Back to PK
forum logo

Server Limitation Poll Return to General Discussion

Which option would you prefer?

No Visit Cap (Prefer Server Lag, Crashes, and Account Lockouts)
290
45%
Visit Cap with 30% more Capacity for Kingdom Defenders (Less/No Server Crashes, but has Limits)
346
54%
 
Total votes : 636


TheIronTyler
The PerBlue Producer
 
World: Legends
Gold: 868248
Flags: 30
Posts: 3469
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:19 am

Server Limitation Poll

Post by TheIronTyler on Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:33 am

In light of Sunday's war and the communities first experience with the server Player Cap, we're looking at better short-term solutions to server issues. Many of you felt that the cap as implemented was unfair to the defending side. Because of this, many were calling for the cap to be removed and requested the lag be brought back, the servers allowed to crash, and accounts be susceptible to complete game lock outs. Essentially, many were asking for performance issues because they felt the solution other MMOs apply was not a sound one for Parallel Kingdom.

The first thing that needs to be understood is that there will always be a limitation. It may be a cap that we create or it may be the server crashing, but there is no way the game will be able to handle an unlimited amount of pieces to massive wars. We can constantly try to push back the point before this cap is hit, but hitting it is inevitable.

For the long-term, we'll be looking at some war redesigns that will better spread out the fighting in a way the game can handle it while still retaining the core components of war.

For the short-term, we have two options and we're giving the community the power to choose which option you want. Before jumping into voting, please make sure to think deeply about each option as both have important consequences. Below are the options:

1) No Visit Cap - In this scenario, the servers will run at maximum capacity and eventually crash. This means server lag and it means that, eventually, the server will go down for an indefinite period of time before our team can bring it back up and keep it running. While we check on them regularly, it's not out of the question for a server to be down for 24 hours before we're able to fix it. During this time, anyone on the server will be locked out of the game and anyone that unknowingly jumps to the server will also be stuck. The "upside" to this is that in war, the defender is not "penalized" and potentially locked out because an attacker brings too many pieces to the war.

2) Visit Cap with 30% more Capacity for Kingdom Defenders - This is a new version of the Player Cap that will prevent people from joining a server that is about to reach it's limits and crash. As the server slows down, most Players will not be able to visit the server. This would be the final limitation before the servers actually crash and lock everyone out. In this new version of the Player Cap, the limitation would be 30% less strict when using your Castle Estate or a Kingdom Embassy. The servers are significantly less likely to lag, crash, and lock players out, but it is still an artificial limit that will prevent Players from Visiting maxed out areas and preventing play in those areas.

EDIT: 30% server capacity is not the same thing as 30% of the Kingdom Members. Some have misunderstood an increase in server space to mean that only 30% of their Kingdom can join; this is not the case. The extra 30% capacity essentially means that each side will be allowed roughly the same number of participants before the server is considered "full."

Discussion is encouraged on this matter, but please remain civil and try to check biases at the door. We would prefer not to remove players or posts from the topic.

Current Implementation:
  • Visit Cap limits players to Visiting Kingdom Castles and Embassies once it reaches high capacity (30% remaining space)
    • For Kingdoms to qualify, they must have existed for more than 2 weeks
  • Once the server reaches 100% capacity and is about to crash, the servers will prevent all travel

This thread will remain stickied, the poll will remain open, and votes are allowed to be changed. If the other option becomes the majority, we will switch to it.


Lilbyrdie
The Mentor
 
World: Legends
Gold: 26983138
Flags: 11448
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 7:58 pm

Re: Server Limitation Poll

Post by Lilbyrdie on Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:51 am

In my opinion, stability is more important. The concession for defenders to have slightly higher limits -- until the larger issues can be fixed/minimized -- seems reasonable but does have similar "fairness" (or abuse) issues. (Want perfect defense? Invite enough folks through a castle or embassy to bring the server to it's regular transit limit.)

While it hasn't happened that I'm aware, there is probably a risk that a server crash could cause data corruption. If this ever did happen, I'm sure the community backlash would be worse than any war fairness issues, especially if it meant any sort of rollback. (I've experienced that once in another MMO and it wasn't pretty.)

Running a server to it's limits -- and beyond -- just doesn't seem practical or wise for anyone. Getting locked out is no fun at all and impacts more than just those warring.

