Are the megaservers holding the game back?

Suddwrath

Yes, replace the two megaservers per platform with more distributed servers

Billdor wrote: »

My thoughts exactly, you know nothing.

Good Day.

Why so angry? Just because someone may not be familiar with a particular subject does not mean they "know nothing".

Billdor

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

SaltySudd wrote: »

Billdor wrote: »

My thoughts exactly, you know nothing.

Good Day.

Why so angry? Just because someone may not be familiar with a particular subject does not mean they "know nothing".

Far from angry, I asked someone why they think ZoS should use Cloud Computing and as per usual someone who knows F all pipes up. And when you ask them for a business case (as you would do in Industry) they get all defensive.

Thus my response, you know nothing.

If an individual is not familiar with a particular subject then why are they bashing a company within context of said subject?

Suddwrath

Yes, replace the two megaservers per platform with more distributed servers

Billdor wrote: »

Far from angry, I asked someone why they think ZoS should use Cloud Computing and as per usual someone who knows F all pipes up. And when you ask them for a business case (as you would do in Industry) they get all defensive.

The reason they became defensive was from you asking their qualifications in Cloud Computing. Does someone need to have a degree simply to give their feedback on a particular subject?

Billdor wrote: »

Thus my response, you know nothing.
If an individual is not familiar with a particular subject then why are they bashing a company within context of said subject?

Refer to my first point.

Billdor

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

SaltySudd wrote: »

Billdor wrote: »

Far from angry, I asked someone why they think ZoS should use Cloud Computing and as per usual someone who knows F all pipes up. And when you ask them for a business case (as you would do in Industry) they get all defensive.

The reason they became defensive was from you asking their qualifications in Cloud Computing. Does someone need to have a degree simply to give their feedback on a particular subject?

Billdor wrote: »

Thus my response, you know nothing.
If an individual is not familiar with a particular subject then why are they bashing a company within context of said subject?

Refer to my first point.

Yes they do need a certification to give feeback on a particular subject. Hold on let me just go tell CERN that they're doing the LHC all wrong and my way is better even though I have no qualifactions or experience to prove so.

Anyways done arguing with you as well because its evident that you know nothing either,

Good Day.

Suddwrath

Yes, replace the two megaservers per platform with more distributed servers

Billdor wrote: »

Yes they do need a certification to give feeback on a particular subject. Hold on let me just go tell CERN that they're doing the LHC all wrong and my way is better even though I have no qualifactions or experience to prove so.

So someone needs to have a certification to give feedback on a particular subject? Welp.

• I guess that means I can't help my buddy out at the gym with his routine since I do not have a certification in physical training.
• I guess that means I can't give my friend advice on a healthy diet since I don't have a certification in nutrition or health science.
• I guess that means I can't discuss with my friends when I think a good time to go skiing would be since I don't have a certification in meteorology.
• I guess that means I can't give my friend advice on which car I think he should purchase since I don't have an automotive certification.
• I guess that means I can't discuss with my fiancee what our budget should look like since I don't have an accounting certification.

See how silly that sounds? People don't need to have a certification to engage in a forum on a particular subject. Everyone is free to give their feedback. Will it be correct if they are not familiar with the subject? Probably not. But they are free to share their perspective nonetheless.

nafensoriel

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

SaltySudd wrote: »

Billdor wrote: »

Yes they do need a certification to give feeback on a particular subject. Hold on let me just go tell CERN that they're doing the LHC all wrong and my way is better even though I have no qualifactions or experience to prove so.

So someone needs to have a certification to give feedback on a particular subject? Welp.

• I guess that means I can't help my buddy out at the gym with his routine since I do not have a certification in physical training.
• I guess that means I can't give my friend advice on a healthy diet since I don't have a certification in nutrition or health science.
• I guess that means I can't discuss with my friends when I think a good time to go skiing would be since I don't have a certification in meteorology.
• I guess that means I can't give my friend advice on which car I think he should purchase since I don't have an automotive certification.
• I guess that means I can't discuss with my fiancee what our budget should look like since I don't have an accounting certification.

See how silly that sounds? People don't need to have a certification to engage in a forum on a particular subject. Everyone is free to give their feedback. Will it be correct if they are not familiar with the subject? Probably not. But they are free to share their perspective nonetheless.

