99 servers... is Trion making the same mistake as Mythic did with WAR?

MMO.Maverick

When I read that Trion was adding an additional 30 servers for launch, I was surprised. Sure, the gradual addition I could understand: add some more as soon as you see that as good as all servers are full or high on population.

But 30 servers at once?

 

Well, it was launch date, so who knows, it could be needed. Out of curiosity, I checked a few times today on peak times: I found around 15 EU servers on low and 16-18 US servers on low during that time.

The thing is, usually in the launch week as good as all those servers should be high or full, since the trend of the last couple of years is that after the first month, when the subscription kicks in, that you'll see a decline in subs. Servers that have a low population already are exposed to the risk that after a month or 2 they could become very underpopulated.

 

It makes me wonder, I recall Mythic opening up a whole bunch of servers up to 113 or so, of which in short time a lot of them became ghost towns. I can't imagine that the Trion guys aren't aware of WAR's situation and the risk of opening up too many servers.

Still, did they maybe open up too many servers and miscalculated the launch for having the steep rise in player numbers, while in reality that peak increase has happened in the headstart period?

Miles-Prower

Always better to have too much of something than too little. If it gets to the point they need to merge servers, is that really a big deal?

 

~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!

TacBoy

Had Mythic delivered the goods, it wouldn't have been too many. Rift delivers the goods...

pyrofreak

Originally posted by Miles-Prower

Always better to have too much of something than too little. If it gets to the point they need to merge servers, is that really a big deal?

 

~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!

It's bad press if you're merging servers 3 months after launch.

Snaylor47

Originally posted by Miles-Prower

Always better to have too much of something than too little. If it gets to the point they need to merge servers, is that really a big deal?

 

~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!

I would rather have 50 Heavy Servers than 25 heavy 30 medium and 50 Light severs. People not having anyone to play with on the light severs will leave and when they do server merges it sends the message that the game is failing.

abyss610

well you did notice all the threads complaining about 6 hour ques for headstart right? ALL but maybe 3 was HIGH or FULL and most of those was completely full for headstart.

Snaylor47

Originally posted by TacBoy

Had Mythic delivered the goods, it wouldn't have been too many. Rift delivers the goods...

I can show you three or four game review sites (Good reputable sites like IGN and GameSpot) that gave WAR a great score. 

Miles-Prower

True, but they'e in a hard situation here. Make servers with too high population caps and the play experience for players diminshes (Too many people camping spawns, etc, etc). Don't make enough servers and queue times become an issue. This seems like the best choice for now.

 

~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!

Xzen

From what I can tell they are making ALL the same mistakes.

Garvon3

Originally posted by Miles-Prower

Always better to have too much of something than too little. If it gets to the point they need to merge servers, is that really a big deal?

 

~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!

Traditionally speaking, yes its a big deal. Almost every single one of the AAA MMOs to come out in the last 5 years have had to merge servers after launch, which leads to a spiral down in subscriptions.

Paradigm68

Originally posted by Miles-Prower

Always better to have too much of something than too little. If it gets to the point they need to merge servers, is that really a big deal?

Well if they need them they need them but in mmo's perception counts for a lot. Especially perceptions of population. And no matter how good the reasons are, server mergers look bad to potential customers.

Loktofeit

Originally posted by Miles-Prower

Always better to have too much of something than too little. If it gets to the point they need to merge servers, is that really a big deal?

~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!

That's actually the least desirable scenario.

To draw from history, WAR and AION are two examples of MMOs that went server happy at release rather than just managed the load and deal with queues. They put themselves in situations where they exacerbated population issues and had to remedy them with drastic measures (server merges).

About hafl the people that buy an MMO retail box don't stay after the first month or so. Almsot everyone that plays during the first month will play more often and for longer periods than they normally will play. Combine those two and you have an excessive load on the servers the first 30 days. If you create servers to accommodate that load, you end up with a heap of dead servers with empty starter zones and sparse populations. So not only do you have the expected reduction in the population, you also have a following of people leaving a 'dead game' because of low player populations.

Turbine did a great job with LOTRO. They weathered out the queues and reasonably predicted what would be needed for healthy servers in months 2 and 3 after release. As a result, they maintained much healthier populations across the board, which in turn leads to better retention and stronger communities.

grimfall

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

When I read that Trion was adding an additional 30 servers for launch, I was surprised. Sure, the gradual addition I could understand: add some more as soon as you see that as good as all servers are full or high on population.

But 30 servers at once?

 

Well, it was launch date, so who knows, it could be needed. Out of curiosity, I checked a few times today on peak times: I found around 15 EU servers on low and 16-18 US servers on low during that time.

The thing is, usually in the launch week as good as all those servers should be high or full, since the trend of the last couple of years is that after the first month, when the subscription kicks in, that you'll see a decline in subs. Servers that have a low population already are exposed to the risk that after a month or 2 they could become very underpopulated.

 

It makes me wonder, I recall Mythic opening up a whole bunch of servers up to 113 or so, of which in short time a lot of them became ghost towns. I can't imagine that the Trion guys aren't aware of WAR's situation and the risk of opening up too many servers.

Still, did they maybe open up too many servers and miscalculated the launch for having the steep rise in player numbers, while in reality that peak increase has happened in the headstart period?

The game hasn't launched in Europe yet, and 8:30 EST is 2:30 AM for a large part of Europe, so that may have something to do with it?

All the pre-launch servers for NAM are full or on high right now.  Being that the new players would have to get home from work, install the game etc before they logged in, I would think that it's alright to have a good portion of servers on Medium and Low.

 

All the RP servers are full.

grimfall

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Miles-Prower

Always better to have too much of something than too little. If it gets to the point they need to merge servers, is that really a big deal?

~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!

That's actually the least desirable scenario.

To draw from history, WAR and AION are two examples of MMOs that went server happy at release rather than just managed the load and deal with queues. They put themselves in situations where they exacerbated population issues and had to remedy them with drastic measures (server merges).

About hafl the people that buy an MMO retail box don't stay after the first month or so. Almsot everyone that plays during the first month will play more often and for longer periods than they normally will play. Combine those two and you have an excessive load on the servers the first 30 days. If you create servers to accommodate that load, you end up with a heap of dead servers with empty starter zones and sparse populations. So not only do you have the expected reduction in the population, you also have a following of people leaving a 'dead game' because of low player populations.

Turbine did a great job with LOTRO. They weathered out the queues and reasonably predicted what would be needed for healthy servers in months 2 and 3 after release. As a result, they maintained much healthier populations across the board, which in turn leads to better retention and stronger communities.

Also, ice cream sales drive murder rates.

 

Correlation is not causation.  The reason that those games didn't keep their servers full is because they weren't very good.  You're going to lose a lot more frustrated players from not being able to play, than you are from server mergers.

VirusDancer

NA had 39.  They added 19.  19 was too many.  Around 8 PM Eastern, we did not even have 50 people on the Defiant side on Carrion.

Almost nobody is moving.  You have 18-19 all but empty shards and 22 shards with queues ranging from 20 to almost 500.

They should have just added 9 shards.  They could have added more as the week progressed if needed.  They should have handled the launch like they did the head start.

30-40+ min queues for Warfronts.  5-6 items in the AH.  Running like crazy from invasions.

Yeah, hope that it picks up during the week or I will end up going back to a MED to HIGH shard - even risk a FULL to wait in a queue once...

TomWoodrow

Originally posted by Garvon3

Originally posted by Miles-Prower

Always better to have too much of something than too little. If it gets to the point they need to merge servers, is that really a big deal?

 

~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!

Traditionally speaking, yes its a big deal. Almost every single one of the AAA MMOs to come out in the last 5 years have had to merge servers after launch, which leads to a spiral down in subscriptions.

- LOTRO from that they have never gotten above the current 15 with 4 of them got added last year in September with F2P. Funny thing is Rift needed like 60 servers for 1 million registered accounts but lotro only needs 15 for the million+ people that had been playing it in the first month of F2P  according to turbine.  Turbine lied to us all big time.

SpectralHunter

It's better to have queues than low pop servers.  With queues there's also an illusion that the game is doing exceedingly well.  That by itself will keep interest alive.  MMO gamers are generally pretty aware now.  They won't roll on low pop servers at launch because they fear mergers and it's not fun losing the server you were on.

