Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: A Second Server?

  1. #11

    Default

    I was hoping by putting this into discussion first people would give a well elaborated insight on the matter , but clearly I was wrong' just a strong lack of interest. I will just give my input into the actual suggestion thread on how this could actually work, but I would ask if you were to start a new character today what would you encounter and how would you build yourself to compete on an active level.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mursilis View Post
    Splitting the player base into multiple servers is a bad idea. It's not the most popular game in the world right now, so keeping everyone condensed into a single server means the activity remains as high as possible. Just imagine what guild battles would look like otherwise.
    If done properly? I can imagine Less tripping, less blue balling, smoother battles, etc.

    (better explanation below.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Wandering Alchemist View Post
    I was hoping by putting this into discussion first people would give a well elaborated insight on the matter , but clearly I was wrong' just a strong lack of interest.
    I'm not entirely sure what you were expecting. Not entirely sure if everyone understood your idea as well.

    Personally I was actively holding back on explaining how we aren't on one server but rather on one "environment" or a "world" (if you prefer that term) consisting of a number of servers.

    That said, it might not be bad to split us up into multiple worlds just not how you suggest. Generally developers who go the route of splitting a game into multiple worlds do so out of performance considerations. Having 10,000 people on one world versus 5,000 can make quite a difference for example. Splitting them up means that you can control to some extend how a world performs as you can control how many can make use of that world.

    For CA it wouldn't be bad if the game was split in such a way that each world would feature a give or take same amount of high activity guilds. This keeps both worlds active and both worlds profitable. It effectively then reduces the amount of activity such guilds put into battle on each world by half which in turn could lead to a nice performance boost.

    As I said above, if it's done properly we could benefit from it.

    The main factor here however is money. In order to set up multiple worlds you need multiple groups of servers. Which cost money to purchase, and cost money to maintain and operate. Given how low a number of players CA has left it may not be cost effective to go the route of splitting us up in worlds.

    A second factor would be keeping activity in balance. There is no way to predict which guilds turn out to be high activity guilds. It's possible to end up with more high activity guilds then you started with which may affect the performance of a world.
    Last edited by Lord Reaper; 05-16-2018 at 04:25 PM.
    "Build a man a fire, keep him warm for a night. Set a man on fire, keep him warm for the rest of his life!" - Rev Sim

    "Gratuitous acts of senseless violence are -my- forte!" - Max

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Castle Age Legends
    Posts
    11,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Reaper View Post
    If done properly? I can imagine Less tripping, less blue balling, smoother battles, etc.
    Splitting the player base is a bad idea. Think you have trouble now finding targets for PvP, or can get enough people together to hunt a certain monster or...? It would be worse if there were more servers. And having different servers in the game doesn't mean the hardware that is supporting the game is split. Probably just use the same stuff, so performance won't change. You just won't see the other half of the player population in PvP, GB or anywhere else.
    Forum Rules | Infraction System | Informational Threads | FAQ | Gaea ToS & Privacy Policy

    "In the end, there really is no end, just new beginnings"

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wandering Alchemist View Post
    but I would ask if you were to start a new character today what would you encounter and how would you build yourself to compete on an active level.
    Compete on an active level? How much high do you want to compete, if you are a new player?
    The answer is obvious, either you play for a long time, or spend real money. The more you want to be competitive, the more you would have to spend. The greatest players and guilds have spent by themselves too through the years so...
    "I want it all I want it now" doesn't work here, unless you are going desperate with cash (and still, you need time to make best use for all of that). I don't remember being competitive when I started the game myself years ago, a lot of mistakes were done in the process, and yet... now I show up in Meteorite top 100 or daily Monster Leaderboard as it pleases me to do so, I'm in a guild at Vanguard rank for 100vs, still able to win more or less half of the battles... (without buying a single FP yet)
    To be competitive, whatever you mean for that, you should go through some gaming experience, listen to and look for hints & explanations, and most of all use your brain and a big dose of patience. Patience to look for a good group, for example. Patience to understand how a feature works. Being competitive and doing casual playing isn't really the same thing, not in RPGs nor in other games.
    Last edited by Ryugirox; 05-16-2018 at 06:05 PM.


