Well the thing is they already have the instancing technology and have actively used it in the Sea of Clouds/Churning Mists on some servers. Why this can't be made a permanent feature is well...a mystery. Personally I do think you should be able to "phase" with another player by simply selecting their name in the various UI's but that really shouldn't be that hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by KisaiTenshi
Heck instancing could easily allow for more housing spots too. For example player A having a house on Rowena Avenue (completely made up) in instance 1 and player B also having that plot but in phase 2.
You don't even need to have private anything just open up more instances for populated zones. That's the beauty of the system and why a Mega-Server is used in the first place; to allow everyone play and interact with each other in the same region.
Server Lockouts are limiting the growth of this game.
Printable View
-
07-09-2015, 02:51 PMSuperskull85
-
07-09-2015, 03:02 PMseidaI don't think this is actually true though, unless they changed it. When my friend wanted to transfer to Tonberry, it took a few days because Tonberry was unavailable in the transfer list, and she had to wait until it appeared.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaedan94
-
07-09-2015, 03:16 PMpapichulo123
they should allow free world transfers to lower populated servers!!!!!
-
07-09-2015, 04:39 PMNadirahPeople gravitate to full realms for various reasons and even Blizzard admitted free transfers off don't solve the problem because people don't want to leave for those same reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvanoshi
Server hardware has outright limits to capacity. It's a fact. Took me two days to get a toon made on Excalibur. I was fine with this.
It's preferablecto the laggy crashfests and 3 hour waits to log in otherwise. Go play on say, Illidan or Stormrage andctry to log in during prime time after a patch and you'll see why I prefer it this way. -
07-09-2015, 04:42 PMKisaiTenshiThe problem with instances is limited resources. You need to be able to "spin up" and "spin down" instances. When you stick stuff like that in the context of housing, you are creating permanent resource losses, because now you can't spin down the map when nobody is in it, it has to run in perpetuity. The correct thing to do in a different game would be to "stretch" the map, eg adding new cells between point A and point B. Throw in a convenient excuse like a Volcano or Earthquake, and you're done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Superskull85
But to go back a bit, this is something that only works when there isn't a "minecraft" like of component. To overcome that in such a game actually requires overlapping protection cells.
EG the cells occupied by A housing and B housing overlap at point C which is a protection buffer. To build anything in the protection buffer cells, requires an agreement between A and B cells. Should A or B be permanently removed, the protection cell will still exist unless both are removed, if both are spun back up at a later date (say a single person walks into A, through point C to B) it would be seamless as if they had never been spun down.
At any rate, real-world technology has existed for decades for solving "how do you put everyone in the world on the same network", because that's exactly how the GSM system works, albeit much more complicated than I'm describing, and also how the current LTE cellular system works. Everyone gets a unique ISMI (that's your "client device") and a IMEI (That's the subscriber identity module) and your permission to use any cell in the world is determined by your ISMI connecting to the network and the IMEI connecting to your carrier for permission to be charged. Your "home" registar is where your phone number is unique (eg NPA-NXX) and you're registered as a "visitor" whenever you go somewhere else. They also do "instancing" by having multiple frequencies, and CDMA works by everyone speaking at the same time but different languages. So capacity only declines by simply not having enough smaller cells instead of trying to build large cells.
Therefor, you get better use of hardware by having the ability to spin up and spin down small cells than large ones. A cell could be as small as a room, or as large as a cow pasture, it just depends how many many people are going to be consistantly present. This is where "virtualization" actually would work as promised. In practice, game companies have been making awful use of virtualization, choosing to instead put MORE instances on the same equipment to save costs rather than spinning up smaller instances on-demand.
Anyway, to go back to the OP's question. FFXIV's V1.0 had super-large cells (basically all of Ul'dah was one.) While V2.0's maps were all cut up into about 5 pieces each. Consider how copy-pasta the V1.0's landscape was, this was actually for the better, as it removed a bunch of nonsense from the Shroud and from Limsa. It also allowed them to actually create unique towns where once was just two tents and a Crystal. -
07-09-2015, 04:45 PMGideonHighmourn
I completely agree. I've lost two friends to this issue, as I play on Hyperion. Telling them to wake up at 3am to create a character, or to create a character on another server and then pay to transfer, are not viable alternatives
Server technology needs to be upgraded, or more viable alternatives need to be introduced (Friend Codes).
There's no reason for me to refer-a-friend if they can't (easily and reasonably) create a character on my server. -
07-09-2015, 05:38 PMsirDartsThe amount of people wanting to play on a highly populated server, most of the time for no real reason: GIANTQuote:
Originally Posted by Adire
The amount of people willing to pay money to play on a highly populated server, especially without a real reason: Close to none
Some odd hundred people added to Balmug or Excalibur won't crash it, thousands could. So yeah, it does make sense.
Actually the only issue the server limitation creates is for people who want to play with their actual friends.
But allowing people to get into a high populated server just because they use a reference code would just lead to abuse of the reference system. -
07-09-2015, 05:59 PMTehZombzOr merge the lower servers together :)Quote:
Originally Posted by papichulo123
-
07-09-2015, 06:25 PMmagdahmhara
Mega servers/instance servers kill RP. What happens to the RP servers then?
-
07-09-2015, 06:33 PMAdireSounds like a poor excuse to milk money from people. A one time per year transfer with a 1 character limit per account on overpopulated servers or some such would work equally as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by sirDarts
Paying extra to play with friends and bypass limitations is quite distasteful. This archaic server structure is bad when a huge part of playing MMOs is playing with other people, like friends.