Well, it first must be physically possible to do what you suggest. While it isn't, there's not much point in discussing the idea, is there?
Why is it physically impossible? Computers are technical devices not constrained by physical limitation, only human imagination.
Computers are limited by the physical world, even if it is on a microscopic level. Heck, heat output is a physical limitation and that's something you can measure with your bare skin. They aren't just imagination boxes that can create and hold limitless amounts of information. Hardrives can only hold so much static data, memory can only support so many concurrent programs and user connections. Why do you think the first computers were the size of university classrooms?
Edit - Took out some unecessarily rude statements.
the instancing is only in the early worlds so this is more akin to Aion in that fashion. After that it is a traditional MMO world setup in terms of zones/planets
You have to think like a network engineer. Single point of failure. The more people you cram onto a single cluster, the more people are pissed off when the cluster goes down. We run virtual servers on clusters here and each host costs over $150K ~ and they aren't very big ones either. We run at most six virtual servers per cluster for the simple fact that if a cluster fails we lost as little as possible.
Why would a company spend 100mil just to get it all more instanced than it is now. To solve a problem that can be solved for free which is let players talk and figure out where to play.
No the instancing is everywhere. Stop spreading lies. You may not see it at higher levels as there may have not been enough people during beta at those levels to cause more than one instance to be created.
GW had millions of players all on the same 'server'.
The only difference between all those servers and a single server is the ability to instantly transfer from one community to the next, and name sharing.
Bioware simply doesn't have the expertise to do the newer stuff. So they went with the traditional isolated shards. But then they instanced them. CoH does this as well, but once again you don't notice it much because there has to be like 100 players in the zone before another instance is created.
Well, it first must be physically possible to do what you suggest. While it isn't, there's not much point in discussing the idea, is there?
Why is it physically impossible? Computers are technical devices not constrained by physical limitation, only human imagination.
Lol?
I don't know whether to take that statement seriously or not, but... Computers are limited by the physical world, even if it is on a microscopic level. Heck, heat output is a physical limitation and that's something you can measure with your bare skin. They aren't just imagination boxes that can create and hold limitless amounts of information. Hardrives can only hold so much static data, memory can only support so many concurrent programs and user connections. Why do you think the first computers were the size of university classrooms?
there are many examples in history of people claiming things were physically impossible, only to be overcome by human imagination and ingenuity.
The Hero Engine can actually support this, quite easily.
HE claims to be capable of hosting 100k players at once. Thus far, the claim is untested, because there isn't any hardware capable of handling that many players in this sort of environment.
I could see the difficulty if everyone was in one persistent world. But in a world where zones are copied...
Each copy would still be stored in the harddrive/memory on the server ( s ) somewhere. Each copy getting their own cozy peice of storgage.
I don't know anything about how games flow though but I assume some parts of what we see must be on the server somewhere.
If this is the case, it doesn't matter how much instancing there is there is still a physical limit.
The Hero Engine can actually support this, quite easily.
HE claims to be capable of hosting 100k players at once. Thus far, the claim is untested, because there isn't any hardware capable of handling that many players in this sort of environment.
HE claims to be able to support over one million. And we're not talking about a single piece of hardware here. Each "server" is actually a cluster of servers, perfectly capable of handling that many players. The only limitation is where the players are at in relation to each other. If they're all phased into small groups, they would have no problem at all handling one million players on a "Server"
You keep saying this, but the only documentation I can find supports what Icewhite said. 100K - Not one million. The OP was referring to making three servers or so, based on pvp, pve, etc. So, if all the players are phased into small groups, wouldn't that defeat the purpose??? Why not phase the players into groups... kind like... SERVERS, this way, it takes the load off of the hardware and keeps the game playable.
This is a ridiculous post anyway. There are so many servers to keep the game experience enjoyable. Trust me, if you couldn't log in for 3-5 days, you really wouldn't care about the number of servers. You'd just want to be in game.
Why would a company spend 100mil just to get it all more instanced than it is now. To solve a problem that can be solved for free which is let players talk and figure out where to play.
I honestly wonder how many game companies spent anything like 100 million dollars on their entire server farms, total.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
It's NOT really highly instanced, and lets use the obvious example. Eve only has one server. Fights in Eve basically turn into clip-fests. No thanks.
Now for the obvious answer, because there are queues, there need to be more servers. (this is the second time I've had a queue, the first outside of prime weekend time)
But it is highly instanced. If you look up at the top left of the screen it says the zone and some number like 100. That's the number of people in the zone. Do you honestly believe there's only a few copies of that zone on launch day? There could be 30 copies of that zone or more.
