanks new tanks.. 

Like the old ones are still broken why don't u start by fixing those..  That is the reason your game is tanking.. And it turns out I got to keep spending money to power grind to the next OP tank.. Rather its premium or not.

Toxicity73 #30 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:27

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 9366 battles
  • 225
  • [D-DAY] D-DAY
  • Member since:
    12-16-2011
Really your concerned with the possibility of a little LAG. My solution is to deal with it as most people do. Stop whining....ur STATS wont be affected as much as you think, As you said Quickybaby and sir foch are experiencing it.....and without question still do extremely well. If they can do it then everyone else can do it.

BeanHoleBandit #31 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:31

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 12473 battles
  • 1,247
  • [M0B] M0B
  • Member since:
    12-21-2014
Real issue i think its to fix MM.. Get more tanks in que..   Cut back on cost.. Its a win win.  For them as long as they manage it right. 

Nonamanadus #32 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:32

    Major

  • Players
  • 23232 battles
  • 2,767
  • [HBG] HBG
  • Member since:
    02-02-2013

Moving to a centralized server will be either a hit or a miss depending on the quality of the servers and lines/routers. Both east and west are playable on 84 ping, what was killing the game was 300 too 900 ping of the packet loss at the servers (with under 100 ping) that made the game stutter. When you can download the EU client and play around 130 ping with no issues means that something was seriously wrong with the NA servers. 

 

I can't say exactly what was wrong with the servers, it could have had overheating issues or errors in coding that lead to inefficiencies (because of the constant micro patches trying to fix one problem after another) but focusing on one will give Wargaming a huge incentive to fix things right away. A centralized server will force them to up their game because as it stands the two servers act as a crutch when one or the other goes down.

 

 



LostMyMarbles #33 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:36

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42922 battles
  • 1,389
  • [SG] SG
  • Member since:
    09-13-2011

View Postotacon237, on Aug 12 2017 - 10:40, said:

I see a lot of people are excited about this central server and quite frankly, I don't think it's a good thing and I think it needs to be discussed in a sober light

 

1. the majority of the current players, those on the East Coast, will not benefit from this, since i'm guessing the server will move from DC to a more Midwestern location. NA west will benefit, which is all good and well, but from a strictly statistical perspective, the majority of the players will not. 

 

2. the server will experience more load, we already know how well WG's server's function

 

but these are merely "technical" concerns, and not really looking at the big picture. here's what I find personally really troubling.

 

3. the NA server is hemorrhaging players. everyone knows this by now, there's statistics to back it up, if you're going to deny this or claim it's normal, YOU WILL BE IGNORED. WOT-NEWS.com has the relevant figures. there is no denying it. by doing this central server move, WG is ACKNOWLEDGING this situation, indirectly or otherwise, but they don't seem overly concerned since many people would claim the last few patches changed the game for the worse, rather than better. 

 

4. this is not a "fix". this is cutting their losses. too many people are focused on the short term. "Yay we will consolidate our rapidly shrinking playerbase". is that really a good thing? if nothing is done to prevent said shrinking, all this will do is delay the inevitable, possibly even accelerate it (see #2). what actions is WG taking to reverse the loss of players? are they taking any? or is NA just an acceptable loss for them? I know I will not get an official WG response, but I still think it needs to be discussed

 

  the 2 major gaming Hub centers for all Game servers are either Chicago or Denver with the off chance of it being in dallas

I for one am glad they are doing this  it will help with my ping coming from the West coast



otacon237 #34 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 22000 battles
  • 4,370
  • Member since:
    01-08-2012

View PostSlim_Shadee, on Aug 12 2017 - 19:21, said:

Over reaction and typical WoT player response to a change that is based on financials. No reason to duplicate personal on two coasts for the purpose of serving 5000 players on West coast and 10,000 on East coast. Included in those numbers are SA an Central America.

 

Face the facts OP the NA server even at its peak didn't financially deserve the investment made in placing two servers for NA.

 

Your premise that most SA countries are to poor to populate a free to play game. Is frankly off base. Mexico, Argentina, Brazil and list can go on have enough of their population that does well enough economically for them to spend $8 to $10 a month ( which is what the average per customer spends on WoT) on a game if they choose. Sorry to move you OP into this century they all don't farm bananas and ride donkeys to market anymore.

 

​yeah....except they kinda do though. the average income in those countries you mentioned is worse than Russia by 2016 figures. those countries you mentioned make most of their income off drugs and tourism. the average person there is broke AF.

https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2016/05/giving-and-global-inequality/

 

and way to ignore the point. yeah, it doesn't make financial sense to have two servers with 5,000 and 10,000 people respectively. it DID when those numbers were more than double a few years ago. getting the picture yet? 

