So with the transmog question came the suggestion that those that role play and like transmog get their own server; the question becomes how many servers should there be?
We kind of know there will be a (1) PVP, and an (2) RP server. But how about a server where (3) camps are acknowledged? How about a (4) PNP server, or is that the same as acknowledging camps? How about a (5) RP transmog server. How about a server with a (6) worldwide auction house? A (7) three way good neutral evil PVP battle? A server with different levels of population? A server for small guilds v one for guilds of say 150? How else would you split up players into servers?
What does it cost to run any one server? How many cs positions per server? Should servers be just based on real world geographical locations?
The issue is monthly payment vs servers vs how many people will play on a given ruleset. We can hope that VR builds a game with as few loopholes and errors in the code as possible to reduce the need for gms, but even then, there is a lot to deal with.
We are going to need to see some extensive testing in alpha/beta, as well as surveys, to figure all of this out.
On a personal level, I want a plethora of different ruleset servers. Like with Skyrim, I will have my favorite character, and then go try out a bunch of different rulesets(mods in skyrims case) when I want to change things up.
I like the idea of accessing more expensive rulesets(like enforced camps) with a bigger subscription fee.
From barely a week ago in another thread:
Kilsin said:it is very unlikely that we will split the community up into different ruleset servers other than PvE and PvP (and possibly RP). Our game is being built following our tenets and they will dictate the rules that we want our game to follow.
I rub my mystical crystal ball and see the unseen.
There will be 22 servers at launch.
6 for east coast, 1 PVP, 1 RP
6 for west coast, 1 PVP, 1 RP
6 central, 1 PVP, 1 RP
4 EU, 1 RP
Each housing 6,000 players for a total 132,000 maximum load,
There will not be any additional rulesets at that time because they mentioned they do not want to split up the player base to much into sub groups.
1 million people will buy the game but many will play the Queue.
Anyway, I'm just guesstimating.
I think when you start looking at adding servers for superficial things like transmog only, streamer only, or other superficial reasons you end up creating unnecessary walls that divide the community. Plus the creation of these servers can end up costing more money depending on the extent of implementation.
Honestly, I would split the server by region. Then have servers for PvP, PvE, and RP. The number of servers would depend on the expected traffic and how many players each server can hold. However, I don't think I would have any less than 8 servers for the NA regions to start off with. Honestly, with the launch of New-World and Lost Ark, the NA- east region seems to get significant traffic, so I might increase the base number of servers to 10 for that region. As for specific allocation, I would have 4 servers dedicated to PvE, 2 Dedicated to PvP, 1 dedicated to PvE/RP, and 1 dedicated to PvP/RP.
Yea having a different ruleset server seems to pop up for every issue that people are divided on lol.
PVP is an obvious choice, especially if they aren't going to spend dev time on it until post launch and just have a PVP flag turned on and *that's it* to start with. RP server I can get behind but not sure how the population will be now-adays. Other than that I feel like the issues are not worthy of special servers and we all just have to live with whatever decisions are made.
We'll put up as many servers as needed to accommodate regions, keeping peak hours, bottlenecks and resources in mind but it is very unlikely we will split the community into different servers for things such as transmog (if we go ahead with a system like that - remember it was a CM question to see what everyone thinks, nothing more), higher sub fee servers, flying mount servers etc. The only thing we will split the community on is PvP as it is a completely different playstyle and mentality and they both need separate servers for a PvE focused game like ours.
Let us not confuse the question of different rulesets and different servers. There are some obvious benefits to have multiple servers for the same ruleset but also disadvantages and some games just have a single server. Some players prefer that - some hate it.
1. Physical location. A data center in Europe, for example, will give less lag to Europeans and more to North and South Americans. Which is why some games have one set of servers physically located there. Whereas others like LOTRO may have "European" servers but they are not physically located in Europe. I am not familiar enough with either the economics or technology to understand whether separate servers for European or Oceanic players would be economically feasible and reduce lag for people in those areas. Assuming there were enough players in those areas to justify one or more separate servers. The chances of VR actually owning physical servers in multiple locations is not high. It all more likely than not will be cloud-based. Whatever that may mean in a few years.
2. Crowding and lag from size of playerbase as distinct from physical location. VR has said quite clearly they expect to have goals for the number of characters (or accounts) on any server and when one server is the size they want they will roll-out another. This far from launch neither we nor they can have much of an idea what the desired size will be or what the likely subscription base will be. Not just subscription base at launch - longer term subscription base e.g. three months after launch. So whether a given area will have one server or 20 servers is both unknown and unknowable. It is certain that if VR maintains its intent to avoid multiple layers of the same zone (with the possible exception of at-launch to reduce very temporary crowding) it cannot and will not have just one server or even a very small number of servers unless the subscription base is quite disappointingly low.
It doesn't sound like they plan to split it up much besides the usual breakdown of PVE and PVP.
My order of choice would go something like:
1. PVP-RP (how can one really RP without PVP?)
2. If no PVP-RP then it's a coin toss between RP or PVP, would probably lean PVP.
3. PVE
Now of course I'm curious on how factions would play into PVP, if at all. Will there be hard set pvp "team" factions based on 'good/evil/neutral' archetype on top of the reputuation system? Or would it be an "FFA" type of system without teams? Some combination of the two, where you have a team but it can be fluid based on your reputation with certain factions?
The former definitely seems easier to manage but perhaps harder to implement. While the latter I think would be ideal, it's probably the hardest to both implement and manage.