Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

One Giant Server


notebene's Avatar


notebene
04.22.2012 , 10:26 AM | #1
You already have the instancing mechanism in place.

Well, one giant server per location and type (PvE, PvP, RP). Maybe not even use the West-vs-East, I know I play at odd times sometimes, no reason we shouldn't mingle.

First, we go through a process of needing a last name (to make First+Last be unique). There will be a registration period where we all can either pick a last name or use our legacy. Use a lottery system or something to select order, I don't care. Once everyone is unique across all servers, you move us all to the giant server (which is made up of all the existing hardware, of course, plus new hardware).

It would be sweet.

You got to a planet, there's like 7 instances with 100 folks and a few 30s. If you have performance problems and come into a 100, flip to a 30. Allow a player to join a 'new' instance (create one) if the lowest one has at least 20 people.

There'd be warzones 'constantly', not too much waiting. Lots of folks doing flashpoints, operations, heroics even.

One giant community.

Figure out a chat system to allow general across instances (fleet would have to be instanced and allow people to meet up for trades), or filter based on your instance.

Then you don't need server transfers or merges.

"We are all one, big, happy fleet!" - Khan
MOTD - One Giant Server - When I'll Need To Make My 'Bucket-List' List 1. I'm not having fun any more. 2. Puritans. 3. One or more characters were renamed in a server merge. 4. Something given to 'all characters on account' are not given to 'all characters on account'. 5. Design by Committee.

Listerman's Avatar


Listerman
04.22.2012 , 10:33 AM | #2
A few million on one server...This can only end in good things.
"Never touch a Kel Dor's sammich."
"We're on a message board together. I'm already inclined to think you're a schmuck."

LX_Theo's Avatar


LX_Theo
04.22.2012 , 10:34 AM | #3
One HUGGEEE problem is the limitation of names.

There are a number of more big problems as well.

notebene's Avatar


notebene
04.22.2012 , 12:30 PM | #4
Quote: Originally Posted by Listerman View Post
A few million on one server...This can only end in good things.
You are thinking that one server is one piece of hardware. It's not. It's already all spread out across multiple hardware, they have the instancing in place (multiple instances on one world). It's the next logical step to get rid of all these problems. Server imbalance, no one to play with, etc, etc.
MOTD - One Giant Server - When I'll Need To Make My 'Bucket-List' List 1. I'm not having fun any more. 2. Puritans. 3. One or more characters were renamed in a server merge. 4. Something given to 'all characters on account' are not given to 'all characters on account'. 5. Design by Committee.

notebene's Avatar


notebene
04.22.2012 , 12:38 PM | #5
Quote: Originally Posted by LX_Theo View Post
One HUGGEEE problem is the limitation of names.

There are a number of more big problems as well.
It's only a problem if everyone wants to be "John Smith". It's actually better changing to 'First + Last' because then you can have:

Legolas Smith
Legolas Jones
Legolas Legolas
Legolas Johnson
Legolas Schwartzenneger (sp?)

It's the pair that is unique. I know a few of my names get used from time to time, a few because they are just words in other languages, some are proper names that might be as common as 'Sue' in other languages, but sound neat to me. It would be easy to be unique with the name when paired with a last name.

Chatting wouldn't be hard. No real reason to type in First+Last. Use first. If there are multiple people with the same first name on, pop up a dialog that asks you to pick. Once you pick that name to talk to, it gets assigned a 'conversation id', and then when you reply, you reply to the conversation. Inviting, all sorts of other things could easily work that way.

One...big....world.

No more transfers. No more merges. If they need to add more people, they add more hardware to handle more instances being spun up for each area. Might need some more dedicated hardware to handle the super sized chat needed too.

I don't know, seems like a next logical step in the layout of the genre. The whole server thing is getting old:

1. Race to get on server, it's heavy/full first few weeks...awesome!
2. They add servers because people complain about the queues, not willing to wait for the initial waves to die down a little and just be patient, they add servers.
3. Those heavy/fulls drop to mediums...we're still ok, little bit of a bummer.
4. Transfers (god forbid free transfers once a week like Rift), chaos and ambulance chasing insues.

Uno...Grande...uhm...Cerveza? No that's beer...hmm.
MOTD - One Giant Server - When I'll Need To Make My 'Bucket-List' List 1. I'm not having fun any more. 2. Puritans. 3. One or more characters were renamed in a server merge. 4. Something given to 'all characters on account' are not given to 'all characters on account'. 5. Design by Committee.

Eltharien's Avatar


Eltharien
04.22.2012 , 12:38 PM | #6
not saying this is a good idea or bad idea but what i can say is that while not impossible the cost of doing so would be astronomical. Remember Bioware like all other MMO creators is a business in the end. The have to weigh the cost/benefit of each investment (employee's time making game changes) with all of the other options and then select the ones that have the highest return. Which in this case is gaining or retaining subscribers. Not saying this is a bad idea just highly unlikely they can afford to implement such a huge undertaking.

lasmith's Avatar


lasmith
04.22.2012 , 12:42 PM | #7
It would be a technological nightmare to maintain, from the server end.
Squadron 367 and 11/26/11 and 12/2/11
PROUD BASIC EDITION CLUB MEMBER

Getting too old for this, I am.

TORPlayer's Avatar


TORPlayer
04.22.2012 , 12:51 PM | #8
as much as i like this idea, it would be impossible to do quests. server NPCs would be wiped clean
Lieutenant Vaeran Grimez
Republic 44 Vanguard
Cipher Agent Kaulton Grimez
Imperial 45 Operative

notebene's Avatar


notebene
04.22.2012 , 12:57 PM | #9
Quote: Originally Posted by TORPlayer View Post
as much as i like this idea, it would be impossible to do quests. server NPCs would be wiped clean
That could be overcome by setting the characters per instance. I seem to recall there being 2 instances on DK when I first started and people running everywhere, NPCs re-pop 'really' fast when there's a lot of activity. Plenty to do, lots of people doing heroics. I seem to recall there was one 100+ instances and maybe a 30-ish?
MOTD - One Giant Server - When I'll Need To Make My 'Bucket-List' List 1. I'm not having fun any more. 2. Puritans. 3. One or more characters were renamed in a server merge. 4. Something given to 'all characters on account' are not given to 'all characters on account'. 5. Design by Committee.

notebene's Avatar


notebene
04.22.2012 , 12:58 PM | #10
Quote: Originally Posted by lasmith View Post
It would be a technological nightmare to maintain, from the server end.
With the concept of instancing already in a lot of games, and knowing that 'a server' is already made up of a bunch of different hardware that handles different areas (whatever the split: instances, dungeons, warzones), it seems like they got all the pieces in place for it, they just haven't taken that final step.
MOTD - One Giant Server - When I'll Need To Make My 'Bucket-List' List 1. I'm not having fun any more. 2. Puritans. 3. One or more characters were renamed in a server merge. 4. Something given to 'all characters on account' are not given to 'all characters on account'. 5. Design by Committee.