+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Final Fantasy 14 (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=41)
+--- Forum: FFXIV Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Balmung Restriction Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=9805)
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Khoure - 02-21-2015
IMO the best thing is consistency. While it sucks that the hours are inconvenient, I believe that "every tues, wed, thurs from 3-5 am PST" is much preferable to random, all over the time openings, even if the random method gave rise to more time open over all. Of course, its based on people logged in, which introduces some randomness, though there does seem to be overall trends. If it's regular, and open for at least an hour (giving you time to go over appearance/push multiple alts) then I don't have a problem with it.
Granted, that does create a problem for those who may be at work during the open hours, and can't just take a day off.
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Random Encounter - 02-21-2015
(02-20-2015, 09:34 PM)Naunet Wrote: This certainly isn't the first time I've called SE bad on their character restrictions. Been doing it almost since the moment they closed down creation, so no need to try and diminish my arguments with that line.
In whose book is the ass crack of dawn only actually an acceptable thing to have?
If that, according to trackers, its been open once in the last week or so x.x
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Kage - 02-21-2015
Brilliant idea. Tell people to start playing on not peak times! More people playing at the ass crack of dawn! If the restrictions are because of concurrent logged in players, guess when people aren't playing and when restrictions aren't in place as much?
The lodestone only tracks it at several times per day. It doesn't just magically say OK GUYS WE'RE CLOSING FOR 21 HOURS STARTING NOW. We don't know what the concrete reasons are or at what limits they are. They -could- be extremely strict for new characters (aka a threshold on character creation when 'capacity' = 60% and character transfers are 95%), but -we are not the FFXIV team.-
So we can't tell you concretely when things are open.
Logic states that they're not going to always keep a server open all the time. It's going to reach a limit at some point. WHen they have other servers open, logic seems that they'd prefer other people to go to the less populated worlds. Does that fucking suck? Yes. But when I go to a restaurant and it's full I regularly have to decide whether or not I will wait in line and find the most opportune moment or I go find a place that isn't so crowded.
(02-21-2015, 12:54 AM)Phae Wrote: If that, according to trackers, its been open once in the last week or so x.xBased on people posting in the balmung is open thread, just this last week we had openings 2/18-2/20 (today).
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Verranicus - 02-21-2015
(02-19-2015, 06:54 PM)Naunet Wrote:Make your alt on another server if it's too hard for you. There are small RP communities on servers besides Gilgamesh and Balmung, and while I think SE's server infrastructure is inadequate they have to do something to keep everyone off of one megaserver while they come up with a real solution.(02-19-2015, 07:53 AM)K Wrote: Well server is open as of 3:53 AM PST. So it looks like I was just trying on a bad set of days (Weekend and monday lol) and looks like mid-week at a time when the sun aint even thought of coming out yet, is the best times for people to make chars.
But regardless, it's going to be hells making an Au Ra in the expansion, unless they do something.
It's also rather unacceptable that the only way to really make a new character on Balmung is to destroy one's sleep for a night. -_-;
The server is consistently open between 5-8AM EST during weekdays (most often on Wednesday/Thursday). If you can't wake up a few hours earlier than normal you obviously didn't want the alt that much anyway.
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Naunet - 02-21-2015
(02-21-2015, 01:06 AM)Kage Wrote: But when I go to a restaurant and it's full I regularly have to decide whether or not I will wait in line and find the most opportune moment or I go find a place that isn't so crowded.
This is a rather poor analogy. While I rather dislike internet analogies, at least something that would make it more accurate would be if... All your friends and peers and community had chosen a particular restaurant, but when you get there, the hostess is turning people away at the door and doesn't give a rat's ass that she's telling you to go spend your evening alone and isolated from all the people you care about interacting with.
Suddenly, just "find[ing] a place that isn't so crowded" doesn't sound quite so simple, does it?
(02-21-2015, 05:03 PM)Verranicus Wrote: The server is consistently open between 5-8AM EST during weekdays (most often on Wednesday/Thursday). If you can't wake up a few hours earlier than normal you obviously didn't want the alt that much anyway.
Or it just means I value what little sleep I do get before my very demanding job and have no tolerance for poor decisions on the part of SE. :p
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Kellach Woods - 02-21-2015
(02-21-2015, 01:06 AM)Kage Wrote: Logic states that they're not going to always keep a server open all the time.
...the fuck?
I don't think I've ever seen a server as consistently locked as Balmung was even this week in any game.
I mean, logically, if EVERY OTHER GAME can get away with having most servers open at any time for character creation... why isn't this one?
I understand the point made, I just don't think it's got anything to do with any sort of logic. Neither is mine really but c'mon.
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Unnamed Mercenary - 02-21-2015
(02-21-2015, 09:23 PM)Naunet Wrote:(02-21-2015, 01:06 AM)Kage Wrote: But when I go to a restaurant and it's full I regularly have to decide whether or not I will wait in line and find the most opportune moment or I go find a place that isn't so crowded.
