Official Petition to NOT implement Immediate Server Population Cap Increase

This thread is created to counterweight the thread requesting server cap increase (Official Petition for Immediate Server Population Cap Increase), as I think it hijacks some of our voices and presents itself as an opinion of the community as a whole.

We who think that is bad idea can raise our voice here. Mainly so that in the case that AGS is actually going to implement changes based on petitions, there is a counterweight.

Short answer for NOT wanting to increase server caps: Game design and systems.

Long answer:
This whole game is balanced and designed around 2000 players per server and I personally don’t want the game experience ruined by having too many players on same server.

Stolen reply from Hiply in the other thread:
“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.” (Official Petition for Immediate Server Population Cap Increase - #20 by Hiply)

I also suspect that IF they raise server caps they will be required to implement a sharding or instancing system as well as a single server most likely can’t handle more than 2000 players (troubles already, see lag in expeditions for example), which will also negatively impact gameplay, eg: not seeing your friends in the world if in same place etc…

With time, I think the server queues will fix itself as long as there is enough new “low pop” server popping up. Eventually the player base will spread out across them. This process can also be sped up with free server transfers, which they have said are coming.

8 Likes

I don’t know. This doesn’t feel all that official.

Maybe if you added a watermark.

Tell that to the other guy :slight_smile:

I think the map is too small, with resource and mob densities in a pretty decent place as it is, and settlements already having 100+ players in them routinely for the population to be increased by anything more than 500…and even that, I think, is pushing it.

PS dude; you know you could have just linked my post in your OP. :wink:

We did. :wink:

1 Like

I agree, your reply was the most accurate one and aligned with my thoughts perfectly.
I just didn’t like that the other thread was being presented as some sort of official community statement when it clearly does not take into account any long term effects.

PS: Added link to your post :wink:
PSPS: Other guy meaning SJReaver (nvm, i’m stupid)

1 Like

I do not agree with your reasoning.
First of all the problem will NOT fix itself if the cap is still there. The people that settled on a server and invested time and are with their friends are trapped.
Second of all in the first 5 days you already had full pop server concentrated in half of the map. Now the population have diluted on the entire map and I don’t see so many people in low level areas. The cap made sense for the start of the game.
However raising the cap to 6000 is absurd. 1k raise should be enough since many queues are around that number and will solve the problem (somewhat) on majority of the servers.
Keep in mind that from this 3k server pop not all will remain in the game over one month

The problem with this reasoning is that it forgets endgame content. Over time, the population will start to resettle into endgame zones. Low level zones will feel a little sparce but high level areas will slowly become as crowded as low level zones were in week 1. And unlike low level zones, people won’t move on. Once they get to endgame they are stuck at endgame.

I support this petition entirely. If you really twisted my arm I could potentially agree to a 500 person increase but ONLY after a full month of gameplay confirms that endgame zones can handle the population.

1 Like

I thought of the end game too when I said that. The thing is the game forces you in low lvl zones even at lvl 60, for pvp influence, wars, crafting. So it will not reverse entirely. Add the population that leave the game and you will go down some numbers from those extra 1k

And this is the number one reason it is premature to increase server sizes. The largest drop off of players from the initial population of week 1 hasn’t even happened yet. Zero reason for Amazon to spend time and money fundamentally changing the architecture of their server virtualization to accommodate more players per server when the population equilibrium is still so far away from being finalized.

“make the servers bigger” isn’t just “change the population cap from 2000 to 3000 in a table somewhere.” It requires every server to increase its simultaneous connection potential by 50%. That’s a significant amount of additional compute.

Let’s use some fake/illustrative numbers just to illustrate a point:
Assume that every physical server is virtualized into 8 different instances of the game. Let’s assume server needs and population don’t scale perfectly linearly, e.g., a 1% increase in population = some amount <1% increase in server needs. If we increase population by 50% from 2k to 3k, let’s assume that increases server needs by 33%. In this instance, each physical machine that was housing 8 virtualized servers can now only hold 6. Every 3 physical machines now needs to have a 4th machine added and have 2 of their 8 servers migrated to the new physical machine. Because Amazon = AWS, this is less expensive for them than it would be for other developers but it still means extra money, not to mention server downtimes for the transfers.

All of this conversation doesn’t even start to touch on actual server stability. Forget economy/ecosystem of resources. The underlying infrastructure is optimized around 2k, not 3k. So now everything needs to be reoptimized which means an extended period of time of server instability (which the same people asking for bigger servers will probably complain about and say Amazon sucks because their servers don’t work) plus server downtime while everything gets updated for the new optimizations.

I could go on and on but I really hope you get the point by now. Raising server sizes isn’t a flip of a switch, Amazon isn’t doing a terrible job, and we all need to just calm down, be patient, and wait a few weeks before writing of AGS as a garbage studio.

2 Likes

+1 to working against people trying to raise server caps. Do not want Amazon to think that’s what the playerbase wants.

The map doesn’t even seem big enough for 2000 people, let alone more.

And instancing is not an option. Not in a game with with these kind of pvp goals.
There you are, standing at the fort, ready to defend. Doesn’t matter though because the attackers are in a different instance. What’s supposed to happen there?
There you are, trying to hold a territory by stopping other factions from turning in pvp quests. Doesn’t matter though because the people running said quests got into another instance where they are uncontested, and fill that influence bar without you being able to do anything about it.
No, instancing is an absolute “forbidden magic” in a game like this. Should not be done, and ultimately cannot be allowed.

Smaller queues is going to have to come from the population spreading across more servers.
And if the server you’re on has an insane queue, stop trying to force your way into that server. Swap. Start a new character, and if when the transfers are out your original is still better transfer it. Or just wait for the tranfers I suppose.

1 Like

I agree, keep the caps as they are. The map size feels right for 2k people. If they increase it to 6k as suggested they’d need to increase the map size and the amount of resource nodes to counterbalance the influx, otherwise it would be too crowded.

1 Like

I’m just trying to imagine how awful it would be to have to fight two or three times as many players for hemp/iron. Population density is what ruined a lot of other MMO’s with this kind of open world gathering and combat. It becomes even worse if you consider PvP. You can risk turning on your PvP if you think you can gather or fight without interference. In a high population server, that’s not an option. You can also FIND people to fight if you flag up and track them from gathered nodes, or the sound of the pick ringing off the rocks.

1 Like

you think the map is too small? maybe if you are still level 1-25… all the 25+ zones are completely empty at times. extremely boring for someone who wants to pvp.

I agree. I have the game but i cant play because of it. My friends play on a server where I can’t create a character, and I’m not going to play this here alone like an idiot while they all have fun discord. And much less will I force ALL of them to change servers because of me…

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.