Jump to content


let's talk about this central server nonsense


  • Please log in to reply
140 replies to this topic

Gothraul #41 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 20:52

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 1526 battles
  • 2,670
  • Member since:
    11-17-2014
Well if all else fails just be sure to milk all the free and easy handouts we all get that the other servers don't often see. Living in the central US this is going to be very nice but I do understand that people playing from Asia and Europe are going to be screwed just that much more but those living on the East coast probably got decent to nice internet so the ping shouldn't be bad. Used to have to live with 200-400ms my first year hear as I was stuck with an overpriced satellite service.

JakeTheMystic #42 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:00

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 17149 battles
  • 255
  • [GUNS6] GUNS6
  • Member since:
    12-30-2011

View Postindoctrinated, on Aug 12 2017 - 11:04, said:

Why not just merge the NA server into EU or RU?

 

That is a great way to give everyone on the NA server a 200+ ping. If you would have played on a test server or the sandbox, you would realize how terrible it is. Especially for those on the west coast. 

 

As for the central server, I have heard some talk about it possibly being hosted from Chicago, which means that ping should only drop a tad from the east coasters, increase for central, and increase for west coasters who were playing on the east. The biggest problem is for players who play on the west and already get a 200-300 ping by playing on the east server, but with it being hosted from the biggest internet hub in the US, they should do fine. There will also be a nice flow of players now for MM, more chances to get top tier, no more 3k players at 2PM PST on the west server. For those saying that they should give south america their own server, that is a great way to cut out at least 35% of the NA servers population. The NA server before was one server, most of the people playing then didnt even understand why they would split it to two.

 

One server is the best way to keep the game alive at this point.



Da_Craw #43 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:02

    Captain

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

View Postotacon237, on Aug 12 2017 - 13:39, 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. 

 

Having a single server cluster versus two server clusters won't have any effect whatsoever on the long term sustainability of this game.  Don't forget that we are not moving from one server on the east and a server on the west to a single server in the middle.  We are consolidating two server clusters.  There is no reason that a single server cluster will not handle the entire NA load better than our current setup.  It is simply a matter of adding equipment.  Done properly, a new cluster anywhere in NA would improve the current ping and packet loss issues for the vast majority.    

Da_Craw #44 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:10

    Captain

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

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

 

​yes but any intelligent (that's probably the issue right there) CEO or really anyone in charge of any kind of business decision would see this as a possible trend that will carry over the other servers eventually. I mean, we all play the same game. unless you're implying NA has some sort of freak demographic issue that affects us more than the other servers, which I doubt. 

 

so then you are agreeing with me that they are cutting their losses.

What?  Even if you are right that the consolidation is purely "cutting their losses" so what?  How is that not a good thing?  You would have WG continue to keep an inefficient setup because it might look bad for the EU and RU servers?!  The people making the decision about NA are the same people making the decision about the other servers.  There is no "trend that could carry over" from consolidating a server cluster.  NA population has no effect on the other server clusters.  We literally are NOT playing the same game.  



turboo #45 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:19

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 16607 battles
  • 57
  • [-GNZ-] -GNZ-
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011
So let me get this straight. One big broken server instead of two little broken servers? Why am I scared we all end up with just one little broken server?

bockscar43 #46 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:35

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 23954 battles
  • 908
  • [PL1AR] PL1AR
  • Member since:
    01-01-2015
You would think  wots would keep the base informed of the lag/packet loss issue, You might  think they are protecting the launch code or something of great importance, and not lag issue for sure. To me just fix it....expedite.  

enjineer #47 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:36

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 41205 battles
  • 2,379
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    12-07-2010

View PostGuido1212, on Aug 12 2017 - 13:54, said:

 

They were growing at one point in the past, everything they touched turned to gold because they had a solid game which they were improving and were making good decisions.

 

That was 3 years ago, and here we are.

 

And how is having 1 server with 16k players and another with 6k players helping anything at all?  MM is still the single biggest complaint on the forums. Combining the 2 servers can only help MM.

enjineer #48 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:40

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 41205 battles
  • 2,379
  • [SIMP] SIMP
  • Member since:
    12-07-2010

View Postspud_tuber, on Aug 12 2017 - 14:06, said:

1) assumes facts not in evidence. How do you know where the majority of the players are? Just because they play on east currently(better mm, most non pub gamemodes taking place there, etc) doesn't say anything about their physical location.

2) If, and I admit it's a big if, WG does the move right, they can hopefully eliminate whatever faulty server equipment was causing some of the east server issues and scale the server to the proper. Depending who they use as a service provider, the issues with that may be partially resolved as well. Remember, west server hasn't had nearly as many isp or internal issues as east, so there is evidence wg can do it right at times.

3) hemorrhaging may be an exaggeration(or a case of misreading the data rather than looking at year over year, but you're correct that it is indeed losing players. Whether that was a mayor consideration in this plan is up for debate.

4) you're right that this is only a short term fix for MM and special modes assuming that player loss continues. OTOH, there's no way to know if player loss will continue, and if the move fixes the lag/packet loss issues east is currently having(see 2), then it may even help the player population. As far as what else WGNA is doing to fight player loss, the fairly easy recent marathons, the generous compensation for the chat server issues, the easy ish tank rewards missions, and an attempt at least to renew interest in end game CW don't count? Or that the main developers have been doing things to improve the new player experience to help with low level retention?

