Will servers be upgraded?

Infamous

New member
Sep 15, 2021
13
8
3
I'm just curious if the developers have brought up anything about upgrading their servers on this game.

I've been playing in Bakti and when it just released onto steam there was influx of players and Bakti was close to unplayable in terms of lag.

About 30-40 players in the graveyard or around and my screen is stuttering all over the place. It's not my PC...

I just keep hearing on release there will be at least 10k players online. In what world will that be playable...? Been struggling to get leather from pigs from just this small influx of players.

Again, just curious if devs are upgrading in the future because it looks a little rough...thanks! <3
 

ArcaneConsular

Well-known member
Oct 27, 2021
873
536
93
Like every game in existence the launch will fail because devs don't want to pay for extra servers they know they'll have to remove after the initial hype. Even though it's easier than ever with cloud servers. I wouldn't expect the game to be playable for the first week of launch so I wouldn't plan on it. If you plan on taking off to play make sure it's like a week after release
 
D

Deleted member 44

Guest
We had a 300 person battle in Tindrem and the game was playable. I have GTX 1080 and I was getting 30 FPS. It sounds like it's a your PC issue over the server. The forest is a very taxing environment. Add a bunch of players and you will have low FPS.
 

LordMega

Active member
Dec 2, 2020
176
202
43
I'm just curious if the developers have brought up anything about upgrading their servers on this game.

I've been playing in Bakti and when it just released onto steam there was influx of players and Bakti was close to unplayable in terms of lag.

About 30-40 players in the graveyard or around and my screen is stuttering all over the place. It's not my PC...

I just keep hearing on release there will be at least 10k players online. In what world will that be playable...? Been struggling to get leather from pigs from just this small influx of players.

Again, just curious if devs are upgrading in the future because it looks a little rough...thanks! <3

I am certain there will be continued improvements on server and client performance and stability both before and after release, as well as server hardware upgrades. The server's hardware needs to be pushed to the limit as the active player count continues rising so that they have the proper data for optimization and improvements (if you don't stress it, how will the code be improved?). So I am confident as long as we keep playing and providing feedback for SV we can get a solid increase in performance delivered. It might still have issues at launch, but even companies that throw hundreds of millions into development have issues at launch.
 

MolagAmur

Well-known member
Jul 15, 2020
762
944
93
Like every game in existence the launch will fail because devs don't want to pay for extra servers they know they'll have to remove after the initial hype. Even though it's easier than ever with cloud servers. I wouldn't expect the game to be playable for the first week of launch so I wouldn't plan on it. If you plan on taking off to play make sure it's like a week after release
Thats a double edged sword. "paying for extra servers" made New World lose a lot of players after the month because there were multiple servers that weren't even 15% capacity.

As for the server issue, surely SV has a plan if somehow the population gets too large. New World has arguably the best servers out there and even their 50v50 sieges were slideshows.

I agree with you though, if anyone isn't expecting launch to be a mess you're kidding yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Najwalaylah

Jatix

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2020
881
767
93
As for the server issue, surely SV has a plan if somehow the population gets too large. New World has arguably the best servers out there and even their 50v50 sieges were slideshows.
Whats dumb, is that if they had the ability to make more servers if the pop is too high, they should have done that instead of making the world too big. Because now if the pop drops low like MO1 the game wont even be playable. MO2 needs at least 4x the players MO1 needed to survive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MolagAmur

cerqo

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2021
237
366
63
Whats dumb, is that if they had the ability to make more servers if the pop is too high, they should have done that instead of making the world too big. Because now if the pop drops low like MO1 the game wont even be playable. MO2 needs at least 4x the players MO1 needed to survive.

The map size wouldn't be so much a problem if there were portal chambers in the etherworld that took you around the map, something that is COMPLETELY a quality of life change but some absolute mongoloids that don't leave the guardzone try to spin as having an impact on the landscape of the game.

Also, how does it make sense relating the map size to the amount of players that the game needs to survive? 200 players in M01 or 200 players in MO2 yields the same results for the devs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MolagAmur and Tzone

ArcaneConsular

Well-known member
Oct 27, 2021
873
536
93
The map size wouldn't be so much a problem if there were portal chambers in the etherworld that took you around the map, something that is COMPLETELY a quality of life change but some absolute mongoloids that don't leave the guardzone try to spin as having an impact on the landscape of the game.