Thanks for asking the community.

Is it possible to have regional status on the web site rather than just global status? The outage a week ago was doubly frustrating to some because the server availability indicator was a nice green and seemed to be quietly taunting and provoking player. If the status was accurate, it might be less frustrating to at least know that some alarm somewhere probably tripped.


[MSF]Micul
 
World: Legends
Gold: 225017
Flags: 905
Posts: 574
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 12:50 pm

Re: Server Limitation Poll

Post by [MSF]Micul on Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:02 am

In scenario 2, if two kingdoms are at war and on the same server, could one kingdom potentially take up the entire "extra" 30% if they get there first? If so, it wouldn't be just for defenders unfortunately.
Last edited by [MSF]Micul on Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:04 am, edited 1 time in total.


{Lègîóñ}ÐREλÐ屮♣屮
The Undead
 
World: Legends
Gold: 166313203
Flags: 1908
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 3:32 pm

Re: Server Limitation Poll

Post by {Lègîóñ}ÐREλÐ屮♣屮 on Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:03 am

Although 30% seems nice i dont trust any cap atm. How would the server determine who are allies, enemies or random population. Its a step in the right direction tho


Indy™
探索者宗师
 
World: Legends
Gold: 142776877
Flags: 2363
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:00 am

Re: Server Limitation Poll

Post by Indy™ on Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:07 am

It's not perfect and may require additional tweaking, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
Some pros and cons were discussed in this thread as well.

Q:
♣RUMβLΣ♣DRΣΔD wrote:Although 30% seems nice i dont trust any cap atm. How would the server determine who are allies, enemies or random population. Its a step in the right direction tho

A:
In this new version of the Player Cap, the limitation would be 30% less strict when using your Castle Estate or a Kingdom Embassy.


DiamondDust
 
World: Legends
Gold: 3435866
Flags: 421
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 2:22 pm

Re: Server Limitation Poll

Post by DiamondDust on Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:13 am

Great timing offering us options AFTER the damage was done. Having so many of the defending kd members unable to get on the server. I really don't see either option being a long term fix.


Indy™
探索者宗师
 
World: Legends
Gold: 142776877
Flags: 2363
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 9:00 am

Re: Server Limitation Poll

Post by Indy™ on Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:13 am

I have a question: can you provide some benchmarks? What is "normal" level of activity for a typical server? What is current level of activity at Major Trade Hub?

We know what 0% is we know what 100% is. But we don't know what 70% is like. (Although, I'm sure if this idea is implemented the exact number would need to be balanced over time.)


TheIronTyler
The PerBlue Producer
 
World: Legends
Gold: 868248
Flags: 30
Posts: 3469
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:19 am

Re: Server Limitation Poll

Post by TheIronTyler on Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:15 am

DiamondDust wrote:I really don't see either option being a long term fix.

You're right, that's why they're labelled as short-term fixes. We're looking into redesigns for war as a whole.


aragonthegreat
 
World: Legends
Gold: 130301
Flags: 155
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:49 am

Re: Server Limitation Poll

Post by aragonthegreat on Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:17 am

Since servers cover such big areas we might have multiple kds on that server. How would the 30% play out in that scenario.

Also the ally aspect of it will allies be considered the 30%. If not I can see allies joining the defending kd to fall under the 30%.

Ty for putting this up for discussion. Many heads might bring a good solution.


TheIronTyler
The PerBlue Producer
 
World: Legends
Gold: 868248
Flags: 30
Posts: 3469
Joined: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:19 am

Re: Server Limitation Poll

Post by TheIronTyler on Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:22 am

Indy™ wrote:I have a question: can you provide some benchmarks? What is "normal" level of activity for a typical server? What is current level of activity at Major Trade Hub?

We know what 0% is we know what 100% is. But we don't know what 70% is like. (Although, I'm sure if this idea is implemented the exact number would need to be balanced over time.)

Normal server activity is in the 10%-30%. When the fighting on Sunday happened, it spiked from that standard to the max in less than an hour. 70%-80% is roughly what war looks like when the attack queue gets hard to use. 90% is unplayable and causes people to get temporarily locked out and 100% is dead.

Next

Who is Online

Users browsing this forum: No registered players and 4 guests