Why are there even cues? Just make more instances.
If you have several hundred million dollars to make a game wouldn't it be possible to have a computer that could generate thousands of instanced zones...or as many as were needed?
It's not a single computer, it's actually a cluster of servers working together.
Exactly, thank you. So if you have 100's of millions of dollars, it's just a matter of buying the right amount of clusters then?
Yes, you could probably create thousands of layers (instancing or phasing) for the same zone, that is not the problem.
The problem is that you can only reliably have ONE DATABASE supporting all those layers. And if there are too many simultaneous transactions being fired at the database, things go very horribly wrong.
Ahhh...this is the first thing that is starting to make sense to me. Even though there's lots of copies, one database for all. So each server has it's own database.
Indeed, you're getting the picture
You could (in theory) also duplicate the database along with the instances and then sync the copies at regular intervals, but it is so incredibly risky that no sane systems guy would contemplate it. Think along the lines of dissappearing inventory items, lost XP, quests resetting, etc.
And besides, the system load that will occur during the synchronization will cancel any advantage of the instancing in the first place.
GW had millions of players all on the same 'server'.
Documentation please. GW claimed to have sold millions of boxes (over seven years), I sincerely doubt they ever had, at any point in time, millions of players online at the same time...let alone on the same server.
I await data.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
It's NOT really highly instanced, and lets use the obvious example. Eve only has one server. Fights in Eve basically turn into clip-fests. No thanks.
Now for the obvious answer, because there are queues, there need to be more servers. (this is the second time I've had a queue, the first outside of prime weekend time)
But it is highly instanced. If you look up at the top left of the screen it says the zone and some number like 100. That's the number of people in the zone. Do you honestly believe there's only a few copies of that zone on launch day? There could be 30 copies of that zone or more.
Why are there even cues? Just make more instances.
If you have several hundred million dollars to make a game wouldn't it be possible to have a computer that could generate thousands of instanced zones...or as many as were needed?
It's not a single computer, it's actually a cluster of servers working together.
Exactly, thank you. So if you have 100's of millions of dollars, it's just a matter of buying the right amount of clusters then?
Yes, you could probably create thousands of layers (instancing or phasing) for the same zone, that is not the problem.
The problem is that you can only reliably have ONE DATABASE supporting all those layers. And if there are too many simultaneous transactions being fired at the database, things go very horribly wrong.
Ahhh...this is the first thing that is starting to make sense to me. Even though there's lots of copies, one database for all. So each server has it's own database.
Indeed, you're getting the picture
You could (in theory) also duplicate the database along with the instances and then sync the copies at regular intervals, but it is so incredibly risky that no sane systems guy would contemplate it. Think along the lines of dissappearing inventory items, lost XP, quests resetting, etc.
And besides, the system load that will occur during the synchronization will cancel any advantage of the instancing in the first place.
Actually you just preempted my next question. If the problem is the database, why not do the same as in the virtual world. As soon as demand gets to heavy, create instances within the database. I could imagine how that could be disasterous though.
The Hero Engine can actually support this, quite easily.
HE claims to be capable of hosting 100k players at once. Thus far, the claim is untested, because there isn't any hardware capable of handling that many players in this sort of environment.
HE claims to be able to support over one million. And we're not talking about a single piece of hardware here. Each "server" is actually a cluster of servers, perfectly capable of handling that many players. The only limitation is where the players are at in relation to each other. If they're all phased into small groups, they would have no problem at all handling one million players on a "Server"
You keep saying this, but the only documentation I can find supports what Icewhite said. 100K - Not one million. The OP was referring to making three servers or so, based on pvp, pve, etc. So, if all the players are phased into small groups, wouldn't that defeat the purpose??? Why not phase the players into groups... kind like... SERVERS, this way, it takes the load off of the hardware and keeps the game playable.
This is a ridiculous post anyway. There are so many servers to keep the game experience enjoyable. Trust me, if you couldn't log in for 3-5 days, you really wouldn't care about the number of servers. You'd just want to be in game.
If you're really interseted, PM me and I'll go through the documentation provided to me when I got my Hero Engine license. They clearly state that you could have over 1 million, there truly is no limit if you really wanted to take advantage of phasing.
The Hero Engine can actually support this, quite easily.
HE claims to be capable of hosting 100k players at once. Thus far, the claim is untested, because there isn't any hardware capable of handling that many players in this sort of environment.