    Even the magical world of Valeria has proverbs. Here's a saying:
    5 billion damage a day
    Keeps the bad luck away.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Somewhere in Valeria.
    Posts
    9,912

    Default

    The OP was not suggesting splitting the current Unicorn users apart. The idea was to split the new users from the current users.

    Yes, in another eight years we would have a second unicorn server, but for next four to five years the game play would be a lot more fair and competitive for the lower levels.

    Castle Age 2. Defeat the heart of darkness.
    ...Dwarven Miner - I found a free chest roll for ye, but I was ambushed by a Dev in the mine.
    Lil rascal made away with it...



  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,604

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rev Sim View Post
    The OP was not suggesting splitting the current Unicorn users apart. The idea was to split the new users from the current users.

    Yes, in another eight years we would have a second unicorn server, but for next four to five years the game play would be a lot more fair and competitive for the lower levels.

    Castle Age 2. Defeat the heart of darkness.
    Can we call ours the brutal server?
    Telling it like it is
    Paragraphs are overrated
    EABB29 keep: https://apps.facebook.com/castle_age...user=539777367 chain me plz?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Somewhere in Valeria.
    Posts
    9,912

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cheeseslug View Post
    Can we call ours the brutal server?
    That would be a good name for it.

    The low level guys really have a tough time when someone 2000 levels above them...
    ...Dwarven Miner - I found a free chest roll for ye, but I was ambushed by a Dev in the mine.
    Lil rascal made away with it...



  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cheeseslug View Post
    Can we call ours the brutal server?
    Brutally slow server would be better

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Reaper View Post
    If done properly? I can imagine Less tripping, less blue balling, smoother battles, etc.

    (better explanation below.)




    I'm not entirely sure what you were expecting. Not entirely sure if everyone understood your idea as well.

    Personally I was actively holding back on explaining how we aren't on one server but rather on one "environment" or a "world" (if you prefer that term) consisting of a number of servers.

    That said, it might not be bad to split us up into multiple worlds just not how you suggest. Generally developers who go the route of splitting a game into multiple worlds do so out of performance considerations. Having 10,000 people on one world versus 5,000 can make quite a difference for example. Splitting them up means that you can control to some extend how a world performs as you can control how many can make use of that world.

    For CA it wouldn't be bad if the game was split in such a way that each world would feature a give or take same amount of high activity guilds. This keeps both worlds active and both worlds profitable. It effectively then reduces the amount of activity such guilds put into battle on each world by half which in turn could lead to a nice performance boost.

    As I said above, if it's done properly we could benefit from it.

    The main factor here however is money. In order to set up multiple worlds you need multiple groups of servers. Which cost money to purchase, and cost money to maintain and operate. Given how low a number of players CA has left it may not be cost effective to go the route of splitting us up in worlds.

    A second factor would be keeping activity in balance. There is no way to predict which guilds turn out to be high activity guilds. It's possible to end up with more high activity guilds then you started with which may affect the performance of a world.
    Love the explanation , your whole world concept is what I mean so that new players can have a fresh start and developers can take that world in a different direction if they would like to take that risk and their won't be any crying from the current "god" players still playing and don't like change or want change to their already in place system.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryugirox View Post
    Compete on an active level? How much high do you want to compete, if you are a new player?
    The answer is obvious, either you play for a long time, or spend real money. The more you want to be competitive, the more you would have to spend. The greatest players and guilds have spent by themselves too through the years so...
    "I want it all I want it now" doesn't work here, unless you are going desperate with cash (and still, you need time to make best use for all of that). I don't remember being competitive when I started the game myself years ago, a lot of mistakes were done in the process, and yet... now I show up in Meteorite top 100 or daily Monster Leaderboard as it pleases me to do so, I'm in a guild at Vanguard rank for 100vs, still able to win more or less half of the battles... (without buying a single FP yet)
    To be competitive, whatever you mean for that, you should go through some gaming experience, listen to and look for hints & explanations, and most of all use your brain and a big dose of patience. Patience to look for a good group, for example. Patience to understand how a feature works. Being competitive and doing casual playing isn't really the same thing, not in RPGs nor in other games.
    Your poor answer shows me lack of understanding to the question so I won't bother explaining it to you now for your crude response, and I do spend $$$ on this game over $150 by now in 3 months since I started again from being off this for 7-8 years.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •