64-bit Server Client = Less Servers?

[Abraxus]

I was wondering 'twixt myself about the benefits of the 64-bit client down the road.  As we know, it gives the client access to hardware resources beyond those restrictions dictated by the 32-bit version.  So, I wondered if, perhaps, a 64-bit server client makes it possible to consolidate servers to host more players, with less resources necessary?  There is much I don't know about the back-end operations, so it could just be ignorance on my part, and much more would have to be done for this old code to take full advantage of modern hardware.  But, follow me here.

 

Think of a world where two shards, rather than 4 (leaving the European server as is, to minimize lag) could host all of our players.  The consolidated numbers of players mean there would be a lot more folks around for pretty much an endeavor one might want to participate in, whether it be missions, TFs, Hami Raids, Incarnate Trials, MSR, etc. 

 

What do you all think?  Would that be a good thing in your estimation?

[Twisted Toon]

There are people that don't like over populated or crowded servers.

 

So, I would guess that some people would not think it a great thing.

[ed_anger]

8 minutes ago, Twisted Toon said:

There are people that don't like over populated or crowded servers.

 

So, I would guess that some people would not think it a great thing.

I’m not sure what that even means. Zones are all instanced, so what’s the difference if you’re in Atlas 2 or Atlas 5? 

[Abraxus]

9 minutes ago, Twisted Toon said:

There are people that don't like over populated or crowded servers.

 

So, I would guess that some people would not think it a great thing.

Can't imagine what the problem would be there, but I respect their opinions, whomever they are. 😎

[Abraxus]

1 minute ago, ed_anger said:

I’m not sure what that even means. Zones are all instanced, so what’s the difference if you’re in Atlas 2 or Atlas 5? 

Plus, if the mapservers too benefited from a 64-bit client, in theory, more players could occupy a single instance without the server giving up the ghost.  So, that might not be a major issue either. 

 

Again, this is all a mental exercise for discussion, especially since I am not a developer, and have no idea if the basic premise is even sound.  I just thought it was an interesting question.  So, by all means...carry on! 🙂

[PaxArcana]

11 minutes ago, Twisted Toon said:

There are people that don't like over populated or crowded servers.

It's possible to simultaneously consolidate servers, and also make each zone shard smaller.  A larger server population means easier time finding teams (especially redside), and as long as that crowd isn't physically visible in any single zone at one time, no-one should be put out by it.

 

Everyone wins, nobody loses.  🙂

[Eva Destruction]

If servers are consolidated, some people will lose their names.  And what happens to SGs and their bases?

 

If you want a more populated server, you have effectively infinite transfers.  Move to Torchbearer or Exclesior.

[Apparition]

No thank you.  As @Eva Destruction pointed out, consolidated servers means people losing character names, SGs, and bases.  In addition to that, you'll lose the feeling of community that the various servers have started forming.

 

Not to mention "Rikti mothership raid forming?"  "Where?  RWZ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11?"  "Hamidon raid forming?"  "Where?  The Hive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11?"

 

With multiple concurrent mothership and Hamidon raids.

[otyugh]

*fewer

[Abraxus]

25 minutes ago, Apparition said:

No thank you.  As @Eva Destruction pointed out, consolidated servers means people losing character names, SGs, and bases.  In addition to that, you'll lose the feeling of community that the various servers have started forming.

 

Not to mention "Rikti mothership raid forming?"  "Where?  RWZ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11?"  "Hamidon raid forming?"  "Where?  The Hive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11?"

 

With multiple concurrent mothership and Hamidon raids.

Well, in this scenario, one would hope that a solution to that would be offered before such decision was made.  Being a "glass half full" kind of guy, I assume good intentions in these things, until I have reason to feel otherwise, as opposed to thinking that everybody is intentionally trying to screw me over with every change that life brings.  Implementing a global naming system could deal with that issue.  I believe I have seen discussions about that, and that the verdict was that it would be difficult, and probably not something they wanted to tackle unless there was a more compelling reason.  Well, this would be a more compelling reason.  Plus, if the NCSoft deal is successful, I think we can look forward to much more bold plans for the future of the game.