I'm not IT but work in a field just as technically complex. Yes, you do need a degree to talk about it and have any hope of making a logical statement. That's not being mean or rude its just the nature of the beast.

Once a profession crosses certain boundary lines a framework of what that profession is must exist. You can't argue with a nuclear physicist about how a hydrodynamic front affects objects in any meaningful capacity because without equal understanding it will boil down to such simplified mechanics as to be moot.

Even from my limited understanding of IT, I have a technical background near the subject and I can flat out tell you cloud computing wouldn't give any benefit. Things like cyrodiil are going to be cockups because of hard limits a server just won't fix.

Suddwrath

Yes, replace the two megaservers per platform with more distributed servers

nafensoriel wrote: »

Yes, you do need a degree to talk about it and have any hope of making a logical statement. That's not being mean or rude its just the nature of the beast.

Again, that is not true. Someone does not need a degree to participate in a forum.

1. They are free to discuss and share their opinion. If it is on a subject they are not familiar with, their opinion may not be correct or might not even make any sense. But that does not mean they are not free to share it.
2. Going back to the whole degree/certification debate, if someone is not familiar with a subject they can do their research on the topic to better understand it and then bring meaningful discussion to the topic. They do not need a degree to do that.

ZOS_RogerJ

While we completely understand everyone has their own opinions, thoughts, feelings and even frustrations, we want the forums to be a civil and constructive platform for the game and it's community as a whole. So please keep the thread on-topic, civil and constructive.

Billdor

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

nafensoriel wrote: »

SaltySudd wrote: »

Billdor wrote: »

Yes they do need a certification to give feeback on a particular subject. Hold on let me just go tell CERN that they're doing the LHC all wrong and my way is better even though I have no qualifactions or experience to prove so.

So someone needs to have a certification to give feedback on a particular subject? Welp.

• I guess that means I can't help my buddy out at the gym with his routine since I do not have a certification in physical training.
• I guess that means I can't give my friend advice on a healthy diet since I don't have a certification in nutrition or health science.
• I guess that means I can't discuss with my friends when I think a good time to go skiing would be since I don't have a certification in meteorology.
• I guess that means I can't give my friend advice on which car I think he should purchase since I don't have an automotive certification.
• I guess that means I can't discuss with my fiancee what our budget should look like since I don't have an accounting certification.

See how silly that sounds? People don't need to have a certification to engage in a forum on a particular subject. Everyone is free to give their feedback. Will it be correct if they are not familiar with the subject? Probably not. But they are free to share their perspective nonetheless.

I'm not IT but work in a field just as technically complex. Yes, you do need a degree to talk about it and have any hope of making a logical statement. That's not being mean or rude its just the nature of the beast.

Once a profession crosses certain boundary lines a framework of what that profession is must exist. You can't argue with a nuclear physicist about how a hydrodynamic front affects objects in any meaningful capacity because without equal understanding it will boil down to such simplified mechanics as to be moot.

Even from my limited understanding of IT, I have a technical background near the subject and I can flat out tell you cloud computing wouldn't give any benefit. Things like cyrodiil are going to be cockups because of hard limits a server just won't fix.

Finally a man/women who speaks my language.

nafensoriel

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

SaltySudd wrote: »

Again, that is not true. Someone does not need a degree to participate in a forum.

[*] They are free to discuss and share their opinion. If it is on a subject they are not familiar with, their opinion may not be correct or might not even make any sense. But that does not mean they are not free to share it.
[*] Going back to the whole degree/certification debate, if someone is not familiar with a subject they can do their research on the topic to better understand it and then bring meaningful discussion to the topic. They do not need a degree to do that.

I've always been a strong supporter of a persons right to an opinion and you are correct for any topic anyone may have any opinion they desire. However, an opinion does not necessarily equate to a persons ability to understand what their opinion means.
Doing research can help with preliminary understanding but there is an old rule in trades. 1000 hours to proficiency and 10000 hours to mastery. Many people can reach these points earlier or later but the rule exists as a thumb guide to highlight how experience and knowledge are required to understand. In something like networking, there are entire ecosystems of knowledge that you will never be able to fully comprehend without time involving them. From something as basic as the speed of light(yes this is important. Sometimes you won't ever get a good connection due to physics.. even in america) to something as massive as how tier 1 isps work.
Then you have to consider the hardware side itself. A server always has finite resources. Sometimes an application hits the hard wall of physics on server hardware and just can't get any faster no matter how massive or complex your server infrastructure is. One bottleneck can become a monolithic obstacle.

