Honest Question to ZoS

Rogue_WolfESO

Why after all the years is there not a consideration or discussion around server structure Itself? Why can't the game be on separate servers for dedicated tasks PVP, PVE, PTS for NA and EU?
Unless I totally miss something on the technical side, which I am not an expert at all, would splitting the game servers as I wrote not fix a lot of lag, connectivity, gameplay, and allow the game devs to alter things like sets and abilities to balance PVP play while not nurfing PVE players using similar setups? Is the simple answer really "It is cheaper to run it the way it is?"

barney2525

You want to entirely remove PvP from one server? And entirely remove PvE from another server?

How do the PvPers level up? Why are PvEers denied the option of PvP play?

The game is Designed for Both. Just saying 'Separate them' does Not fix anything. That is not even bothering to evaluate what the ramifications of such an action would be.

IMHO

bachpain

I think that would make the database issues much more difficult to deal with because each activity impacts the others.

Rogue_WolfESO

Why would the players be denied anything? Depending on whatever gameplay they desire, they would simply be ported to the appropriate server. The game itself wouldn't need to change in appearance from the user end at all, simply the way ZoS servers handle client requests.

tauriel01

"server" is not equal to hardware. The PC "server" is on many machines. no idea how many, but more than one. So moving specific functions from the many actual hardware servers to another set of hardware servers really isn't going to accomplish much.

Synr

I believe what was meant is to move PVE and PVP to separate clustered instances so the loads on the servers are more balanced, particularly if the database is on a server of its own.

Rogue_WolfESO

Synr wrote: »

I believe what was meant is to move PVE and PVP to separate clustered instances so the loads on the servers are more balanced, particularly if the database is on a server of its own.

This is what I am getting at. As I said, not anywhere near an expert on how things need to or are setup or if it was possible. Just suggested as an idea.

tauriel01

Synr wrote: »

I believe what was meant is to move PVE and PVP to separate clustered instances so the loads on the servers are more balanced, particularly if the database is on a server of its own.

i really don't see how this fixes any lag issues. if the problem is simply not enough hardware, then adding hardware to the existing server farm should fix the problem. I don't think that is the fix tho, since that is a fairly simple fix and one would expect it would have been the first thing considered. I don't think stacking various (random as far as the code is concerned) activities on the same hardware is increasing the lag.

Rogue_WolfESO

Server infrastructure additions cost money though. Hence, the last part of my OP

kargen27

Rogue_Wolf wrote: »

Why would the players be denied anything? Depending on whatever gameplay they desire, they would simply be ported to the appropriate server. The game itself wouldn't need to change in appearance from the user end at all, simply the way ZoS servers handle client requests.

Because data can't be transferred between servers. That means no sets found in PvE content available for PvP and no skill learned in PvP available for PvE. Also no motifs and all that fun stuff.

tauriel01

kargen27 wrote: »

Rogue_Wolf wrote: »

Why would the players be denied anything? Depending on whatever gameplay they desire, they would simply be ported to the appropriate server. The game itself wouldn't need to change in appearance from the user end at all, simply the way ZoS servers handle client requests.

Because data can't be transferred between servers. That means no sets found in PvE content available for PvP and no skill learned in PvP available for PvE. Also no motifs and all that fun stuff.

So first I feel like everyone needs to use the same jargon here. When you (and the OP) say "server" are you talking about the virtual servers ZOS creates, such as the NA "server" or the EU "server" Or are you talking about the actual server hardware? cause data CAN transfer between the latter. not so much the former.

Rogue_WolfESO

tauriel01 wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Rogue_Wolf wrote: »

Why would the players be denied anything? Depending on whatever gameplay they desire, they would simply be ported to the appropriate server. The game itself wouldn't need to change in appearance from the user end at all, simply the way ZoS servers handle client requests.

Because data can't be transferred between servers. That means no sets found in PvE content available for PvP and no skill learned in PvP available for PvE. Also no motifs and all that fun stuff.

So first I feel like everyone needs to use the same jargon here. When you (and the OP) say "server" are you talking about the virtual servers ZOS creates, such as the NA "server" or the EU "server" Or are you talking about the actual server hardware? cause data CAN transfer between the latter. not so much the former.

