Official Petition for Immediate Server Population Cap Increase

Alright Amazon, I know you’ve been monitoring the forums and feedback being given and not a single response to any post from your Support team to any of them.

Now you’re getting one of these threads…

This is an official petition from your paying customers, worldwide, for the immediate increase in server population from 2,000 to 6,000 per server. Your server hardware and infrastructure are more than capable of handling 6,000 connections for each server.
As paying customers we DEMAND that you provide us what we paid for and that is to be able to play the game and not sit in a queue for hours on end.

Regards,
Your paying customers.

Alright everyone, reply in this thread and let them see just how many of us there are that are not satisfied with their server population caps and queue times due to those low caps.

EDIT Addition
I’ve noticed that most just read the original post without looking for further comments by the original author of the post, later in the thread. So for convenience, I’m adding my latest comment below.

It’s nice to see that they’ve done some things to alleviate the congestion on the servers but adding more servers isn’t going to solve the overall issues.
1.) Server population cap needs to still be increased from 2000 to 6000.
2.) Zone/Area instancing needs to be implemented so that a new instance is created once a set number of players are in the zone/area. This will help ensure there isn’t overcrowding in each zone/area. This will also help reduce the issue of not having enough quest mobs or resource spawned due to the increased population on the server.
3.) More aggressive measures need to be implemented, to remove afk players from the game to move the current queues along more quickly.

It’s great to see everyone that has posted here to support the petition, so that our voice as both gamers and paying customers is heard properly. Keep up the support and things will get fixed, but do keep in mind that some patience on our part will be needed; while the development team works to implement these fixes.
Thank you development team for your work thus far in getting the needed fixes created and implemented. We do appreciate it.

1627 Likes

This is the way!

39 Likes

I think 20k might be too much , if they can just upgrade it to 4k per server it will be enough

55 Likes

Map won’t be able to handle that many. Every zone will look like a crowded city and all resource spots would be empty.

They need to do something for real tho. A better approach with server tags and their names.

44 Likes

from 2k to 4k I dont think we will have such issues tbh and its just for the start , after that people will leave the game and only some will keep playing

19 Likes

plus 1 to this

22 Likes

I think 2K Population is just a joke 6k would be resonable

23 Likes

Very true. I edited my post to say 6k cap, instead of 20k. Seriously agree that they need to implement zone instancing so that when a zone hits a certain population amount a new instance is generated so that you don’t have hundreds or thousands of players crawling on top of each other or waiting around to do a quest.

19 Likes

I’m all for them doing something but increasing player count wont help. All it will do is that you sit in the starting area waiting for mobs to spawn so you can do your quests.

8 Likes

Increasing the population cap of the servers will help the queue times. Zone instancing will help reduce or eliminate waiting for mobs to spawn so that you can complete your quests.

6 Likes

I have to agree with Alvis here; it’s not just the servers which aren’t necessarily well designed, the map’s size itself is also a limitation (i.e. not enough available resources).

I think Amazon needs to allow server swapping within regions (at least for the meantime, at least within a world cluster). They could temporarily increase servers from 2k players to 2.5k players (to avoid inundating the servers) too.

note for devs: talking about server design, not architecture

7 Likes

2k is not enough, 6k would help , but there are queues with 15k people waiting. it would reduce only from 120h to 40h waiting … hmmm

6 Likes

Instancing would be great, just create a pool from players in the queue (once it gets over 50 or whichever number is best suited) and create a cloned instance - merge the data like any other cluster merger.

14 Likes

Yes of course

2 Likes

How does a company that owns the largest server infrastructure in the world, that provides cloud services for thousands of large enterprises botch a launch so badly?
This is the epitome of half-assing a launch.

27 Likes

Getting close to saying just give me my damn money back.

19 Likes

6-8k cap. should be enough. I’ve been waiting for 12 hours to play with my friends and company…

9 Likes

no need for even more servers, increase the capacity or refund

9 Likes

They have designed the world to be for 2k players, so increasing the limit would be detrimental in the long run.
But they should definitely temporarily increase the limit to 4k or so for a week or two just to handle all the launch hype, then they can lower it back down to 2k again once things go back to normal.

4 Likes

I can’t sign this - nor would, I think, anyone who’s spent any appreciable amount of time in any of the publicly accessible sessions and seen the map firsthand. The map size, resource availability, mob/npc density, and player concentrations in settlement zones, quest locations, POI’s, town mission boards, etc all dictate the reasonable max player concurrency per server.

2k is the right number given the design and the answer is rapid deployment of new servers. 6,000 players on a server - technical concerns aside - would dramatically overcrowd the map and result in terrible gameplay for everyone.

35 Likes