AFTER 10 HOURS SERVERS FULL??

[Knovah]

This is what I'm having trouble understanding: "if those login numbers still surpass the maximum number of possible logins in the various Worlds, please be aware that we will continue to implement login restrictions."

Why would you reduce the login numbers below the server's intended login capacity? Why intentionally lock out customers you admit your servers can handle?

Also: "Although it is possible to add several new Worlds due to load balancing on servers, an increased number of players able to login simultaneously to various Worlds, and New Character Creation being possible again on various Worlds as a result of this maintenance, we will only be adding a minimal number of Worlds at this time directly after maintenance."

Does anyone else interpret this as basically saying, "We didn't feel like paying for new servers, so we just jimmied the load balancing a little and took bandwidth from the overcrowded worlds and allocated it to new, empty worlds"? Seems to me that'd actually make the problem worse as bandwidth is being diverted from the overpopulated worlds that need MORE bandwidth and server capacity over to new, empty worlds that most certainly do not. I get the feeling that this is sorta nothing more than slapping a Band-Aid on a gaping chest wound.

I took it as:
The worlds have a very high population and everyone logging in at once will cause a melt down and further down time.

The world thing my take on it is this ….I played rift during its launch till recently and they were filled to the brim sort of same situation at first…. and they started throwing servers at the problem.. Well once the initial new game smell wore off we had a bunch of low pop servers and people whining…..
I am thinking they are waiting to see if this solves the problem and you can get a healthy population without doing all that. Most games have those that flock to it rush rush rush do all they can in game, complain on forums and leave for another game (or old game that has added new content) all within first month…

It is not ideal situation and not best way to handle it but any way they handle it will be a backlash from some in the community

* this is just how I see it everyone will see it how ever but this is how I am justifying it to myself lol


* btw I just got in Cerberus with no line no waiting and no problem for first time... I waited till just now and all the complaining on forums died down to go in...

[naardejood]

I took it as:
The worlds have a very high population and everyone logging in at once will cause a melt down and further down time.

The world thing my take on it is this ….I played rift during its launch till recently and they were filled to the brim sort of same situation at first…. and they started throwing servers at the problem.. Well once the initial new game smell wore off we had a bunch of low pop servers and people whining…..
I am thinking they are waiting to see if this solves the problem and you can get a healthy population without doing all that. Most games have those that flock to it rush rush rush do all they can in game, complain on forums and leave for another game (or old game that has added new content) all within first month…

It is not ideal situation and not best way to handle it but any way they handle it will be a backlash from some in the community

* this is just how I see it everyone will see it how ever but this is how I am justifying it to myself lol


* btw I just got in Cerberus with no line no waiting and no problem for first time... I waited till just now and all the complaining on forums died down to go in...

My issue with the whole "server meltdown" idea is that Squeenix knows exactly what login numbers look like (every service on the internet has metrics for this sort of thing) and they know exactly what their servers can handle. It's clearly indicated in the hardware's specs. You can't really "overload" the hardware by accident without intentionally telling the hardware to accept more incoming connections than it's programmed to handle. You can only push so much data down a wire and the hardware on the other end of that wire is engineered specifically to handle that quantity of date. If more people than the servers can physically handle attempt to log in then they'll just get turned down by the routers.

I had a contract with an MMO publisher of note for four months, and their policy was to launch with a good deal more server capacity than they expected to need to prevent these sorts of issues. From my understanding, a lot of these large hardware contracts have deals with their server and network hardware providers that allow them to return underutilized hardware within the first three months for a partial, if not complete, refund, allowing them to OVER-provide without worrying that much about the cost. I'm sure Squeenix has the same sort of setup with whoever's providing their hardware. It's all also under warranty, so there shouldn't be any real concern for testing and whatnot beyond what the hardware specs indicate. All that testing is already done for them by the manufacturer.

Even if they end up with more worlds than they need, that's what server merges are for.

[Zanetsuken]

My issue with the whole "server meltdown" idea is that Squeenix knows exactly what login numbers look like (every service on the internet has metrics for this sort of thing) and they know exactly what their servers can handle. It's clearly indicated in the hardware's specs. You can't really "overload" the hardware by accident without intentionally telling the hardware to accept more incoming connections than it's programmed to handle. You can only push so much data down a wire and the hardware on the other end of that wire is engineered specifically to handle that quantity of date. If more people than the servers can physically handle attempt to log in then they'll just get turned down by the routers.

I had a contract with an MMO publisher of note for four months, and their policy was to launch with a good deal more server capacity than they expected to need to prevent these sorts of issues. From my understanding, a lot of these large hardware contracts have deals with their server and network hardware providers that allow them to return underutilized hardware within the first three months for a partial, if not complete, refund, allowing them to OVER-provide without worrying that much about the cost. I'm sure Squeenix has the same sort of setup with whoever's providing their hardware. It's all also under warranty, so there shouldn't be any real concern for testing and whatnot beyond what the hardware specs indicate. All that testing is already done for them by the manufacturer.

