116 replies to this topic

[Noobzorz]

They're doing it so they can price discriminate MC is my guess. Still seems kind of silly though. Blizzard did this before eventually concluding that it was dumb and giving up.

[Radko]

When I play a game with my friends, and the game changes so I can no longer play with my friends, I don't find new friends. I find a new game.

[Erasus Magnus]

Purplefluffybunny, on 28 March 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

It is possible but I think the deciding factor to which regions will be locked will be under the logic of an average latency limit per region.

but even australians have already told us that their latency of rougly 350+ do not affect them anymore, thanks to state rewind and netcode improvements, so why bother with new servers?

[Kristov Kerensky]

It's funny..people demanded regional servers, PGI says 'hey, we're going to give you regional servers!', and the community screams and pitches a fit about it? What?

And maybe some help is needed with the statements PGI has made about regional servers..

Locked to the region means ONLY people from the region can access that server, it does not mean that people from that region can ONLY play on that server and no other. The NA servers will be open to anyone while the PanOceanic server will only allow access to people in the PanOceanic region..who can also play on the NA servers...

It's pretty simple folks, PGI is giving us what was asked for...

[Erasus Magnus]

Stone Profit, on 28 March 2013 - 01:51 PM, said:

the problem is, those players in other regions DEMANDED that they put servers near them. So its not really pgis issue to figure out where you should play. As a personal suggestion, I would recommend the north american one, as thats the main one, but really I think you should tell pgi not to split the servers if thats what you want to do for league play.

we demanded a game environment that allows for aiming, not spray and pray. we demanded regional servers IF they cannot fix the netcode. now with state rewind and a close to perfect netcode, there is almost no noticeable lag at all, given that you have yourself a decent internet connection.

Tigerchen, on 28 March 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

Server splitting is a stupid decision, no matter how they do it. Look at WoW, there are ghost server with not enough players left to raid, and this was before i quit WoW over 2 years ago. And the MWO Player Base is a lot smaller. If people don't find matches on their regional Server, this servers die quicker than you can say Mechwarrior Online.

just look at WoW battlegrounds since vanilla. Even with extremely high populated servers, they couldnt get the BG`s up and running. They had to implement cross realm BG`s to give a decent enough number of players to ensure reasonable waiting queues.

Edited by Erasus Magnus, 28 March 2013 - 03:32 PM.

[Purplefluffybunny]

Radko, on 28 March 2013 - 03:04 PM, said:

When I play a game with my friends, and the game changes so I can no longer play with my friends, I don't find new friends. I find a new game.

Quoted for truth.

[Purplefluffybunny]

Erasus Magnus, on 28 March 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

[...] there is almost no noticeable lag at all, given that you have yourself a decent internet connection. [...]

Not too sure here. Our latency values might be fine for many other standards BUT lights or any asset moving at high speed, do seem to suffer from issues; issues that affect us trying to kill them I mean.

However the latency values at which such 'lag' behavior and gaming experience, at least from my own experience, happens (at least by the values I see in game), implies issues even at lower latency levels i.e. people's latency values look fine when averaged by in game values but yet hit scan issues on fast moving targets remain.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 28 March 2013 - 03:38 PM.

[Erasus Magnus]

Purplefluffybunny, on 28 March 2013 - 03:34 PM, said:

Not too sure here. Our latency values might be fine for many other standards BUT lights or any asset moving at high speed, do seem to suffer from issues; issues that affect us trying to kill them I mean.

However the latency values at which such 'lag' behavior and gaming experience, at least from my own experience, happens (at least by the values I see in game), implies issues even at lower latency levels i.e. peoples latency values look fine when averaged by in game values but yet hit scan issues on fast moving targets remain.

state rewind isnt final yet. its only done for lasers at the moment, if i recall correctly. ballistics and missile SW has still to be implemented, so the registering issue might stem from this.

also, and this is only my personal observation, i have, since netcode revision, only seen ONE dude lagging badly, in his cicada, and he was listed as having a latency of over 1000. perhaps he was streaming **** while playing?

i think i get your draft here, but my guess is that it might be "sub- par" internet connections on the users side.
say, if you live in germany (like i do), your average latency is abot 120. if someone, who also lives in germany suffers from a much higher ping than that, then i dont think that regional servers will help this much, because you will likely have a bad internet connection. the latency number will go down, but the noticeable lag you encountered on the na servers will likely stay the same on a european server, no?
because state rewind is done on the server side if i am not terribly mistaken.

the internet connction on the user side might be the bottleneck here.

dunno, in the end of the day, we will have to wait and see how it pans out. if garth says he doenst forsee any issues by splitting the comm...we might have gotten it all wrong.