In fact, it's better to keep the queues going for a month, IMO.  I recall WoW had serious queue problems well over a month into launch.  Did people quit?  No.  If the game is good and people like it, they will generally tough out queues.  They won't tough out empty servers.  Trion should have increased servers in smaller batches and collecting data and sub activations to determine how many servers to open up.

It's a huge gamble to have so many low pop servers at launch.

Snaylor47

Originally posted by TomWoodrow

Originally posted by Garvon3

Originally posted by Miles-Prower

Always better to have too much of something than too little. If it gets to the point they need to merge servers, is that really a big deal?

 

~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!

Traditionally speaking, yes its a big deal. Almost every single one of the AAA MMOs to come out in the last 5 years have had to merge servers after launch, which leads to a spiral down in subscriptions.

- LOTRO from that they have never gotten above the current 15 with 4 of them got added last year in September with F2P. Funny thing is Rift needed like 60 servers for 1 million registered accounts but lotro only needs 15 for the million+ people that had been playing it in the first month of F2P  according to turbine.  Turbine lied to us all big time.

Man, can anyone else not wait till this game fails?

FarScape

Honestly, Yes... We are in this slump mostly for Pc gamers and MMO's ingeneral where there are no good games with the exception of "WOW" (played for 6 years no longer play due to the fact i put 6 years into the game and its just boring to me now) League of Legends, StarCraft2, Diablo2 LOD, Counter Strike, and Modern WarFare:  Black Ops. (just nameing some of the top played PC games.)

But, with MMO's, 90% of the population of people who play started with WOW and have been playing for multiple years. (I myself started with EverQuest the Original. years and years ago.) So with the way with MMO's are being developed people have to try it due the the bored feeling they have in wow. BUT! when they start to play this new mmo, they get this feeling of Meh why level or grind or craft when i can hop on wow and already be done and do something fun.

 The problem with MMO's right now is that they are all rehashes of something already out there. so when ppl play they realise ts the same thing they have been playing in "WOW" and say screw it and go back. Yes war was garbage so why even put that in the catagory. Rift is a decent game but they didn't do anything new. I give Rift 2-3 months before people start saying why bother whey i already did they and hop on there 85's in wow.

Wow has been number 1 for so long because they took the raw formula of what i call Generation 2 MMo (1 being UO) and mastered it. so now everyone else is taking that formula and just rehashing it.

When i played the Rift beta like i said i enjoyed it but i played a rogue.... It was the same thing as a wow rogue but i could add to more classes to it. In essense it was the same class. It had the same combo point system same abilities same everything. Why bother leveling when its in essense the same game!

So do i think that Trion is gonna make the same mistake as Mythic. No i dont but i think they are putting all there eggs in to once basic. which in the long run i think will hurt them.

Snaylor47

Originally posted by FarScape

Honestly, Yes... We are in this slump mostly for Pc gamers and MMO's ingeneral where there are no good games with the exception of "WOW" (played for 6 years no longer play due to the fact i put 6 years into the game and its just boring to me now) League of Legends, StarCraft2, Diablo2 LOD, Counter Strike, and Modern WarFare:  Black Ops. (just nameing some of the top played PC games.)

But, with MMO's, 90% of the population of people who play started with WOW and have been playing for multiple years. (I myself started with EverQuest the Original. years and years ago.) So with the way with MMO's are being developed people have to try it due the the bored feeling they have in wow. BUT! when they start to play this new mmo, they get this feeling of Meh why level or grind or craft when i can hop on wow and already be done and do something fun.

 The problem with MMO's right now is that they are all rehashes of something already out there. so when ppl play they realise ts the same thing they have been playing in "WOW" and say screw it and go back. Yes war was garbage so why even put that in the catagory. Rift is a decent game but they didn't do anything new. I give Rift 2-3 months before people start saying why bother whey i already did they and hop on there 85's in wow.

Wow has been number 1 for so long because they took the raw formula of what i call Generation 2 MMo (1 being UO) and mastered it. so now everyone else is taking that formula and just rehashing it.

When i played the Rift beta like i said i enjoyed it but i played a rogue.... It was the same thing as a wow rogue but i could add to more classes to it. In essense it was the same class. It had the same combo point system same abilities same everything. Why bother leveling when its in essense the same game!