Also, how does it make sense relating the map size to the amount of players that the game needs to survive? 200 players in M01 or 200 players in MO2 yields the same results for the devs.

I mean I think portals would be fine if they had a long cool down like once a week, but I do agree that if they were free then clans would just use them dominate around the map instead of local regions. Now people have to pick where to locate because people don't want to spend hours travelling back and forth. With free transport they'd just go back and forth to attack and defend when needed
 

cerqo

Well-known member
Mar 17, 2021
237
366
63
I mean I think portals would be fine if they had a long cool down like once a week, but I do agree that if they were free then clans would just use them dominate around the map instead of local regions. Now people have to pick where to locate because people don't want to spend hours travelling back and forth. With free transport they'd just go back and forth to attack and defend when needed

Yes in ghostmode, literally naked. Damn its also like the whole map in general would become more alive.
 

Jatix

Well-known member
Sep 30, 2020
881
767
93
The map size wouldn't be so much a problem if there were portal chambers in the etherworld that took you around the map, something that is COMPLETELY a quality of life change but some absolute mongoloids that don't leave the guardzone try to spin as having an impact on the landscape of the game.

Also, how does it make sense relating the map size to the amount of players that the game needs to survive? 200 players in M01 or 200 players in MO2 yields the same results for the devs.
By dead game I mean to the players playing, as in how dead the world feels.

To the devs its the same money but devs usually only see short term $$$. Long term, 200 MO2 is a dead world that will be 100 players down the road. 200 MO1 was popping and people would hear that theres lots of pvp and they might return.

I'd be all down for portals. I'd even be fine with portals that work while you are living, as long as they arent in or right next to safe zones. They would become hotspots.
 

Backyard Employee

Active member
Oct 30, 2021
273
198
43
I honestly don't see the issue of giant portals that connect via ley-lines, with these portals being located far out from cities and towns. That way when porting to and from you're still far from safety but speeding up travel to and from places.

Or you know SV wont do it and will say "but we added riding as a secondary?" only to make the map six times the size as a joke on everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jatix

Darthus

Well-known member
Dec 1, 2020
280
293
63
I'm just curious if the developers have brought up anything about upgrading their servers on this game.

I've been playing in Bakti and when it just released onto steam there was influx of players and Bakti was close to unplayable in terms of lag.

About 30-40 players in the graveyard or around and my screen is stuttering all over the place. It's not my PC...

I just keep hearing on release there will be at least 10k players online. In what world will that be playable...? Been struggling to get leather from pigs from just this small influx of players.

Again, just curious if devs are upgrading in the future because it looks a little rough...thanks! <3

From what I understand it's not about upgrading servers. The way the system is structured is that areas of the world are hosted on different servers, that's why sometimes you will cross a line and there will be a stutter, your state etc is being transferred to a different server. If they see areas that are more populated, worse performing, they can split those into additional nodes. There is also optimization to be done on things like when people's armor and equipment loads in, if it loads in at too far a range, then your connection can get overwhelmed very quickly. if they have it load in too close, then it affects gameplay as you can't see what someone is wearing until they're right on top of you.

Point being that optimizing the performance of the game will be an eternal struggle just based on the complexity of the structure (as opposed to just splitting the game into 100 servers with a few thousand people and just saying they are "full"), they ahve a lot of levers to tune and have been adjusting those during stress tests/betas. They also have talked about actually limiting purchases if they get overwhelmed on day 1.
 

Swann

New member
Jun 17, 2020
4
4
3
From what I understand it's not about upgrading servers. The way the system is structured is that areas of the world are hosted on different servers, that's why sometimes you will cross a line and there will be a stutter, your state etc is being transferred to a different server. If they see areas that are more populated, worse performing, they can split those into additional nodes. There is also optimization to be done on things like when people's armor and equipment loads in, if it loads in at too far a range, then your connection can get overwhelmed very quickly. if they have it load in too close, then it affects gameplay as you can't see what someone is wearing until they're right on top of you.