Edited by Erasus Magnus, 28 March 2013 - 03:55 PM.

[xengk]

Purplefluffybunny, on 28 March 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

Look, the issue over latency being a driver for such a demand is more a collective illusion when it comes to any consideration of splitting EU and the USA and even Canada into distinct regions. That aside, one should not pander nor cater 'nationalistic' wants to play with 'one's own'.

EDIT: PGI need to be transparent about why they want to split and exactly what they mean by improved gaming experience. Tell us, precisely, what it is you are struggling with.

This is how I see it for the regional server split.

Quote

I support the move to have regional servers, as it will bring benefit to the game and community.

Latency
Having regional server will cut down ping for players from SEA/Oceanic, Far East, Middle Eastern and Europe. So that everyone get to enjoy the game at reduced ping and latency.
This would also make Weapon State Rewind even more effective.

Time Zone
Consolidating players with the same "peak hour" will cut down the time needed for match making, as there are more players in the server at the same time.
This also allow events that better cater to the player base.
Example, the early MWO competition(top gun?) was held at a very inconvenient time for player in Asia, as we have to wake up 2~3am in the morning to participate.

Local Present
With local server under a local publisher, this means having someone pushing the game in the local market. This translate to more exposure for the game and drawing a larger player base, which hopefully means more income to keep the developer afloat to create more content for the game. And of course longevity of the game.

Focus Effort
With someone else worrying the marketing and infrastructure of the game, this free up developer to concentrate on what they should be doing; developing new content, fixing bugs and working out balancing issue in the game.
This benefit every region, as these contents and improvements will cascade into all service.


I assume that when the new regional server are up, existing player will get an offer to transfer or remain on the NA server.
Those who prefer to remain with their NA group can opt not to get migrated.
Unless the local publisher demands for IP Blocking.

Maybe we might even end up with different flavour for each region, such as Asia/Far East will have stronger Draconis or Capellan present, Europe/NA with many Davions and Space Viking. Might even have each region sending their best teams to compete in an annul global tournament, with the location rotating each year between hosting regions.

[Corvus Antaka]

Chavette, on 27 March 2013 - 04:00 PM, said:

The real reason they wanna completely split regions is its a month worth of extra coding for a few guys do set up a database and change the system to have it able to change regions between sessions.

They are simply lazy and want to do the shortest route possible. They full well know, many will have accounts on both regions and many will buy MC on both regions, where that wouldnt be the case with a unified system.

They are lazy and money hungry.

If anyone from PGI wants to debate me on this, you are welcome.

The best way to make money is to do what you love and do it well and the money will come to you.

Trying to make money on every little corner you cut to stuff your pockets is more than liable to just end up with a broke a company and a lot of pissed off users.

[Voidcrafter]

Not possible?
Two words:
EVE Online.
It's a "Universe" game, it should remain that way, don't you think?
The support request can be handled by the location they're comming from.

[PapaKilo]

Voidcrafter, on 29 March 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

Not possible?
Two words:
EVE Online.
It's a "Universe" game, it should remain that way, don't you think?
The support request can be handled by the location they're comming from.

EVE Online isn't a first-person shooter twitch game -- its actions are based on a one-second tick. That game can handle not responding right away. This game cannot, as it's a twitch game and a lot can happen in one second. Besides, a lot of EVE Online is automated -- hit a button, and your weapon continues to fire on its own. Hit another button and your ship orbits the target automatically. Hit another button and your ship maintains a certain distance from the target automatically. Hit another button and your ship warps to the stargate and jumps automatically. It's in no way comparable...

By the way ... we've known for many months that they would be having regional servers. Those that were in Closed Beta were told way back then. If you are a player that has just found out now, they weren't hiding anything from you ... it's just that it hasn't come up lately. They will give more details as soon as those details are finalized.

What's the big deal anyway? Everybody will still be able to log into any server and set up an account to play with anyone else. If you want to keep the same name, you'll need to make an account right away when the new servers are set up, because they won't have a global account system. We've known that from the beginning too. They're not trying to lock anybody out.