HE claims to be able to support over one million. And we're not talking about a single piece of hardware here. Each "server" is actually a cluster of servers, perfectly capable of handling that many players. The only limitation is where the players are at in relation to each other. If they're all phased into small groups, they would have no problem at all handling one million players on a "Server"
You keep saying this, but the only documentation I can find supports what Icewhite said. 100K - Not one million. The OP was referring to making three servers or so, based on pvp, pve, etc. So, if all the players are phased into small groups, wouldn't that defeat the purpose??? Why not phase the players into groups... kind like... SERVERS, this way, it takes the load off of the hardware and keeps the game playable.
This is a ridiculous post anyway. There are so many servers to keep the game experience enjoyable. Trust me, if you couldn't log in for 3-5 days, you really wouldn't care about the number of servers. You'd just want to be in game.
I can't log in right now. Waiting in line. Wish they'd make a new cluster for me...
No the instancing is everywhere. Stop spreading lies. You may not see it at higher levels as there may have not been enough people during beta at those levels to cause more than one instance to be created.
GW had millions of players all on the same 'server'.
The only difference between all those servers and a single server is the ability to instantly transfer from one community to the next, and name sharing.
Bioware simply doesn't have the expertise to do the newer stuff. So they went with the traditional isolated shards. But then they instanced them. CoH does this as well, but once again you don't notice it much because there has to be like 100 players in the zone before another instance is created.
This is true, heading towards 40 now and have never seen an instance have more than 100 odd in it, my guess is that the cap is set to 200. Good news is that instance population is something that can be changed on the fly requiring no more than a server restart for downtime. I imagine they'll tweak how many per instance over the next few weeks.
Illum should not be instanced, yet it is and will likely make the place boring.
It's NOT really highly instanced, and lets use the obvious example. Eve only has one server. Fights in Eve basically turn into clip-fests. No thanks.
Now for the obvious answer, because there are queues, there need to be more servers. (this is the second time I've had a queue, the first outside of prime weekend time)
But it is highly instanced. If you look up at the top left of the screen it says the zone and some number like 100. That's the number of people in the zone. Do you honestly believe there's only a few copies of that zone on launch day? There could be 30 copies of that zone or more.
Why are there even cues? Just make more instances.
If you have several hundred million dollars to make a game wouldn't it be possible to have a computer that could generate thousands of instanced zones...or as many as were needed?
It's not a single computer, it's actually a cluster of servers working together.
Exactly, thank you. So if you have 100's of millions of dollars, it's just a matter of buying the right amount of clusters then?
Yes, you could probably create thousands of layers (instancing or phasing) for the same zone, that is not the problem.
The problem is that you can only reliably have ONE DATABASE supporting all those layers. And if there are too many simultaneous transactions being fired at the database, things go very horribly wrong.
Ahhh...this is the first thing that is starting to make sense to me. Even though there's lots of copies, one database for all. So each server has it's own database.
Indeed, you're getting the picture
You could (in theory) also duplicate the database along with the instances and then sync the copies at regular intervals, but it is so incredibly risky that no sane systems guy would contemplate it. Think along the lines of dissappearing inventory items, lost XP, quests resetting, etc.
And besides, the system load that will occur during the synchronization will cancel any advantage of the instancing in the first place.
Actually you just preempted my next question. If the problem is the database, why not do the same as in the virtual world. As soon as demand gets to heavy, create instances within the database. I could imagine how that could be disasterous though.
Look.. i'm sure if there were a way to do this with the current batch of tech, it would have been done. I mean really, these companies hate opening a ton of servers, as when and if you have to merge them, it's choas with the players. However, I would much rather have a smooth running game then have them try to find a way to jam more people on the servers, impacting my gaming experience. I mean, how many people does a TOR server hold? You honestly need more?
If you're really interseted, PM me and I'll go through the documentation provided to me when I got my Hero Engine license. They clearly state that you could have over 1 million, there truly is no limit if you really wanted to take advantage of phasing.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
It's NOT really highly instanced, and lets use the obvious example. Eve only has one server. Fights in Eve basically turn into clip-fests. No thanks.
Now for the obvious answer, because there are queues, there need to be more servers. (this is the second time I've had a queue, the first outside of prime weekend time)
But it is highly instanced. If you look up at the top left of the screen it says the zone and some number like 100. That's the number of people in the zone. Do you honestly believe there's only a few copies of that zone on launch day? There could be 30 copies of that zone or more.