The above is in part at least a devil's advocate position. I'm neither particularly excited or disturbed by the news at this point. It has the potential for both good and ill. I'm mostly taking a wait and see approach, though I am trying to look on the bright side until actual info rather than speculation gives me reason not to.

 

Server was NEVER in Chicago.  I started playing in the closed beta and the server was in NC and moved to DC.

JA_Pinkerton #49 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 28992 battles
  • 4,085
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013
A single NA server would be good - it will alleviate some of the MM pain.  It will also be bad - it's yet another sign WoT is dying.

9435 #50 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:45

    Sergeant

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

View Postenjineer, on Aug 12 2017 - 21:40, said:

 

Server was NEVER in Chicago.  I started playing in the closed beta and the server was in NC and moved to DC.

 

No it wasn't, it was in Chicago.  I used to do server tests for them.

Edited by 9435, Aug 12 2017 - 21:48.


JA_Pinkerton #51 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 28992 battles
  • 4,085
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013

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

 Why am I scared we all end up with just one little broken server?

 

At this point, I feel it is inevitable.

rich73 #52 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 42398 battles
  • 4,873
  • Member since:
    10-17-2011

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

 

Overload with 20 k players???lol..What little world do you live in?Look at the population of both servers if you want to make sense.

commander42 #53 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 21:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 20967 battles
  • 3,818
  • [T-R-P] T-R-P
  • Member since:
    07-08-2013

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. 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

 

numbers 1 and 2 are my major concerns with this.  I live in the east but still not that much further to Chicago distance wise compared to DC for example.  If this move is to a server that actually runs much better then the previous east coast one(which was extremely crappy) and it avoids a couple of the connections used by it even though its a slightly greater distance lag might be way down.  On the other hand this is WG so they might cheap out and still have an equally crappy server only having more people on it thus making it run even worse then it does now.

 


 



spud_tuber #54 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 22:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 39763 battles
  • 3,516
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013

View Postenjineer, on Aug 12 2017 - 14:40, said:

 

Server was NEVER in Chicago.  I started playing in the closed beta and the server was in NC and moved to DC.

'Fraid you're quoting the wrong guy.  Didn't say anything about Chicago, either in what you quoted or any other post on this subject.



JSparrowist #55 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 22:05

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 5842 battles
  • 7
  • [THETA] THETA
  • Member since:
    01-03-2013

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

 

Same here. Oklahoma FTW. I hope they move it to Dallas. XD

otacon237 #56 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 22:05

    Major

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

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

What?  Even if you are right that the consolidation is purely "cutting their losses" so what?  How is that not a good thing?  You would have WG continue to keep an inefficient setup because it might look bad for the EU and RU servers?!  The people making the decision about NA are the same people making the decision about the other servers.  There is no "trend that could carry over" from consolidating a server cluster.  NA population has no effect on the other server clusters.  We literally are NOT playing the same game.  

 

​because, having losses to cut in the first place IS NOT A GOOD THING. how is this difficult for you to understand? 

Guido1212 #57 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 22:07

    Major

  • Players
  • 70405 battles
  • 6,321
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    06-11-2011

View Postenjineer, on Aug 12 2017 - 20:36, said:

 

And how is having 1 server with 16k players and another with 6k players helping anything at all?  MM is still the single biggest complaint on the forums. Combining the 2 servers can only help MM.

 

How do you get any of that from my post?

commander42 #58 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 22:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 20967 battles
  • 3,818
  • [T-R-P] T-R-P
  • Member since:
    07-08-2013

View Postotacon237, on Aug 12 2017 - 16:05, said:

 

​because, having losses to cut in the first place IS NOT A GOOD THING. how is this difficult for you to understand?

 

I think the point is that the losses are there whether they combine servers or not.  Having losses at all is a bad thing but if a company ignores them it doesn't mean they don't exist

otacon237 #59 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 22:24

    Major

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

View Postcommander42, on Aug 12 2017 - 21:13, said:

 

I think the point is that the losses are there whether they combine servers or not.  Having losses at all is a bad thing but if a company ignores them it doesn't mean they don't exist

 

​yes but the fact that they're combining the servers is a tacit acknowledgement that they DO exist, which WG has been avoiding until now. all their recent press releases are heralding 3/5/7 and the arty rebalances as some sort of massive sweeping win for everyone meanwhile the community is at the very least, conflicted over them if not completely against. 

 

again I'm probably not going to get any response from WG, I guess my point was, Minsk can't ignore what's going on in the US anymore, surely they realize the same thing can and probably will eventually happen to EU and RU, and what are they going to do about it? 



Hans_von_Twitchy #60 Posted Aug 12 2017 - 23:17

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 38790 battles
  • 876
  • [-R-O-] -R-O-
  • Member since:
    04-12-2014
Regardless of the merits (or otherwise) of the move, we all know that WG never does anything properly if it costs them money. WG will fuk up the server move by doing it on the cheap. We will all suffer.

Edited by Hans_von_Twitchy, Aug 12 2017 - 23:18.





6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users