If your unit wants to stay together all on one server, they certainly can. If your unit is big enough to have regional coverage, it can split into regions. All options for all units. Everybody wins.

And as far as the locked regions go, it's likely going to be something like China's EVE server, which is its own shard of the EVE universe.

Can you say "panic reaction"? Geez...

Edited by PapaKilo, 29 March 2013 - 07:05 AM.

[Voidcrafter]

PapaKilo, on 29 March 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:

EVE Online isn't a first-person shooter twitch game -- its actions are based on a one-second tick. That game can handle not responding right away. This game cannot, as it's a twitch game and a lot can happen in one second. Besides, a lot of EVE Online is automated -- hit a button, and your weapon continues to fire on its own. Hit another button and your ship orbits the target automatically. Hit another button and your ship maintains a certain distance from the target automatically. Hit another button and your ship warps to the stargate and jumps automatically.

By the way ... we've known for many months that they would be having regional servers. Those that were in Closed Beta were told way back then. If you are a player that has just found out now, they weren't hiding anything from you ... it's just that it hasn't come up lately. They will give more details as soon as those details are finalized.

What's the big deal anyway? Everybody will still be able to log into any server and set up an account to play with anyone else. If you want to keep the same name, you'll need to make an account right away when the new servers are set up, because they won't have a global account system. We've known that from the beginning too. They're not trying to lock anybody out.

When(or more likely "if") they include the community warfare content, if it's what's promising to be, the more players you got at hand on a server - the better.
My worries go toward the fact, that this game (regretable so - I really, REALLY love it) would never be as popular as, for example, the Diablo franchise, or the Star Craft ones, Warcraft, or any other commercial stuff that was out in the years.
I really think, that if this game have a tightened community, instead of spreaded one, would really help.
Even currently people(well... my opinion anyways) don't feel it much as a social game, since there aint any good communication ways implemented, which I find as a downside.
Just can't imagine how people joining on two different servers would help that get better instead of get worse.
I generally think, that this is not a "terrible" idea, but one that should be thought in detail VERY well before even announced, not to say implemented.
And EVE online is not on a single server - as far as I know it's on multiple ones, synchronizing with eachother in a way, that would never ever let anyone to actually wonder if the game is on more than one PCs.
Same goes for blizzard servers -pick a game, but the best one for the example would be WoW - even the slightest dellay can be absolutely deadly, since there are split-second encounters.
But that's none of my business, and neither I wanna show any disrespect to the people, standing behind the game is coded, or administrated - I've done both(sys. administration and programming) in the real life to know the issues connected with two PCs trying to do the same thing with a distant client.

I have faith in you, do the right thing.
That was what I was trying to say

[PapaKilo]

Voidcrafter, on 29 March 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

And EVE online is not on a single server - as far as I know it's on multiple ones, synchronizing with eachother in a way....

Yep. EVE Online is not on a single server, but a single cluster. When people log onto Tranquility, they're logging onto a cluster of servers, not one machine. And now they have a China cluste as well. This game is the same way -- a cluster of servers working together. CCP does have more hamsters than PGI though.

Edited by PapaKilo, 30 March 2013 - 05:08 PM.

[Rocdocta]

Sifright, on 28 March 2013 - 12:29 AM, said:

Hahaha, you aren't getting one. So toodles.



Also I loled.

Harden up mister, you won't be getting a an oceania server so enjoy your 300+ping ghetto life.

poor attempt at trolling. maybe you should not try so hard? anyway...lol all you want. when MWO finally leaves beta we will get an asia server. I lol-ed at the ghetto reference. Last time i checked north america was fast becoming the worlds ghetto. asia is where its at.

[ove bababoke]

That`s ok. My ping is about 200 and only european server can decrease it, not any netcode.

[Iscariott]

Lyoto Machida, on 27 March 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

I really hate this idea. Are we really going to have enough players to support this, while also splitting queues in to PUG/premades? Then split between 1st person and 3rd person???

Lyoto Machida, on 27 March 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

I really hate this idea. Are we really going to have enough players to support this, while also splitting queues in to PUG/premades? Then split between 1st person and 3rd person???

My guess would be:

Yes, Yes, no.

1st/3rd person split will be promised now. Undeliverable in the future, and reniged on in the end. I've already accepted that I will be forced to play with 3rd person *******, regardless of what the devs say about it now.