Basically, it's not really simple and any attempt to dumb it down to something as simple as the average person requires for understanding strips the factors of complexity.

All this doesn't touch the fact that by allowing a cloud service to touch a game server would expose everyone to an entirely new path of data breach. Since many people use the crown store that is a fairly ugly liability action waiting to happen.

Suddwrath

Yes, replace the two megaservers per platform with more distributed servers

nafensoriel wrote: »

SaltySudd wrote: »

Again, that is not true. Someone does not need a degree to participate in a forum.

[*] They are free to discuss and share their opinion. If it is on a subject they are not familiar with, their opinion may not be correct or might not even make any sense. But that does not mean they are not free to share it.
[*] Going back to the whole degree/certification debate, if someone is not familiar with a subject they can do their research on the topic to better understand it and then bring meaningful discussion to the topic. They do not need a degree to do that.

I've always been a strong supporter of a persons right to an opinion and you are correct for any topic anyone may have any opinion they desire. However, an opinion does not necessarily equate to a persons ability to understand what their opinion means.
Doing research can help with preliminary understanding but there is an old rule in trades. 1000 hours to proficiency and 10000 hours to mastery. Many people can reach these points earlier or later but the rule exists as a thumb guide to highlight how experience and knowledge are required to understand. In something like networking, there are entire ecosystems of knowledge that you will never be able to fully comprehend without time involving them. From something as basic as the speed of light(yes this is important. Sometimes you won't ever get a good connection due to physics.. even in america) to something as massive as how tier 1 isps work.
Then you have to consider the hardware side itself. A server always has finite resources. Sometimes an application hits the hard wall of physics on server hardware and just can't get any faster no matter how massive or complex your server infrastructure is. One bottleneck can become a monolithic obstacle.

Basically, it's not really simple and any attempt to dumb it down to something as simple as the average person requires for understanding strips the factors of complexity.

All this doesn't touch the fact that by allowing a cloud service to touch a game server would expose everyone to an entirely new path of data breach. Since many people use the crown store that is a fairly ugly liability action waiting to happen.

I feel like the discussion is getting a little derailed. I understand your argument regarding when you take something so complex and try to simplify it for someone it may lose a significant amount of meaning and some of its moving parts (and even then that person won't completely understand the subject), but that wasn't quite the argument I was trying to make. I was addressing Billdor's belief about:

Billdor wrote: »

Yes they do need a certification to give feeback on a particular subject.

It's a little extreme to suggest that in order to contribute to a discussion about any subject you need to have a certification in that particular subject. Which is simply false. I am completely oblivious to the mating habits of squirrels, but that does not mean I cannot join a discussion on squirrel mating habits if I am not a zoologist. If I were trying to join a forum on that topic (I have no idea why, but for the sake of the argument...) then I would use the knowledge I already possess and would try to apply my limited amount of understanding so that I could at least attempt to join the discussion. Maybe one of my friends is a zoologist and I overheard him talking about squirrel mating habits a while back, and I try to recall some of the information I remember from him. If even then I am still not able to understand the situation, I could do some research to at least try and gather a basic working knowledge of the subject. But simply because I am not a zoologist does not mean that I can't even attempt to join in the discussion because I "know nothing" (as Billdor was suggesting).

Again, not the best example at all and I'm not even sure why squirrel mating habits was the first thing to pop into mind, but the point still stands: You do not need to have a certification or degree to join in a forum about any subject or else nobody would be "allowed" to talk about simple things like the weather unless they were a certified meteorologist (yeah, I should have just used weather as an example...). Anyone can join any discussion regardless of their qualifications or level of understanding on the matter. They might not make any sense or be able to fully understand/appreciate the subject, but to tell them to basically stop talking and go away because they "know nothing" is simply short sighted.

I hear what you're saying about there being some things which are too complex to understand for the everyday person, and I agree with that, but I was just addressing Billdor's belief about a certification/degree being required for any subject.

BUT coming full circle back to the original topic at hand to avoid this being locked...........megaservers, amiright? I believe that an Oceanic one would at least be a good middle ground.

