I hope SE learns a few lessons from this.

Sure, it's a waste of money to invest in bigger servers just for launches.

You know what's not a waste of money? Designing the msq to not bottleneck an hour in. Or implementing a quick fix that doesn't screw over 99% of the playerbase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reynhart

They learned...that it was only temporary and a waste of ressource to have bigger server 24/7

---

Agree... so Let's players scream, make tantrums for a few days because it will save them money in a long run. Even free to play like GW2 have much better server and they dont put they server down to patch the game. When a patch comes the Launcher auntomatically detects it, disconect, download and keep playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronyx

Agree... so Let's players scream, make tantrums for a few days because it will save them money in a long run. Even free to play like GW2 have much better server and they dont put they server down to patch the game. When a patch comes the Launcher auntomatically detects it, disconect, download and keep playing.

---

Thank you.

The white knights on here don't seem to realize expansions today are not like 2004 in other games....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lambdafish

They did, the issue is that we are experiencing an extreme (and very temporary) load, extra servers would be a waste of resources.



WoW is literally the only one I can think of, and this game doesn't have the resources that WoW has. Even then, every WoW expansion except legion experienced problems.



See the first point.


This is standard for MMO expansions, anyone who thinks that they are entitled to anything, or that this is extreme is woefully naive/uninformed. I didn't take the day off because I anticipated some sort of server stability issue (because that makes sense).

---

Actually Sir, neither world of tanks nor world or warships, nor armored warfare have had this problem in years. Mond you, we're taling about only perhaps four million people per game, but, there you go.. Adding to the list is Mabinogi which hasnt had these types of issues in at least seven years, and that game is managed by Nexon..

FFXIV uses old architecture, plain and simple.

For FFXIV, each server is a physical machine running one copy of the game's server software. You login to a server, and all of your interactions occur on that server. There may be some sharding for instances/duty finder, but if so there's apparently finite resources allocated to those.

GW2 and ESO do not have these problems because of their modern architecture. Every map is an instance, and when one instance is full, they spin up another one. They can probably run 20-30 such instances on one host, and can dynamically provision new hosts automatically when demand is high.

That's how pretty much all modern online services are built whether they're games, social media networks, live streaming services, etc. In FFXIV's case, SE didn't build it that way and it's probably not worth the cost of overhauling the backend to handle a few days every 2 years of heavy load.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nethodd

GW2 and ESO do not have these problems because of their modern architecture. Every map is an instance, and when one instance is full, they spin up another one. They can probably run 20-30 such instances on one host, and can dynamically provision new hosts automatically when demand is high.

That's how pretty much all modern online services are built whether they're games, social media networks, live streaming services, etc. In FFXIV's case, SE didn't build it that way and it's probably not worth the cost of overhauling the backend to handle a few days every 2 years of heavy load.

---

The infrastructure's been bad from the very start, so bad that anyone changing zones in 1.X could cause the entire server to hitch. I pity the newer people that have to work with framework that awful.