Increasing the amount of physical hardware for the creation of the instances in the virtual server, if that is how they do it. There should be a way to share individual character data within each virtual space on PVE or PVP for your NA or EU gameplay. Not sure if I am explaining correctly.

fred4

Rogue_Wolf wrote: »

Unless I totally miss something on the technical side, which I am not an expert at all, would splitting the game servers as I wrote not fix a lot of lag, connectivity, gameplay,

I believe you are missing something. First of all there are 6 megaservers, one for each platform (PC, XBox, PS) in two regions (NA, EU). Secondly what they call a megaserver is, in fact, a server farm. Each time you have a loading screen, because you are traveling between different zones, you are switching servers. I'm not sure whether every zone has a separate server or how that's balanced. I'm sure that each private instance of a dungeon or trial does not have it's own server, but you do typically switch server when you enter. At the very least the client makes a new network connection. That's why you get loading screens.

As for PvP, I believe that each campaign has it's own server and that, possibly, each Imperial City campaign has two, one for the sewers and one for upstairs, which would explain why you get a significant loading screen when transitioning between upstairs and downstairs, but not so much when moving between districts.

If you compare this to other games, ESO is IMO much more advanced. This (sharding?) system lets you connect with all players on your platform. Transitioning between servers is handled transparently in the background. Other games, such as New World, do not even attempt this.

I'm by no means an apologist for ZOS. I am primarily a long suffering PvPer. I don't set foot in Cyrodiil at prime time, because I can't stand the lag. That said, Cyrodiil is huge. The concept was for huge battles taking place. Again, I'm not sure how many games even attempt this or manage to do it successfully.

I imagine something could be done to improve the hardware, but I'm by no means sure. For example, are they using virtual servers or bare metal ones? How much are the (virtual) servers loaded? Nonetheless, as a programmer, I feel that hardware progress over the past decade and a half has been slow (until recently). Yes, we get more cores these days, but single core performance has improved at most 4-fold since 2008. If you are trying to accomodate a large number of players on one Cyrodiil server, you are perhaps liable to run into situations where a single server thread is the bottleneck. My best guess is that that's what happening.

ZOS are apparently working on improving performance by re-architecting part of the software. This is IMO the right call. Even with best practices, it can be difficult to anticipate where the bottlenecks in your program are. Solving those bottlenecks or rearchitecting your software can yield performance improvements that far outstrip what a hardware upgrade could do. I fixed a performance issue with a small, innocuous-looking Oracle query in the software I maintain, recently, that yielded a performance improvement of 50x.

Of course, the problem with software is (a) correctly identifying performance bottlenecks and (b) spending the resources on a non-trivial fix. From the way they're talking, I actually believe that's what ZOS are at. Do I have faith that they'll see it through? No, not really. Their track record doesn't support it. They could run into some spanner in the works that they decide not to fix, if they judge it too much effort. I wish them the best, though.

and allow the game devs to alter things like sets and abilities to balance PVP play while not nurfing PVE players using similar setups?

I think that's a different question. To my knowledge Ravenwatch and everything they've tried has not significantly altered the performance characteristics of the game. There does seem to be an issue whereby they could not easily run instances of the game with different rules. I'm not convinced that there is much point in having that option in order to fix performance. I think this is a political issue. For examle I personally like one set of rules. ZOS have consistently leaned in that direction as well.

Rogue_WolfESO

@fred4 that is an amazing and articulate response. Thank you for taking the time to write that.

Marto

Rogue_Wolf wrote: »

Why can't the game be on separate servers for dedicated tasks PVP, PVE, PTS for NA and EU?

Because ZOS has always encouraged players to diversify their gameplay. They want all players to do a little bit of PVE, a little bit of PVP, a little bit of questing, a little bit of housing, and a little bit of collecting.

It's why furnishing patterns drop from all kinds of activities. Why antiquities drop from all kinds of activities. And, soon, why cards for the new minigame will drop from all kinds of activities.

It's why Seals of Endeavors come from a variety of sources, and why we have events like Midyear Mayhem, Undaunted Celebration, and Jester's Festival.

And it's also why PVP and PVE don't have separate balance. Because ZOS doesn't want players to have to "re-learn" their class and abilities when switching from a PVE activity to a PVP activity. They're meant to be the same game, not separate games.

It's a creative decision that makes the game more diverse, dynamic, and interconnected. At least according to the designers at ZOS. Even if ZOS could separate servers, and there were no technical barriers or difficulties, they still wouldn't do it.

Rogue_Wolf wrote: »

Why would the players be denied anything? Depending on whatever gameplay they desire, they would simply be ported to the appropriate server. The game itself wouldn't need to change in appearance from the user end at all, simply the way ZoS servers handle client requests.

This is also exactly how it works at the moment. A megaserver is a collection of dozens of smaller servers, each handling their own things, and pulling from a common pool of player data.