This is a rather poor analogy. While I rather dislike internet analogies, at least something that would make it more accurate would be if... All your friends and peers and community had chosen a particular restaurant, but when you get there, the hostess is turning people away at the door and doesn't give a rat's ass that she's telling you to go spend your evening alone and isolated from all the people you care about interacting with.
Suddenly, just "find[ing] a place that isn't so crowded" doesn't sound quite so simple, does it?
Let's add to this though. Because if we keep this restaurant analogy, it'd be important to note, it's not that the hostess is blocking you from your friends, it's that she's blocking any new people from the restaurant, and rnadom new person has no way of verifying they're "part of the group". Server transfers would be like showing a past receipt. Like a "see? I belong here," message.
As a person who has worked in a restaurant, I can easily tell you that if there are no seats to give, people are not going to be seated at a table, regardless of how many people they know in the restaurant. It doesn't work that way. As a "paying customer" to many other restaurants, I've also been to many places that will also say "we will not seat you if your full party is not present." And if they call the party name and the full group isn't there? Too bad, so sad. Bottom of the wait list.
Rather than deciding on a restaurant typically PACKED with people, wouldn't you normally try to plan an outting at somewhere where you'll get the same service without the long wait? Assuming the SE Server-Restaurants are IDENTICAL in service, why would SE try to build some with more seats if it's going to have the same number of competent staff working? All that would happen is overworking the waiters, and then you'd get bad service.
--
It's important to realize that SE isn't doing this to keep people apart from their friends. SE is doing this to maintain a service that people already complain about in regards to server stability. Why would they ever open up a server that's telling their admins "hey, I'm really full right now. And I have too many connections to safely support adding more people in bulk."
But what about the people who already have a created character? How come they can login? Great thing to think about! Individual zones can get overloaded too! (I blame patches for spikes in population). So not only can the server hit a threshold of "there are too many exisiting people logged in", which we know is not the same number of people it can support, but each zone does have a hard limit of how many people can be there before nobody can enter it.
Pure speculation here, but this is how I think they might be handling how many characters per server.
Server:
- Zone 1
- Zone 2
- Zone 3
- etc
- instance/map 1
- instance/map 2
- instance/map 3
- etc
We know that when 100% of X is full, nobody is allow to move to that map/instance.
And we know that the total sum of zones "should" match the theoretical capacity of the server at 100% load.
Here's where it gets fun. How would you accommodate if say, X1 was at 90% and X2 was at 80%, and X3 was at a mere 10%, but then a massive amount of people from X1 and X2 wanted to head over? Let's say half the existing people there. X3 would then have its 10% + 45% (from X1) + 40% (from X2) all heading over, which locks it up. But it would be a massively bad idea to let something have 105% its capacity, right? Should be possible, right? But what if some of those people were viewing a cutscene or in an instance and had to be returned? So let's then assume the 10% in X3 was actually those people. ...like a saved seat or something. X3 would need some sort of "safe buffer" against this. As would all the other zones. So let's assume SE locks out a zone when it has 90% active capacity, to allow for bizarre circumstances, like someone popping up from a cutscene or something.Â
Add up all that "safe space" from every zone, and it's clear the server has much more capacity available than what could be used. But now take into account that an existing character could login at any moment. Maybe the server has to deal with that too. So it makes ANOTHER buffer for those people. Let's say 20% of the maximum capacity is reserved for these players, just in case. Now we have more slots that "could be used" by new players, but are there for the existing players who -might- login. Based of off usage statistics and whatnot, SE probably takes this into account and can adjust the zones and server buffers to account for it.
But how does this affect when a server might be open? More speculation. Let's assume a server normally has about 30-70% of its capacity in use. It would make sense for it to be open on the lower scale, since not many people are logged in. But if it's hitting that 70% or other magic number? Close down new characters. What if existing ones decide to login based off of all these logs that say "the highest population is supposed to be in a few minutes"? Close creation. Get ready for existing people. ...if they don't come? Adjust the stats. Maybe we can account for more people online or less people online at this time.Â
So what do we, the players see? Open/Closed. What does the server have to take into account? A lot more. For the game to be successful, it needs to be reliable AND have people playing it. This gets taken into consideration. Seeing a server closed is never fun for new people, but it's a sign that the server has enough work to do. Short of trying to offer some bonus to people to move to a less-populated server, SE cannot balance load without restricting character creation and zone limits. Is it the best approach? Debatable. Can they simply expand their servers and increase it? Who knows. My guess is that it's not financially worth it, because adding servers is expensive. Load balancing those servers is expensive. Have too many servers for a given zone/instance/cluster, and you'll have an impact in its performance because something has to handle all those machines and designate resources. Throwing money at the datacenter isn't going to solve the problem.Â
This is high-performance computing here. It's not simple. It isn't solved simply. And really, getting mad isn't going to change anything about it. And if by some chance every existing server SE has becomes full at a datacenter? I highly doubt they'll expand our servers. Rather, they'll open new ones. Maybe offer incentives, and call it a night. We don't know how this is sorted out. And we're not their network engineers.