Why are there even cues? Just make more instances.
If you have several hundred million dollars to make a game wouldn't it be possible to have a computer that could generate thousands of instanced zones...or as many as were needed?
It's not a single computer, it's actually a cluster of servers working together.
Exactly, thank you. So if you have 100's of millions of dollars, it's just a matter of buying the right amount of clusters then?
Yes, you could probably create thousands of layers (instancing or phasing) for the same zone, that is not the problem.
The problem is that you can only reliably have ONE DATABASE supporting all those layers. And if there are too many simultaneous transactions being fired at the database, things go very horribly wrong.
Ahhh...this is the first thing that is starting to make sense to me. Even though there's lots of copies, one database for all. So each server has it's own database.
Indeed, you're getting the picture
You could (in theory) also duplicate the database along with the instances and then sync the copies at regular intervals, but it is so incredibly risky that no sane systems guy would contemplate it. Think along the lines of dissappearing inventory items, lost XP, quests resetting, etc.
And besides, the system load that will occur during the synchronization will cancel any advantage of the instancing in the first place.
Actually you just preempted my next question. If the problem is the database, why not do the same as in the virtual world. As soon as demand gets to heavy, create instances within the database. I could imagine how that could be disasterous though.
Look.. i'm sure if there were a way to do this with the current batch of tech, it would have been done. I mean really, these companies hate opening a ton of servers, as when and if you have to merge them, it's choas with the players. However, I would much rather have a smooth running game then have them try to find a way to jam more people on the servers, impacting my gaming experience. I mean, how many people does a TOR server hold? You honestly need more?
The Hero Engine can actually support this, quite easily.
HE claims to be capable of hosting 100k players at once. Thus far, the claim is untested, because there isn't any hardware capable of handling that many players in this sort of environment.
HE claims to be able to support over one million. And we're not talking about a single piece of hardware here. Each "server" is actually a cluster of servers, perfectly capable of handling that many players. The only limitation is where the players are at in relation to each other. If they're all phased into small groups, they would have no problem at all handling one million players on a "Server"
You keep saying this, but the only documentation I can find supports what Icewhite said. 100K - Not one million. The OP was referring to making three servers or so, based on pvp, pve, etc. So, if all the players are phased into small groups, wouldn't that defeat the purpose??? Why not phase the players into groups... kind like... SERVERS, this way, it takes the load off of the hardware and keeps the game playable.
This is a ridiculous post anyway. There are so many servers to keep the game experience enjoyable. Trust me, if you couldn't log in for 3-5 days, you really wouldn't care about the number of servers. You'd just want to be in game.
I can't log in right now. Waiting in line. Wish they'd make a new cluster for me...
Exactly... they're adding more servers to attempt to accomidate new players. If it were all one server, your wait (which is prolly what? 25-30 mins?) Would be several days. On top of that, with one server, if the fucker goes down, then what? At least now if a server goes down, you could make a character on another sever to waste some time. Think of 1 milliion people trying to authenticate an account on one sever.... crashing would be rampant.
Well, it first must be physically possible to do what you suggest. While it isn't, there's not much point in discussing the idea, is there?
Why is it physically impossible? Computers are technical devices not constrained by physical limitation, only human imagination.
Lol?
I don't know whether to take that statement seriously or not, but... Computers are limited by the physical world, even if it is on a microscopic level. Heck, heat output is a physical limitation and that's something you can measure with your bare skin. They aren't just imagination boxes that can create and hold limitless amounts of information. Hardrives can only hold so much static data, memory can only support so many concurrent programs and user connections. Why do you think the first computers were the size of university classrooms?
there are many examples in history of people claiming things were physically impossible, only to be overcome by human imagination and ingenuity.
True. But your statement was that comptuers aren't physically constrained, which they are. At some point we might be able to manufacture a computer whose limitations are so minimal as to be completely insignificant, but until that time we can physically measure when a device will fail, either through overheating or filling up disk space.
Note, I'm contradicting that we can't have all the players on one server, just attempting to correct a flaw in your argument for why.
It's NOT really highly instanced, and lets use the obvious example. Eve only has one server. Fights in Eve basically turn into clip-fests. No thanks.
Now for the obvious answer, because there are queues, there need to be more servers. (this is the second time I've had a queue, the first outside of prime weekend time)
But it is highly instanced. If you look up at the top left of the screen it says the zone and some number like 100. That's the number of people in the zone. Do you honestly believe there's only a few copies of that zone on launch day? There could be 30 copies of that zone or more.