Sylvermynx

Personal opinion incoming: I don't want to play a game on a "cloud platform". I don't do anything on a cloud platform, as I have some really bad feelings about privacy and especially data breach.

Ugh. Not interested.

Shady_Knights

Yes, replace the two megaservers per platform with more distributed servers

For those that say No, you need to try and play the game on a 300+ ping with constant drop out and unplayable PVP (skill lag) to really understand the answer.

For those of us outside of NA or close to the EU server, it's not a great experience.

Also, no doubt our slow ping also degrades performance indirectly in EU and NA as our lagging connection has our toons rubberbanding around, dropping out of groups, etc.

Sylvermynx

Shady_Knights wrote: »

For those that say No, you need to try and play the game on a 300+ ping with constant drop out and unplayable PVP (skill lag) to really understand the answer.

For those of us outside of NA or close to the EU server, it's not a great experience.

Also, no doubt our slow ping also degrades performance indirectly in EU and NA as our lagging connection has our toons rubberbanding around, dropping out of groups, etc.

I'd kill for your 300ms ping. Mine's always north of 2k+ ms. So.... yeah. Want to trade? And yes, I live in the lower 48, less than 1.5k miles from the nearest server.

Orillion

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

Honestly i would even like more one single global server than two megaservers.
There's nothing like the feeling of being part of one giant world, and there's a ton of EU players like me playing on the NA server already anyway.

Chronocidal

a game without lag where all players regardless of location or hardware get the same connection quality

thats not going to happen for another 100yrs if not longer

idk

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

Nestor wrote: »

Thing to understand about the MegaServers, they can increase in capacity in relation to the populations. AWS is the hosting center and their nom de plume is scalable server platforms.

Back at launch, the zones were jammed with players and PvP campaigns were packed. Performance was fine although even then people grumbled about PvP performance, it was much better than now.

This reply is spot. Especially that PvP performance was better back then than now even though PvP had much larger populations (pop cap was higher and more campaigns filled up).

The other fact is that ESO population has shrunk. The reason Zos began to let players group up cross faction for instances had more to do with the population shrinking than anything else. If we did not have mega servers then that would have been a server merger.

Then Zos doing the 1T where our PvE questing zones were no longer separated by factions was akin to another server merger since it could no longer be justified keeping additional server resources active with a lower population.

My point is, games that have more servers serving more geographic areas more specifically and experience the dramatic population decrease ESO has seen end up with servers in only two areas, EU and NA. So the suggestion OP has made does not really hold water.

Elsonso

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

Nestor wrote: »

Thing to understand about the MegaServers, they can increase in capacity in relation to the populations. AWS is the hosting center and their nom de plume is scalable server platforms.

Just saw this. I don't think the megaservers are hosted by AWS. AWS does not have facilities in Texas, that I am aware of. I theorize that they are hosted by Level 3 (now CenturyLink), which has raised floor data centers in both Dallas and Frankfurt.

nafensoriel

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

idk wrote: »

The other fact is that ESO population has shrunk. The reason Zos began to let players group up cross faction for instances had more to do with the population shrinking than anything else. If we did not have mega servers then that would have been a server merger.

No, it hasnt. That's just your bias showing.
Also maybe the reason performance was better back then was because for some dumb reason certain things were calculated client-side and lighting was far less complex?

Elsonso

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

nafensoriel wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The other fact is that ESO population has shrunk. The reason Zos began to let players group up cross faction for instances had more to do with the population shrinking than anything else. If we did not have mega servers then that would have been a server merger.

No, it hasnt. That's just your bias showing.
Also maybe the reason performance was better back then was because for some dumb reason certain things were calculated client-side and lighting was far less complex?

Both showing bias, if you ask me. We cannot tell from our perspective whether departing players are being replaced by new players in the same quantity, or if it is more or less. The game is designed in a manner that hides that information from us, and does this task well.

zyk

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

nafensoriel wrote: »

Also maybe the reason performance was better back then was because for some dumb reason certain things were calculated client-side and lighting was far less complex?

Not this again! ZOS has explained specifically that performance decreased as characters leveled and players learned the game, stressing the servers more. Lag was critically bad in Cyrodiil at times within 2 months after launch and both the server and the client crashed frequently by 1.3.

The game still has a trusted client. We know this because new memory hacking videos were posted recently to prove it -- although, no proof was necessary, because ZOS never said they solved memory hacking.

