City of Heroes: Live Forum Archive

Speculation: When will the server merge happen?

Adeon Hawkwood

By Adeon Hawkwood,
Posted on: 2010-01-10 14:32 in Suggestions and Ideas

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis_Bill View Post
A long, long labor?
Wasn't labour day a holiday of some sort?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcanaville View Post
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow View Post
Wasn't labour day a holiday of some sort?
I think so. I don't think I've ever been in a job that had it off though. So the point of it has always been lost on me.

Anyways, something I do find interesting in the OP's post. One of the tactics I've taken to in my writings, and something you'll find in several analytic writings from the likes of Gartner or Morgan-Stanley, is the deliberate use of verb tenses to support ones point of view. For example, when addressing game developers and publishers now, I stopped asking if there would be a Linux Client for their games. I started asking WHEN a client was going to be released. It's 2009 (now 2010), and even Microsoft admitted last year the Linux desktop market was larger than Apple, a claim Apple, of all companies, did not contest... Given Apple's love of marketshare, if they were told they were #3 in a market-share where they thought they were #2? That should have caused some-sort of firestorm. It didn't.

The technique of changing up verbs and using definitive verbs rather than questioning verbs is a great way to catch PR reps off guard, since questioning verbs allow a competent spokesperson to form a vauge answer. It's often a good feeling to watch a PR rep trip over their tongue as they figure out how to answer a definitive question rather than one that leaves them open to being vague.

It's also a great way to forward an unpopular idea. I think it's quite clear from the backlash that occurs everytime a server merge is brought up that the majority of the game doesn't want a merge. By treating the server merge as a definite event, rather than an questionable event, changes the focus of the question. Since the players don't know the developers long term plans, they are effectively excised from answering the original question properly.

In the same manner, a developer or a moderator cannot step up and say that server merges are not going to happen. When the development team instituted paid transfers to the game, they had to issue the boilerplate warnings that at some point in the future the game could go server-less or some of the servers could be merged. Essentially the developers cannot confirm, or deny, that server-merges won't happen. Server-merges aren't planned, but, just because the dev-staff doesn't intend to merge, does not mean that they are setting up the infrastructure and capabilities if they have to merge... or again, go server-less with a cloud-computing style of game hosting.

Now, we, as players, can be pretty sure that a server-less cloud-style enviroment isn't in the game's immediate future. Unless something has changed with the Going Rogue development, the actual servers are still running Microsoft software underneath... and... come on... Microsoft can't do cloud computing. They really can't do server-computing that well either, but hey, what's a little maintence time every week.

So with players unable to effectively answer a definitive question on when Server Merges will happen, and the developement staff (probably) unable to commit to an answer on whether or not server merges would, or could happen... the lack of a direct answer basically enables the original poster, or those convinced merges will happen "soon", to have a thread they can point to where the idea of a server merge wasn't actually shot down.

... with that said, to repeat myself from planetside.

DEATH BEFORE MERGE! KONRIED FOREVER!

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by je_saist View Post
When the development team instituted paid transfers to the game, they had to issue the boilerplate warnings that at some point in the future the game could go server-less or some of the servers could be merged.
No. What they actually said in their warning was that IF at some point in the far and distant future there ever came a time that the game was changed to a serverless enviroment the company would not refund any money spent on server transfers.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project View Post
No. What they actually said in their warning was that IF at some point in the far and distant future there ever came a time that the game was changed to a serverless enviroment the company would not refund any money spent on server transfers.
*head tilts*

okay, aside from replacing the part about not refunding money spent on transfers with standard boilerplate warnings, how is this different from the way I phrased it?

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by je_saist View Post
*head tilts*

okay, aside from replacing the part about not refunding money spent on transfers with standard boilerplate warnings, how is this different from the way I phrased it?
Because it gives the wrong impression. The statement at that time was made to address the issue of refunds, and when that part isn't included it subtly changes the context of what was said and why.

The devs rarely come out and say, "No. This will never happen", and this was one of those times. What they were saying was that even if one of those two situations occurred the purchase of server transfers are final. Refunds will not happen.

If there hadn't been a lot of wild speculation and arguments going on odds are they wouldn't have even made that statement because to most rational people it's obvious. Of course rationality isn't often seen on the internet.


Just curious, would my response have sat better with you if I had said "Not entirely correct, what they actually said . . ." instead of "No. What they actually said . . ."

If so, I'll try to keep that in mind for the future.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project View Post
Because it gives the wrong impression. The statement at that time was made to address the issue of refunds, and when that part isn't included it subtly changes the context of what was said and why.

The devs rarely come out and say, "No. This will never happen", and this was one of those times. What they were saying was that even if one of those two situations occurred the purchase of server transfers are final. Refunds will not happen.

If there hadn't been a lot of wild speculation and arguments going on odds are they wouldn't have even made that statement because to most rational people it's obvious. Of course rationality isn't often seen on the internet.


Just curious, would my response have sat better with you if I had said "Not entirely correct, what they actually said . . ." instead of "No. What they actually said . . ."

If so, I'll try to keep that in mind for the future.
actually, yeah, it probably would have.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by je_saist View Post
actually, yeah, it probably would have.
Ok. Thanks for letting me know. I forget when I'm typing to think how it may sound when read by someone else. I appreciate it when those little screw ups are pointed out to me.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Forbin_Project View Post
Ok. Thanks for letting me know. I forget when I'm typing to think how it may sound when read by someone else. I appreciate it when those little screw ups are pointed out to me.
<.<

>.>

(trust me, you aren't the only on who types something out and realizes afterwards there were probably better ways to say that)

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rush_Bolt View Post
The servers will be merged on January 52nd, 2013.

You are now informed. Be prepared.
Oh man, I thought it was gonna happen on Octember 32nd ... Darn I better get my ducks on a row

 

Posted

This topic has been derailed badly. The answer is. If and whenever the devs decides that merging is the only solution. I do not expect that moment to happen until GR is out for at least 6 months and fails to bring the expected new customers.

If it was me, merging would happen tonight though. But I know that I am a minority on the forum with this view.

 

Posted

Interesting. The part that got me was the "everyone else gets booted out of the SG, the Superleaders gets transferred over, and then reinvites all the members."

OMG, can you imagine the nightmare that would be? SL has to be online at the same time as each and every member to reinvite them? What if it's a large group? Who has a list of everyone in the group. And how many of the members will have new names due to conflicts?

And what if the SL is an "absent" one, that the members are waiting for the automatic demotion to replace?

I find it mind-boggling that that was even suggested.

 

Posted

Naah the real answer here is they are moving us onto a quasi-serverless enviroment like WoW has tacked onto their game and CO has.

It'll be awesome, enjoy.

"I accidently killed Synapse, do we need to restart the mission?" - The Oldest One on Lord Recluses Strike Force

 

Posted

A server-less environment would be great, but the sorting out of who gives up their name is a pain, but if they gave a month of free name changes, that would be cover any qualms I have about that.

And then add the ability to add "nicknames" to friends list and I really wouldn't that I have to be "Joe The Plumber 08", on friends lists I could be just "Joe", So having a long name would not be an issue.

We however would have to have many more slots available, since many people have multiple server filled up with characters.

 

Posted



That is all I have to say.






((For now))

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zwillinger View Post
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon View Post
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

 

Posted

<QR>

A serious response:

If a merge were to happen in the future, it may entirely depend on the impact of Going Rogue. If the expansion is a hit, and brings players back into the game, a merge is less likely. However, if the expansion fails to bring in old or new players, and the server population remains similar to what it is now, a merge would be more likely.

Game companies don't like to merge servers because it's bad PR and a sign of a weakening game. I suspect that, if some sort of merge were to happen (depending on how GR does), I suspect they might try to go the "serverless" route (if the tech were feasible and less expensive to implement than long-term server overhead) in order to put a positive spin on things, while at the same time possibly reducing the number of physical server boxes in order to decrease overhead.

Edit: that looks like less of a palm and more like a robo-mitten. Where are the fingers?

 

Posted

From what I understand about current server technology, you don't have to reduce the number of servers available in-game to reduce the cost. Isn't it possible to have several "virtual servers" on one actual physical server (especially if the virtual servers on that physical server are all low population)?

I wouldn't be surprised to see only four or five servers running CoX even if we never actually consolidated them in game. The only way we'd be able to tell that was the case was if multiple servers experienced the same bug simultaneously, or suddenly went down at the same time...