Why are there even cues? Just make more instances.
If you have several hundred million dollars to make a game wouldn't it be possible to have a computer that could generate thousands of instanced zones...or as many as were needed?
It's not a single computer, it's actually a cluster of servers working together.
Exactly, thank you. So if you have 100's of millions of dollars, it's just a matter of buying the right amount of clusters then?
Yes, you could probably create thousands of layers (instancing or phasing) for the same zone, that is not the problem.
The problem is that you can only reliably have ONE DATABASE supporting all those layers. And if there are too many simultaneous transactions being fired at the database, things go very horribly wrong.
Ahhh...this is the first thing that is starting to make sense to me. Even though there's lots of copies, one database for all. So each server has it's own database.
Indeed, you're getting the picture
You could (in theory) also duplicate the database along with the instances and then sync the copies at regular intervals, but it is so incredibly risky that no sane systems guy would contemplate it. Think along the lines of dissappearing inventory items, lost XP, quests resetting, etc.
And besides, the system load that will occur during the synchronization will cancel any advantage of the instancing in the first place.
Actually you just preempted my next question. If the problem is the database, why not do the same as in the virtual world. As soon as demand gets to heavy, create instances within the database. I could imagine how that could be disasterous though.
Look.. i'm sure if there were a way to do this with the current batch of tech, it would have been done. I mean really, these companies hate opening a ton of servers, as when and if you have to merge them, it's choas with the players. However, I would much rather have a smooth running game then have them try to find a way to jam more people on the servers, impacting my gaming experience. I mean, how many people does a TOR server hold? You honestly need more?
How many does a TOR server hold?
I wish it could hold 1 more right now
lol, I hope you get in soon - I'd give you my spot if I could.
The Hero Engine can actually support this, quite easily.
HE claims to be capable of hosting 100k players at once. Thus far, the claim is untested, because there isn't any hardware capable of handling that many players in this sort of environment.
HE claims to be able to support over one million. And we're not talking about a single piece of hardware here. Each "server" is actually a cluster of servers, perfectly capable of handling that many players. The only limitation is where the players are at in relation to each other. If they're all phased into small groups, they would have no problem at all handling one million players on a "Server"
You keep saying this, but the only documentation I can find supports what Icewhite said. 100K - Not one million. The OP was referring to making three servers or so, based on pvp, pve, etc. So, if all the players are phased into small groups, wouldn't that defeat the purpose??? Why not phase the players into groups... kind like... SERVERS, this way, it takes the load off of the hardware and keeps the game playable.
This is a ridiculous post anyway. There are so many servers to keep the game experience enjoyable. Trust me, if you couldn't log in for 3-5 days, you really wouldn't care about the number of servers. You'd just want to be in game.
I can't log in right now. Waiting in line. Wish they'd make a new cluster for me...
Exactly... they're adding more servers to attempt to accomidate new players. If it were all one server, your wait (which is prolly what? 25-30 mins?) Would be several days. On top of that, with one server, if the fucker goes down, then what? At least now if a server goes down, you could make a character on another sever to waste some time. Think of 1 milliion people trying to authenticate an account on one sever.... crashing would be rampant.
Well, you raise a good point. There's always the option of making a character on a lower pop server.
If you're really interseted, PM me and I'll go through the documentation provided to me when I got my Hero Engine license. They clearly state that you could have over 1 million, there truly is no limit if you really wanted to take advantage of phasing.
lol you link an article that is over 2 1/2 years old to try to contradict me? Seriously, please try harder. I'm correct, you are incorrect. If you truly want to know, the information is available.
Comments
Computers are limited by the physical world, even if it is on a microscopic level. Heck, heat output is a physical limitation and that's something you can measure with your bare skin. They aren't just imagination boxes that can create and hold limitless amounts of information. Hardrives can only hold so much static data, memory can only support so many concurrent programs and user connections. Why do you think the first computers were the size of university classrooms?
Edit - Took out some unecessarily rude statements.
the instancing is only in the early worlds so this is more akin to Aion in that fashion. After that it is a traditional MMO world setup in terms of zones/planets
You have to think like a network engineer. Single point of failure. The more people you cram onto a single cluster, the more people are pissed off when the cluster goes down. We run virtual servers on clusters here and each host costs over $150K ~ and they aren't very big ones either. We run at most six virtual servers per cluster for the simple fact that if a cluster fails we lost as little as possible.