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Naunet - 02-21-2015
That's a whole lot of words to excuse SE for shitty servers.
A million and one other MMOs have this figured out. The second most successful P2P MMO out there should be able to as well.
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Unnamed Mercenary - 02-21-2015
(02-21-2015, 10:36 PM)Naunet Wrote: That's a whole lot of words to excuse SE for shitty servers.
A million and one other MMOs have this figured out. The second most successful P2P MMO out there should be able to as well.
Question though. (And it should be an easy one). Is FFXIV any one of those "other" games?Â
Followups for fun:
Have they shared the same game design?Â
Do they have identical servers?
Identical networking?
The same amount of players at the same time?
The same popularity?
The same server architecture?
The same server design?
The same programmers?
The same people making decisions about the game?
If you answered "no" to any of the above, then they really cannot be compared.
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Kellach Woods - 02-21-2015
(02-21-2015, 11:06 PM)Unnamed Mercenary Wrote: If you answered "no" to any of the above, then they really cannot be compared.
They can - in terms of quality of service to the end user. Ultimately, that's all that matters to the customer. You can give 'em all the reasons for why it can't be done, but they don't give a shit as to why it can't be done - they give a shit about what the fuck you're gonna do about it.
Right now, SE isn't doing anything about it. Which is why there's angry people.
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Kailia - 02-22-2015
So I checked my thread on the official forum, and apparently asking for the server to be open for folks to make alts, is considered flame baiting?! Some of the people can be downright nasty for no good reason. Oh and apparently I am super evil because I made an alt instead of having only 1 character *rolls eyes*
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Kellach Woods - 02-22-2015
I honestly would not bother with the official forums... ever.
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Kailia - 02-22-2015
(02-22-2015, 12:55 AM)Kellach Woods Wrote: I honestly would not bother with the official forums... ever.
Yeah and I thought WoW's forums were pretty toxic. Just about every post in my thread is someone bashing on roleplayers, and blaming us for the server being restricted all the time. Nope can't be the hundreds of thousands of bots, or the people who sit afk for days. Has to be us roleplayers who have more than 1 character we rp with.
So yeah I've learned myself a lesson. I'm not going to post on the official forums again, only go there to check out the dev tracker. Doesn't seem like SE does much moderating on that forum for so many people to get away with flaming people because they don't play how they feel we should.
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Khoure - 02-22-2015
(02-22-2015, 12:44 AM)Kailia Wrote: So I checked my thread on the official forum, and apparently asking for the server to be open for folks to make alts, is considered flame baiting?! Some of the people can be downright nasty for no good reason. Oh and apparently I am super evil because I made an alt instead of having only 1 character *rolls eyes*
wow, the main forums are.. far more hostile to RP than I imagined. I never remember getting any hate in WoW for having a bunch of alts, heck it was pretty well expected and I wasn't even on RP servers. And still with the idea that alt character data somehow blocks new people form joining in...
It'd be nice if SE maybe offered free server switches out of Balmung for anyone. Maybe they could actually break down and add an "RP SERVER"/"RP FRIENDLY SERVER" label or something. Because while we need a fair amount of people not RPing in order to drive the economy, it would be nice to have some potential free space for more RPers stuck trying to get in
RE: Balmung Restriction Discussion - Naunet - 02-22-2015
(02-21-2015, 11:14 PM)Kellach Woods Wrote:(02-21-2015, 11:06 PM)Unnamed Mercenary Wrote: If you answered "no" to any of the above, then they really cannot be compared.
They can - in terms of quality of service to the end user. Ultimately, that's all that matters to the customer. You can give 'em all the reasons for why it can't be done, but they don't give a shit as to why it can't be done - they give a shit about what the fuck you're gonna do about it.
Right now, SE isn't doing anything about it. Which is why there's angry people.
Precisely! As consumers, our main concern shouldn't be trying to find ways to forgive SE for falling short of various industry standards; it should be holding SE up to those standards at minimum.
(02-22-2015, 01:11 AM)Khoure Wrote: I never remember getting any hate in WoW for having a bunch of alts, heck it was pretty well expected and I wasn't even on RP servers. And still with the idea that alt character data somehow blocks new people form joining in...Â
It's the weird-ass FFXI-indoctrinated people, I'm sure. The people who cannot fathom ever using more than one character because you can do everything on one character. That combined with their blind faith in their Chosen God SquareEnix creates some pretty ridiculous opinions.
You never saw alt-hate and strange beliefs about character data in WoW because Blizzard actually has good servers and population policies, and alts are not just expected but even encouraged by the community.
The FFXIV community is really, really weird.