Point being that optimizing the performance of the game will be an eternal struggle just based on the complexity of the structure (as opposed to just splitting the game into 100 servers with a few thousand people and just saying they are "full"), they ahve a lot of levers to tune and have been adjusting those during stress tests/betas. They also have talked about actually limiting purchases if they get overwhelmed on day 1.
That is completely incorrect. As anyone who has been paying attention to the devs unheard of communication and transparency, one of the flagship, albeit controversial features of the game is that there is only 1 server that the entire world plays on. The only instances occur in the haven tutorial. The game itself runs off exactly 1 server located in England and is intended to remain so. There are lots of nuances regarding this issue and I highly recommend watching some of Henrik’s Twitch streams to understand this choice and the developer vision in general
 

Darthus

Well-known member
Dec 1, 2020
280
293
63
That is completely incorrect. As anyone who has been paying attention to the devs unheard of communication and transparency, one of the flagship, albeit controversial features of the game is that there is only 1 server that the entire world plays on. The only instances occur in the haven tutorial. The game itself runs off exactly 1 server located in England and is intended to remain so. There are lots of nuances regarding this issue and I highly recommend watching some of Henrik’s Twitch streams to understand this choice and the developer vision in general

Trust me I've watched dozens of hours of Henrik's streams, I know what you're referring to.

What Henrik has said over and over is that the game is and (until there is a new continent) will run on one "server", located in London, as you say, but I believe he's referring to "server' in the "World of Warcraft Server" sense, meaning a shared world that people play in, not a single physical box.

He also has gone intro extreme detail about the nodeline/node streaming architecture, and has described that population per node matters, that the reason there are stutters across nodelines and your horse can disappear/reappear across lines is because you are being transferred from one computer to another, and that they can redraw nodelines to improve performance in certain areas if they become routinely too populated.

In the last stress test for example, they purposely brought as many people to one location as possible, to see how many people could be loaded into and supported in a single "node", which is different from the overall population the world can handle, and different from the overall load the login server can handle (which has been the bottleneck in the first stress test)

The entirety of transferring between nodes and all of that (your horse disappearing and reappearing later) makes no sense if it's simply one computer. It is my guess (but put together from listening to copious amounts of info), that the entirety of the "server"/world is hosted in one datacenter in London, across multiple physical computers/virtual machines. Because they are in one datacenter means you can be transferred from one to another across a nodeline almost instantly. They can also assume almost instand communication between the different nodes etc (so you can see people across a node and their movement for example, and I'm sure it's necessary for the action combat system to assume 0 latency if you for example shoot someone across a nodeline or you are fighting an enemy and one of you crosses a nodeline). None of this would be possible if some people were logging into a datacenter in San Francisco and some were loading into a datacenter in London.

That is why he's said the only way they'd do another server location is if they make a new continent. That way they could re-create the structure I mentioned above in another datacenter, and when you travel/load from one continent to another, they move you across datacenters, but you can be assured everyone you're interacting with and areas you see are in the same datacenter.

It makes absolutely no sense in today's day and age for them to host a multi-thousand person MMO on a single computer, it would be extraordinarily limiting in terms of processing power and max population. They are almost surely cloud hosting the game, and having it spread across multiple physical computers in a single datacenter allows them to simply purchase more resources if they for example need to create smaller nodes to accomodate more players. Henrik has said they can redraw/spin up new nodes on the fly without rebooting (again supporting the idea that these are all in the same datacenter). Eve does the exact same thing, it's a shared universe, but they hide transferring between computers behind lightspeed traveling between systems as a "loading time" as it transfers you to a different physical computer.

None of this detail really matters though, and would just confuse people, which is why he says there is one "server". But I do believe that's the core reason they won't just make a US server at the moment. They put a huge amount of tech and energy to create a single seamless no loading time world spread across a dynamic series of nodes so that everyone could all play together, have the same shared experience and the world could scale to accommodate an almost limitless amount of players (as long as they purchase more cloud resources), why would they throw that in the trash and make another server somewhere else and split up the population?

As for Haven, yes each Haven instance is contained in a single physical computer, which is much simpler (no nodelines) and they can simply spin up a new computer/copy when one reaches capacity, then spin it down when they don't need it. They can't do that as easily as I described above for the main world if each node of the map is assigned to a single computer (they need to redraw the nodelines to add/remove computers, hence why they may need to pause purchases if the population ramps up too quickly).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rankor

Swann

New member
Jun 17, 2020
4
4
3
Trust me I've watched dozens of hours of Henrik's streams, I know what you're referring to.

What Henrik has said over and over is that the game is and (until there is a new continent) will run on one "server", located in London, as you say, but I believe he's referring to "server' in the "World of Warcraft Server" sense, meaning a shared world that people play in, not a single physical box.