No the instancing is everywhere. Stop spreading lies. You may not see it at higher levels as there may have not been enough people during beta at those levels to cause more than one instance to be created.
GW had millions of players all on the same 'server'.
The only difference between all those servers and a single server is the ability to instantly transfer from one community to the next, and name sharing.
Bioware simply doesn't have the expertise to do the newer stuff. So they went with the traditional isolated shards. But then they instanced them. CoH does this as well, but once again you don't notice it much because there has to be like 100 players in the zone before another instance is created.
there are many examples in history of people claiming things were physically impossible, only to be overcome by human imagination and ingenuity.
Each copy would still be stored in the harddrive/memory on the server ( s ) somewhere. Each copy getting their own cozy peice of storgage.
I don't know anything about how games flow though but I assume some parts of what we see must be on the server somewhere.
If this is the case, it doesn't matter how much instancing there is there is still a physical limit.
You keep saying this, but the only documentation I can find supports what Icewhite said. 100K - Not one million. The OP was referring to making three servers or so, based on pvp, pve, etc. So, if all the players are phased into small groups, wouldn't that defeat the purpose??? Why not phase the players into groups... kind like... SERVERS, this way, it takes the load off of the hardware and keeps the game playable.
This is a ridiculous post anyway. There are so many servers to keep the game experience enjoyable. Trust me, if you couldn't log in for 3-5 days, you really wouldn't care about the number of servers. You'd just want to be in game.
I honestly wonder how many game companies spent anything like 100 million dollars on their entire server farms, total.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Indeed, you're getting the picture
You could (in theory) also duplicate the database along with the instances and then sync the copies at regular intervals, but it is so incredibly risky that no sane systems guy would contemplate it. Think along the lines of dissappearing inventory items, lost XP, quests resetting, etc.
And besides, the system load that will occur during the synchronization will cancel any advantage of the instancing in the first place.
Probably because they are all jam packed full with 300 person queue's....at 11 in the morning.
Documentation please. GW claimed to have sold millions of boxes (over seven years), I sincerely doubt they ever had, at any point in time, millions of players online at the same time...let alone on the same server.
I await data.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
It actually isn't likely to increase the cost. The only negative here is the single point of failure, definitely a no-no in the networking world.
Actually you just preempted my next question. If the problem is the database, why not do the same as in the virtual world. As soon as demand gets to heavy, create instances within the database. I could imagine how that could be disasterous though.
If you're really interseted, PM me and I'll go through the documentation provided to me when I got my Hero Engine license. They clearly state that you could have over 1 million, there truly is no limit if you really wanted to take advantage of phasing.
I can't log in right now. Waiting in line. Wish they'd make a new cluster for me...
This is true, heading towards 40 now and have never seen an instance have more than 100 odd in it, my guess is that the cap is set to 200. Good news is that instance population is something that can be changed on the fly requiring no more than a server restart for downtime. I imagine they'll tweak how many per instance over the next few weeks.
Illum should not be instanced, yet it is and will likely make the place boring.
Look.. i'm sure if there were a way to do this with the current batch of tech, it would have been done. I mean really, these companies hate opening a ton of servers, as when and if you have to merge them, it's choas with the players. However, I would much rather have a smooth running game then have them try to find a way to jam more people on the servers, impacting my gaming experience. I mean, how many people does a TOR server hold? You honestly need more?
All right, here's the original announcement that's contrary. http://www.cinemablend.com/games/HeroEngine-Now-Sports-100-000-Players-In-One-World-16431.html
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
How many does a TOR server hold?
I wish it could hold 1 more right now
Exactly... they're adding more servers to attempt to accomidate new players. If it were all one server, your wait (which is prolly what? 25-30 mins?) Would be several days. On top of that, with one server, if the fucker goes down, then what? At least now if a server goes down, you could make a character on another sever to waste some time. Think of 1 milliion people trying to authenticate an account on one sever.... crashing would be rampant.
True. But your statement was that comptuers aren't physically constrained, which they are. At some point we might be able to manufacture a computer whose limitations are so minimal as to be completely insignificant, but until that time we can physically measure when a device will fail, either through overheating or filling up disk space.
Note, I'm contradicting that we can't have all the players on one server, just attempting to correct a flaw in your argument for why.
lol, I hope you get in soon - I'd give you my spot if I could.
Well, you raise a good point. There's always the option of making a character on a lower pop server.
lol you link an article that is over 2 1/2 years old to try to contradict me? Seriously, please try harder. I'm correct, you are incorrect. If you truly want to know, the information is available.