Even if they end up with more worlds than they need, that's what server merges are for.

Ahh the SW:TOR way of launching.

Worked well for them...until the free playtime was over and their playerbase vanished.

Server merges are useful, but it's hardly a shining endorsement when you have to merge worlds in the first 90 days (using your contract suggestion).

We're still inside the first 30 days.

[Arminus]

Ahh the SW:TOR way of launching.

Worked well for them...until the free playtime was over and their playerbase vanished.

Server merges are useful, but it's hardly a shining endorsement when you have to merge worlds in the first 90 days (using your contract suggestion).

We're still inside the first 30 days.

At least is shows confidence in your product, even if half the population ditches later down the road at least show some confidence in your product.

[MarkKatt]

Meanwhile, during the duration of the stated restrictions, my trial days will continue to tick down for a product I haven't even played yet. Speaking of which, mine is still sitting at 23 days, where's the 7 days that they said they'd give immediately following maintenance?

Just stop playing the game, you're hurting my brain.

[MynxLynx]

Even if they end up with more worlds than they need, that's what server merges are for.

Players do not like merges. Merges cause all kinds of conflicts and the result is even more people leaving. In EQ2 my server was merged three times in the span of a couple years. Each time the economy, community, name database and achievement lists were left in shambles. We had guilds who obtained world firsts leave the game forever because they lost their achievements. We had players who lost their names leave forever due to broken hearts. We had crafters leave due to the huge influx of new crafters due to markets being flooded resulting in abysmal prices. Do merges sound so wonderful now? If one or more of the above happened to you would you continue to play with the same enthusiasm? If they can find the right balance for the existing servers they won't have to read forum threads crying for merges(like you constantly find on battle.net).

[naardejood]

Ahh the SW:TOR way of launching.

Worked well for them...until the free playtime was over and their playerbase vanished.

Server merges are useful, but it's hardly a shining endorsement when you have to merge worlds in the first 90 days (using your contract suggestion).

We're still inside the first 30 days.

Just about everything that happens after the first week of a game's sales, online or otherwise, is irrelevant. Investors base their forecasts on preorders and first-week sales and financial investment is how companies like Squeenix make their money, not on providing products or services.

After that first week, I'm sure Squeenix won't really give a shit about much of anything when it comes to *any* game. It's sad, but that's just sort of the reality of the industry. After the initial, "Look at how amazing our game is doing! Our servers are always full!" the investors will dump their money into the company and wait for the dividends to roll in until something catastrophic happens that threatens their principal investment.

Aside from that, MMO publishers that use a standard retail model make most of their money off boxed sales and not from subscriptions. They can pull down as many servers as they want to keep in line with subscription income. Even if the game fails entirely after a few months, they've already made their profit off preorders, boxed/digital sales and investments. That's why they were willing to let people play 1.0 for free for months and months and months. It was more profitable to keep the server load up and keep investors thinking that things are going well.

[klaud_litah]

Were is the fix for people who bought the game on psn europe 27th and 28th august
???????eight days and still says no valide or active service.....F********

[Knovah]

My issue with the whole "server meltdown" idea is that Squeenix knows exactly what login numbers look like (every service on the internet has metrics for this sort of thing) and they know exactly what their servers can handle. It's clearly indicated in the hardware's specs. You can't really "overload" the hardware by accident without intentionally telling the hardware to accept more incoming connections than it's programmed to handle. You can only push so much data down a wire and the hardware on the other end of that wire is engineered specifically to handle that quantity of date. If more people than the servers can physically handle attempt to log in then they'll just get turned down by the routers.

I had a contract with an MMO publisher of note for four months, and their policy was to launch with a good deal more server capacity than they expected to need to prevent these sorts of issues. From my understanding, a lot of these large hardware contracts have deals with their server and network hardware providers that allow them to return underutilized hardware within the first three months for a partial, if not complete, refund, allowing them to OVER-provide without worrying that much about the cost. I'm sure Squeenix has the same sort of setup with whoever's providing their hardware. It's all also under warranty, so there shouldn't be any real concern for testing and whatnot beyond what the hardware specs indicate. All that testing is already done for them by the manufacturer.

Even if they end up with more worlds than they need, that's what server merges are for.

While what you say may be true, I don’t know I am a nurse not a computer tech, in my honest opinion server merges suck and games try to avoid it …AOC, Rift, SWTOR, all started with tons of serves and had same issues.
People flocked to the forums to scream more servers more servers… then they flocked to the forums to scream NO population merges merge…. then they flocked to the forums to complain about ruining the economy... I lost my name … not fair this how come we have to merge make them merge …. And so on and so on…
So yes what you say can be done and is a quick fix I am sure but I am against server merges right off…just incites people to doom and gloom predictions and more not fair posts (we have enough of those already)… sometimes it is not about what they can do and speculating what they have or don’t have sometimes it is just watching past history…Just how I feel on the situation

[Genmu]

Epic fail as predicted, I was pretty sure this was only a band-aid and was right.