He also has gone intro extreme detail about the nodeline/node streaming architecture, and has described that population per node matters, that the reason there are stutters across nodelines and your horse can disappear/reappear across lines is because you are being transferred from one computer to another, and that they can redraw nodelines to improve performance in certain areas if they become routinely too populated.

In the last stress test for example, they purposely brought as many people to one location as possible, to see how many people could be loaded into and supported in a single "node", which is different from the overall population the world can handle, and different from the overall load the login server can handle (which has been the bottleneck in the first stress test)

The entirety of transferring between nodes and all of that (your horse disappearing and reappearing later) makes no sense if it's simply one computer. It is my guess (but put together from listening to copious amounts of info), that the entirety of the "server"/world is hosted in one datacenter in London, across multiple physical computers/virtual machines. Because they are in one datacenter means you can be transferred from one to another across a nodeline almost instantly. They can also assume almost instand communication between the different nodes etc (so you can see people across a node and their movement for example). None of this would be possible if some people were logging into a datacenter in San Francisco and some were loading into a datacenter in London.

That is why he's said the only way they'd do another server location is if they make a new continent. That way they could re-create the structure I mentioned above in another datacenter, and when you travel/load from one continent to another, they move you across datacenters, but you can be assured everyone you're interacting with and areas you see are in the same datacenter.

It makes absolutely no sense in today's day and age for them to host a multi-thousand person MMO on a single computer, it would be extraordinarily limiting in terms of processing power and max population. They are almost surely cloud hosting the game, and having it spread across multiple physical computers in a single datacenter allows them to simply purchase more resources if they for example need to create smaller nodes to accomodate more players. Henrik has said they can redraw/spin up new nodes on the fly without rebooting (again supporting the idea that these are all in the same datacenter). Eve does the exact same thing, it's a shared universe, but they hide transferring between computers behind lightspeed traveling between systems as a "loading time" as it transfers you to a different physical computer.

None of this detail really matters though, and would just confuse people, which is why he says there is one "server". But I do believe that's the core reason they won't just make a US server at the moment. They put a huge amount of tech and energy to create a single seamless no loading time world spread across a dynamic series of nodes so that everyone could all play together, have the same shared experience and the world could scale to accommodate an almost limitless amount of players (as long as they purchase more cloud resources), why would they throw that in the trash and make another server somewhere else and split up the population?

As for Haven, yes each Haven instance is contained in a single physical computer, which is much simpler (no nodelines) and they can simply spin up a new computer/copy when one reaches capacity, then spin it down when they don't need it. They can't do that as easily as I described above for the main world if each node of the map is assigned to a single computer (they need to redraw the nodelines to add/remove computers, hence why they may need to pause purchases if the population ramps up too quickly).
Apologies I don’t know if what you said is correct but it certainly makes sense. Would be interesting to know for sure but your explanation makes comlplete sense and I apologize for jumping on you when it is likely that your understanding is deeper than mine
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darthus

Darthus

Well-known member
Dec 1, 2020
280
293
63
Apologies I don’t know if what you said is correct but it certainly makes sense. Would be interesting to know for sure but your explanation makes comlplete sense and I apologize for jumping on you when it is likely that your understanding is deeper than mine

No worries, as I mentioned a lot of what I said is speculation about backend details based on info I've gathered, but like it sounds you are I'm also super invested in the vision and world design and how the heck they make this crazy thing run when nobody else I know of has been able to accomplish something similar.
 

Swann

New member
Jun 17, 2020
4
4
3
No worries, as I mentioned a lot of what I said is speculation about backend details based on info I've gathered, but like it sounds you are I'm also super invested in the vision and world design and how the heck they make this crazy thing run when nobody else I know of has been able to accomplish something similar.
I am invested and a believer in the vision. So used to people trashing the game because of choices devs have made that fly in the face of established design choices most devs adhere to because they lack vision. I find it incredibly frustrating because it’s clear to me at least that though devs aren’t perfect, their prime motivation is to realize a differentiated vision. That is exceedingly rare these days and I am grateful that this team has toiled for years with little resources to try, at tremendous risk, to offer the community something something different. And they are rewarded for their efforts at innovation by people assuming that because they have veered in so many ways from the norm that it must be a cash grab. I think it’s so important for the community that understands and believes in the vision to respectfully try and educate the uneducated. The company has an uphill climb in getting its medsage out and understood and needs all the help it can get in explaining the vision and the rationale for the maverick choices that compose it

apologies for rant but I am genuinely upset by how misunderstood this dev team is
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darthus