The problem in Cyro is not the number of players, but rather the number of concurrent calculations. This is at its worst when players stack because we layer calculations on each other via abilities, passives and sets.

Lake

Unless you're a game like WoW, Oceanic servers die a miserable death.

As an ex-Oceanic player, I always picked the West Coast servers due to population.

VexingArcanist

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

The term Megaserver is used loosely to refer to the merging of the original servers. They are hardly Mega by today's standards. Fragmenting the player base further would not bode well for the game.

rootimus

Other

Like "the cloud", "clean coal" and "assault weapons", "megaservers" simply don't exist.

Given that the whole purpose of One Tamriel was to create the illusion of more people playing I really can't see them increasing the number of servers. Besides, it would wreak havoc on guilds that have members from around the world.

Honestly, I'd rather they just had one server, like Eve, but I shudder to think how badly ZOS would implement that. Instead of using an old 386 for each server, they'd probably use a single 286 and wonder why everyone complained performance had decreased.

VexingArcanist

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

rootimus wrote: »

Like "the cloud", "clean coal" and "assault weapons", "megaservers" simply don't exist.

Given that the whole purpose of One Tamriel was to create the illusion of more people playing I really can't see them increasing the number of servers. Besides, it would wreak havoc on guilds that have members from around the world.

Honestly, I'd rather they just had one server, like Eve, but I shudder to think how badly ZOS would implement that. Instead of using an old 386 for each server, they'd probably use a single 286 and wonder why everyone complained performance had decreased.

They should really bring the servers in-house, I am quite sure they are contracted out to some company and their server farm.

They will never get a handle on Cyrodiil lag without the servers being under their ownership.

zyk

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

VexingArcanist wrote: »

They should really bring the servers in-house, I am quite sure they are contracted out to some company and their server farm.

They will never get a handle on Cyrodiil lag without the servers being under their ownership.

What do you base this on? Do you have insider knowledge about ZOS infrastructure? But it's probably bad advice, akin to suggesting a store host its own web servers -- those days are far past us.

The idea of new servers to improve Cyrodiil has been brought up in the past, but ZOS has said throwing hardware at the problem won't fix it.

idk

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

nafensoriel wrote: »

idk wrote: »

The other fact is that ESO population has shrunk. The reason Zos began to let players group up cross faction for instances had more to do with the population shrinking than anything else. If we did not have mega servers then that would have been a server merger.

No, it hasnt. That's just your bias showing.
Also maybe the reason performance was better back then was because for some dumb reason certain things were calculated client-side and lighting was far less complex?

No offense but it is absurd to suggest my comment is bias showing when you offer absolutely nothing to support the opposite. For to say it is my bias is a rather empty comment without something to back up your words.

For starters, we used to fill up multiple campaigns every night including week nights and that was before Zos reduced the population cap at least twice. That alone is a measurement of the population of the game that supports my claim that the population has shrunk.

So you are wrong as my comment is clearly not biased.

As for performance there are multiple issues. Yes, moving more from trusted client to server side has put a strain on the servers. However, it is not that simple. Zos has stated it is a myriad of issues including all the different calculations that need to be performed. Zos has added plenty of that to the game since launch including CP but also many buffs and more.

zyk

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

idk wrote: »

As for performance there are multiple issues. Yes, moving more from trusted client to server side has put a strain on the servers.

This is not a fact. What is a fact is that the client is still trusted because memory hacking is still a thing.

Raudgrani

Yes, replace the two megaservers per platform with more distributed servers

They really should merge EU/NA on all platforms. All technicalities aside, imagine the increase in active players, guilds, sellers in traders and everything.

nafensoriel

No, keep the two megaservers per platform

idk wrote: »

/snip

Correlation does not imply fact. In 2017 the president of ZOS openly said 2.5 million monthly users using that explicit terminology. The "myth" that the population is decreasing is just a myth. The WAY people are playing is simply changing.

Ten years ago an MMO was a game you devoted time to or got left behind.. Today it's a thing you simply play whenever you feel like it. "Hardcore" breathed its last breath with Wildstar.

Additionally, any MMO has container issues. Every time a character loads it's going to cause strain because everything that character is has to move. No duh. It's one of the major challenges in MMO design. It's not magic to ESO. It doesn't change the truth that ESO won't be helped by a cloud server. Its problems will still exist.