IT folks, realistically what can SE do to alleviate the current situation?

[UsagiAndCrepes]

I don't think you need to be an IT person to have some inclination. Just some common sense and familiarity with the modern world. There are even non computer technologies where you can reason by analogy that shutting everything down or stopping in response to a momentary loss of control is probably not the best solution. Right?

Realistically I doubt they can address the problem in short order. What seems to be going on is that they never designed to properly scale up to large player volumes. It would probably require some messy work that needed to be scheduled way in advance which is probably why they don't have a quick solution.

In either case the client doesn't need to shut down if there is packet loss. You know this too, you use the internet, you use apps. What happens when there are connection problems, does everything just shut down? Probably not.

How do other services handle large user volumes? Multiple entry points, letting the responsiveness lag, multiple retry connections on error, maybe they even shut down the connection and then reconnect at agreed upon intervals all automatically.

Either way it's unfathomable why a lobby needs a perfect and responsive connection to each client. Unless they just didn't design it with scaling to larger numbers in mind. I doubt they can easily redesign it, and I doubt new hardware can fix what is probably some kind of network bottleneck they need to software engineer around.

Realistically maybe they can make it so the game doesn't crash to desktop on 2002 and maybe make it so that there is a better memory for queue placement, or even that it tracks queue vs playtime and prioritizes people with higher queue proportions to the front of the queue. If that's too much they could add a special error sound for 2002, 3001 and so on errors, so people don't need to have the queue up the whole time.

In the long term they should invest in redesigning their network stuff and even to the point that we can see more people in an area at once and they don't pop in/out as much. Because it's possible the number of users just keeps on growing this decade.

[Hasrat]

Took some digging, but I was sure it was there, and here, back at the end of August, they had already mentioned their efforts to increase login caps and attempts to mitigate congestion.

All things considered, it gives me the impression that they may be at the limit of what they can improve without more physical hardware.

[Lanadra]

remove the queue limit?

The limit.. and the 2002.. are there to ensure it doesn't go down entirely due to overload.

[Zsolen]

Took some digging, but I was sure it was there, and here, back at the end of August, they had already mentioned their efforts to increase login caps and attempts to mitigate congestion.

All things considered, it gives me the impression that they may be at the limit of what they can improve without more physical hardware.

I knew there would be issues, because of the hardware and current popularity. SE knew it. We knew it. Some people buried their heads in the sand. It was unavoidable.

There are major issues with hardware worldwide right now, and an MMO is the least of the first world problems over this shortage. SE is just as powerless as we are. We're on the same ship.

[Dyvid]

If this were my software team, we would be:

* Investigating programmatic changes to the login queue to alleviate the 2002 issue. The one thing we can control is our own code, so that's the place to start.
* Contacting the IT vender we ordered the servers from (the OCE data center servers) and asking if we can jump the line for twice the price, paid to the other clients we'd be skipping. (This might not be legal.)

That's really all they can do.

Yea, I have no problem staying in a queue, it's getting kicked and hour in then starting over.

I guess SE is going to need to make some hard decision. No new server is coming and everyone in the queue is supposedly a paying customer, the only option they have is people quitting to free up room. The only way to do that is offer free refunds to any who want it. People who are vested most likely won't quit but people who just bought the game most likely will.

Another distasteful option is unannounced rolling world restarts to remove all the botting characters from the worlds; not just normal players but we know RMT is working it 24/7.

[Dewslam]

Hot take: play time caps. Hard limit of twelve hours a day or something. Stop letting people queue for duties at ten so you can ensure people aren't in content when it happens.

[Kes13a]

I have another idea that likely won't be popular, but I think would be the most fair solution: Ration everyone's playtime. Temporarily implement a daily playtime limit of X hours, and enforce it at the service account level. The limit could be increased, then eventually removed as the surge dies down. This would help deter AFKers, as going AFK would still count against your limited playtime. They could also incentivise playing during off-peak hours (I.e. early morning) by giving you an extra hour or two of playtime that can only be used during off-peak hours.

To start, perhaps they could give you 3 normal hours (Can be used any time of the day), plus 2 off-peak hours (Can only be used during off-peak hours), for 5 hours total per day if you are willing and able to play during off-peak hours.

so, instead of just ticking off people in the queue, now add in anyone that can get into the game? not to mention the amount of coding needed to be done to even allow this?

I know, you think "its easy peasy, just have a timer start when you get into the game"

sure... why not. but then, what if you are in the middle of a dungeon? a cutscene? obviously have to code in things to not log you out in those cases. and then code in how much time after those events, and code the events to be taken into consideration.

you are playing, game is working great, you get to a new area... and your time expires.. but DONT WORRY, you can run through the queue later during off hours to continue your journey for 2 hours... or you get in at night... and after 2 hours off peak.. booted..

yeah, that dog dont hunt as they say. all that would do is annoy the rest of the player base.

[Dewslam]

so, instead of just ticking off people in the queue, now add in anyone that can get into the game? not to mention the amount of coding needed to be done to even allow this?

I know, you think "its easy peasy, just have a timer start when you get into the game"

sure... why not. but then, what if you are in the middle of a dungeon? a cutscene? obviously have to code in things to not log you out in those cases. and then code in how much time after those events, and code the events to be taken into consideration.

you are playing, game is working great, you get to a new area... and your time expires.. but DONT WORRY, you can run through the queue later during off hours to continue your journey for 2 hours... or you get in at night... and after 2 hours off peak.. booted..

yeah, that dog dont hunt as they say. all that would do is annoy the rest of the player base.

It's fun how quickly people turn to "Fuck you got mine" when the solution to a problem involves being considerate of others who don't have any of what you do. People will always be delightfully selfish and self centered creatures.

[Ibage]

It's fun how quickly people turn to "Fuck you got mine" when the solution to a problem involves being considerate of others who don't have any of what you do. People will always be delightfully selfish and self centered creatures.

This isn't a problem for the players to solve or fix. The consumer shouldn't have to control how the service is delivered to other consumers.
Both players in this theoretical situation are paying for a service. Neither are responsible for the other one to get access to the service they paid for. This is up to Square to fix. Being selfish or not has nothing to do with it. Square is the party to be held responsible in this situation.

[GlaiveSuperior]

Bear with me on this idea, their play servers have a cap, and once over you get a queue. This leads me to wonder if they can apply the same to the log server. The log server by their own information is full at 17000 players in queue, this leads to 2002 errors and possible instability causing the packet loss errors.

Might be possible to add a second Q, click start, get a small Q to the logging server, once that lets you in you click for your server and its Q.

The second Q would be annoying but may make for a more stable experience on the play server Q, just a thought