 



Bubba187 #35 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:39

    Captain

  • Players
  • 38130 battles
  • 1,374
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    03-06-2013
Is the change possibly due to the problems with lag on east server now?  I think a combined server helps as a whole.  Some will benefit.  Some will not.  Others wont see a change.  If we don't experience the problems we are currently experiencing with lag and what not, won't it possibly bring some players back?  Just a thought.

otacon237 #36 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:39

    Major

  • Players
  • 22000 battles
  • 4,370
  • Member since:
    01-08-2012

a lot of people seem to have attention span issues ITT and respond to points 1 and 2 while ignoring points 3 and 4.

 

yes, having a centralized server will fix some short term issues with ping and server pop. it will NOT do anything towards the long-term sustainability of this game. 



otacon237 #37 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 22000 battles
  • 4,370
  • Member since:
    01-08-2012

View PostToxicity73, on Aug 12 2017 - 19:27, said:

Really your concerned with the possibility of a little LAG. My solution is to deal with it as most people do. Stop whining....ur STATS wont be affected as much as you think, As you said Quickybaby and sir foch are experiencing it.....and without question still do extremely well. If they can do it then everyone else can do it.

 

​stronk strawman, plz nerf

 

View PostBubba187, on Aug 12 2017 - 19:39, said:

Is the change possibly due to the problems with lag on east server now?  I think a combined server helps as a whole.  Some will benefit.  Some will not.  Others wont see a change.  If we don't experience the problems we are currently experiencing with lag and what not, won't it possibly bring some players back?  Just a thought.

 

​yes this has been brought up and something I did not consider. more consistent ping across all the states and Canada MIGHT bring some players back. I do hope it turns out that way

9435 #38 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:45

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 135 battles
  • 146
  • Member since:
    10-29-2015

View Postotacon237, on Aug 12 2017 - 20:39, said:

a lot of people seem to have attention span issues ITT and respond to points 1 and 2 while ignoring points 3 and 4.

 

yes, having a centralized server will fix some short term issues with ping and server pop. it will NOT do anything towards the long-term sustainability of this game. 

 

Your right, this wont fix the issues.  See my 3 & 4 above.  If WG was serious about the issues they would fix their maps.

Da_Craw #39 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:46

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 20182 battles
  • 1,567
  • [DOG5] DOG5
  • Member since:
    05-30-2014

View PostBsan77, on Aug 12 2017 - 12:48, said:

Oh noez my ping will go up 20ms how can I play above 300 WN8??????/s I'm from Oklahoma, so I think it's hilarious to watch people complain. My ping will be better than ever! Ha, take that! :3

 

I get 80-160 from Tulsa on the east server.  I was in Santa Fe NM the other day and got 50 on the east server.  For those worried about ping, don't be.  Physical distance from the east coast to the middle of the continent is about 10ms of ping.  Cutting a single hop out of the traffic spaghetti on the east coast makes up for that.  We will all likely get better ping.

zmaint #40 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 11150 battles
  • 3,154
  • Member since:
    09-20-2011

View Postotacon237, on Aug 12 2017 - 18:40, said:

I see a lot of people are excited about this central server and quite frankly, I don't think it's a good thing and I think it needs to be discussed in a sober light

 

1. the majority of the current players, those on the East Coast, will not benefit from this, since i'm guessing the server will move from DC to a more Midwestern location. NA west will benefit, which is all good and well, but from a strictly statistical perspective, the majority of the players will not.

 

2. the server will experience more load, we already know how well WG's server's function

 

but these are merely "technical" concerns, and not really looking at the big picture. here's what I find personally really troubling.

 

3. the NA server is hemorrhaging players. everyone knows this by now, there's statistics to back it up, if you're going to deny this or claim it's normal, YOU WILL BE IGNORED. WOT-NEWS.com has the relevant figures. there is no denying it. by doing this central server move, WG is ACKNOWLEDGING this situation, indirectly or otherwise, but they don't seem overly concerned since many people would claim the last few patches changed the game for the worse, rather than better.

 

4. this is not a "fix". this is cutting their losses. too many people are focused on the short term. "Yay we will consolidate our rapidly shrinking playerbase". is that really a good thing? if nothing is done to prevent said shrinking, all this will do is delay the inevitable, possibly even accelerate it (see #2). what actions is WG taking to reverse the loss of players? are they taking any? or is NA just an acceptable loss for them? I know I will not get an official WG response, but I still think it needs to be discussed

 

 

 

You are spot on with #3.  WG is moving it because it will save them money in the end, any other reason given is spin.






6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users