So do i think that Trion is gonna make the same mistake as Mythic. No i dont but i think they are putting all there eggs in to once basic. which in the long run i think will hurt them.

While I personally do not like RIFT, I will defend TRION on this point.

People left EQ because WoW was simple better in most aspects and appealed to a wider audiance. Now whether or not RIFT has done this is yet to be seen. But saying "Why play x game when its the same as game y" is not a good arguement, simple because if it was we would all still be playing EQ and UO.

Manestream

Originally posted by MMO.Maverick

When I read that Trion was adding an additional 30 servers for launch, I was surprised. Sure, the gradual addition I could understand: add some more as soon as you see that as good as all servers are full or high on population.

But 30 servers at once?

 

Well, it was launch date, so who knows, it could be needed. Out of curiosity, I checked a few times today on peak times: I found around 15 EU servers on low and 16-18 US servers on low during that time.

The thing is, usually in the launch week as good as all those servers should be high or full, since the trend of the last couple of years is that after the first month, when the subscription kicks in, that you'll see a decline in subs. Servers that have a low population already are exposed to the risk that after a month or 2 they could become very underpopulated.

 

It makes me wonder, I recall Mythic opening up a whole bunch of servers up to 113 or so, of which in short time a lot of them became ghost towns. I can't imagine that the Trion guys aren't aware of WAR's situation and the risk of opening up too many servers.

Still, did they maybe open up too many servers and miscalculated the launch for having the steep rise in player numbers, while in reality that peak increase has happened in the headstart period?

 

You have to remember as well that in the EU, the game does not get released untill friday the 4th so obviously those servers will have low populations.

Pr0tag0ni5t

At first glance it seems like Trion is making a mistake. No question. However, their track record (even though its small) says they know what they are doing.

Here are some possible reasons for adding so many servers for start. (I'm sure some have been said before)

1. Que times. They are getting hammered on the official forums for que times I'm sure they didn't want it to get worse come peak times for those in headstart.

2. Once things settled I have a feeling they will offer free transfers filling up servers as needed. Further reducing the que times for the headstart servers.

It doesn't help that they have headstart....want players to bring in their friends and not expect them to roll on the headstart servers.

VirusDancer

Originally posted by Snaylor47

Originally posted by FarScape

...snip...

While I personally do not like RIFT, I will defend TRION on this point.

People left EQ because WoW was simple better in most aspects and appealed to a wider audiance. Now whether or not RIFT has done this is yet to be seen. But saying "Why play x game when its the same as game y" is not a good arguement, simple because if it was we would all still be playing EQ and UO.

EQ came out in early 1999.

WoW came out in late 2004.

EQ was OLD when WoW came out.

It may or may not be RIFT, but there is little doubt that WoW is OLD.

MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by VirusDancer

NA had 39.  They added 19.  19 was too many.  Around 8 PM Eastern, we did not even have 50 people on the Defiant side on Carrion.

Were you able to do an accurate player population count? Because so far nobody has managed to find a way and do that.

If so, let us know how you did it

 

As for servers, it's always easier to add a new server when needed than to remove one when not needed anymore. I guess we'll see how the population numbers develop in the course of the week.

RiftFan

I am very interested why we are comparing a RvR game to Rift. It is two totally different ideas of how to run a game. In this style of game you can get away with a hell of a lot.

Just remember these medium, high, full stuff you are seeing is 2.5ish people online at one time. Low could mean a 1,000 for all we know.  If they stay low for like a month, then yeah.

You guys got to remember cross server LFG in Wow was done because of Low population servers and WoW estimates roughly 12 million players.

MMO.Maverick

Originally posted by Manestream

 You have to remember as well that in the EU, the game does not get released untill friday the 4th so obviously those servers will have low populations.

Ah yes, it's true that this accounts for the EU servers, but not for the US servers. I just did a quick check, and I see 18 servers with 'Low' status.

 

Originally posted by RiftFan

You guys got to remember cross server LFG in Wow was done because of Low population servers and WoW estimates roughly 12 million players.

Ah, but no matter what MMO, WoW included, a low population makes a world feel empty, and in Rift it won't really help with fighting and enjoying rifts when the population is low.