Feel free to try out my AE mission arc, # 473452: Praetorian Redemption
@Valerika

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obsidius View Post
Edit: that looks like less of a palm and more like a robo-mitten. Where are the fingers?
The fingers are obscured by the face, on the left side of the picture. You can see the thumb on the right. The digits are black, while the white bit is simply the back-of-hand armour.

See? Even robots can facepalm at stupidity

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zwillinger View Post
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon View Post
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

 

Posted

One could certainly use virtual servers, but as you mentioned, it's akin to putting all of one's eggs in the same basket when hardware failures are concerned.

Plus there's the obvious problem of hardware stress vs. the number of virtual servers * usage. For current lower population servers, it could be handled by one box hosting 2-3 virtual servers. But I wouldn't try putting both Freedom and Virtue on one box.

Add into the equation of the typical MMO server architecture, and virtual servers can become even trickier. For example, the load on a map server may be greater than that of a database server, making it tricky for an admin to balance cost vs. performance.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha View Post
The fingers are obscured by the face, on the left side of the picture. You can see the thumb on the right. The digits are black, while the white bit is simply the back-of-hand armour.

See? Even robots can facepalm at stupidity
Ahh, I do see it now

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obsidius View Post
One could certainly use virtual servers, but as you mentioned, it's akin to putting all of one's eggs in the same basket when hardware failures are concerned.
Very true, but wouldn't server consolidation effectively put all your eggs in one basket anyway?

Quote:
Plus there's the obvious problem of hardware stress vs. the number of virtual servers * usage. For current lower population servers, it could be handled by one box hosting 2-3 virtual servers. But I wouldn't try putting both Freedom and Virtue on their own boxes.
Exactly so--but the main reason people are calling for server consolidation in the first place is the lack of server-load balance. My solution--always keep Freedom and Virtue on seperate physical servers, but eventually put say, Triumph, Liberty, and Victory on a single physical server with three virtual servers. It should help balance the load.

(EDIT: Actually, server load (and the cost associated) isn't the main reason people are asking for this--it's usually more along the lines of POPULATION imbalance--"I can't find teams, consolidate the servers". You can switch servers fairly easily, and finding a team on lower population servers is not as hard as they suggest. I don't consider this to be a legitimate concern. The problem more, often than not, is player attitude rather than server setup in this case. Anyway...)

Quote:
Add into the equation of the typical MMO server architecture, and virtual servers can become even trickier. For example, the load on a map server may be greater than that of a database server, making it tricky for an admin to balance cost vs. performance.
Very true, which is why I wouldn't even suggest that they try to use virtual servers until the load is so light that even the strains associated with map servers wouldn't be an issue. My guess is that several of the servers are already there now.

Feel free to try out my AE mission arc, # 473452: Praetorian Redemption
@Valerika

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha View Post


That is all I have to say.






((For now))


I did it in an earlier thread, couldn't resist. But I have the same sentiments. And as for the server architecture, yes you can have many virtual servers running on a single physical server. You would just need to make sure the physical server has the resources, memory, CPU, etc, to handle the virtual servers. A server like that for a game like this I would imagine would be pretty beefy but it's out of the realm of possibility.


50s - Energyman, Elec^3 Blaster - Light Bringer Prime, Triform PB - OxyStorm, Robo/Storm/Mace MM - Widow Lotone, NW - Psi-Vox, Ill/FF/Earth Control

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Energyman View Post
-pic snip-

I did it in an earlier thread, couldn't resist. But I have the same sentiments. And as for the server architecture, yes you can have many virtual servers running on a single physical server. You would just need to make sure the physical server has the resources, memory, CPU, etc, to handle the virtual servers. A server like that for a game like this I would imagine would be pretty beefy but it's out of the realm of possibility.
Where Fail is concerned, one can never have too much Facepalm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zwillinger View Post
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon View Post
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

 

Posted

Quote:
Originally Posted by Energyman View Post


I did it in an earlier thread, couldn't resist. But I have the same sentiments. And as for the server architecture, yes you can have many virtual servers running on a single physical server. You would just need to make sure the physical server has the resources, memory, CPU, etc, to handle the virtual servers. A server like that for a game like this I would imagine would be pretty beefy but it's out of the realm of possibility.
Time to add the third one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Back Alley Brawler
Did you just use "casual gamer" and "purpled-out warshade" in the same sentence?
Apostrophe guidelines.