 

As for the multiple instances issue, I kind of already addressed that above.  Something to the effect of, the 64-bit client might also give the mapservers the ability to handle instances more efficiently, and not need to spawn extra instances so frequently because of player population/activity.  I don't know that is the fact of things, but it sounds like a possibility that would make consolidation possible, with minimal effect on play/convenience. 

Since this is essentially a thought experiment, this is all just theory, and what things it could improve based on the new realities.  Not shackled by the old.  🙂😎

[PaxArcana]

Plus if they are actually rewriting all the code to handle a 64-bit approach - and "straightening the spaghetti" while they are at it - they might actually be able to make names unique per account rather than per server.

 

Maybe, something like Champions Online did, where your Global Name is appended to any Character Name, in order to identify that exact character in the database.  So, I could continue to play Kid_Shock@PaxArcana, right alongside (say) both Kid_Shock@Abraxas and Kid_Shock@Eva_Destruction.

 

[Abraxus]

1 minute ago, PaxArcana said:

Plus if they are actually rewriting all the code to handle a 64-bit approach - and "straightening the spaghetti" while they are at it - they might actually be able to make names unique per account rather than per server.

 

Maybe, something like Champions Online did, where your Global Name is appended to any Character Name, in order to identify that exact character in the database.  So, I could continue to play Kid_Shock@PaxArcana, right alongside (say) both Kid_Shock@Abraxas and Kid_Shock@Eva_Destruction.

 

My thoughts exactly.  One of the few things Champions did that I liked better than what CoH had.

[PaxArcana]

I really liked CO's costume designer, too.  Asymmetric designs especially, but also being able to choose textures (the same piece in Metal looks different than in Leather or Cloth), be able to define whether certain parts had Glow FX or not, and so on.

[Twisted Toon]

2 hours ago, ed_anger said:

I’m not sure what that even means. Zones are all instanced, so what’s the difference if you’re in Atlas 2 or Atlas 5? 

Back in the day, before they destroyed Galaxy City, that was my starting point because nearly EVERYone, on what ever server I was on, would congregate around Miss Liberty. Made my poor computer cry.

 

I've gotten a better computer since then.

 

Also, I don't normally like to team up with strangers. Probably a throw back to being raised not to talk to strangers and what not. I do on occasion, though. I just don't really care to get a couple of dozen blind invites every hour. On lower populated servers, I tend to get fewer blind invites. The blind invite is a pet peeve of mine.

 

So, yeah. I'm not really an advocate for all the servers being crowded. I like my low population server.

[Abraxus]

15 minutes ago, PaxArcana said:

I really liked CO's costume designer, too.  Asymmetric designs especially, but also being able to choose textures (the same piece in Metal looks different than in Leather or Cloth), be able to define whether certain parts had Glow FX or not, and so on.

I liked the flexibility of their costume designer, but not the overall style of the characters it produced.  Besides, if serious development is happening here again, we could have things approaching this in the future.  I for one, intend to be here to find out!

[Abraxus]

2 minutes ago, Twisted Toon said:

Back in the day, before they destroyed Galaxy City, that was my starting point because nearly EVERYone, on what ever server I was on, would congregate around Miss Liberty. Made my poor computer cry.

 

I've gotten a better computer since then.

 

Also, I don't normally like to team up with strangers. Probably a throw back to being raised not to talk to strangers and what not. I do on occasion, though. I just don't really care to get a couple of dozen blind invites every hour. On lower populated servers, I tend to get fewer blind invites. The blind invite is a pet peeve of mine.

 

So, yeah. I'm not really an advocate for all the servers being crowded. I like my low population server.

I don't share this concern, as I don't see this happening much.  But, I totally respect your take on it!

[Twisted Toon]

I understand, and respect your position as well. I know that there are folks that like busy crowded servers. It's nice that CoH:H is a place where both peoples can co-exist peacefully. 🙂

[Abraxus]

7 minutes ago, Twisted Toon said:

I understand, and respect your position as well. I know that there are folks that like busy crowded servers. It's nice that CoH:H is a place where both peoples can co-exist peacefully. 🙂

Yup!  As much as I love the game, without the great community that has always surrounded it, an important element would be missing, making it less overall.

[PaxArcana]

43 minutes ago, Twisted Toon said:

I know that there are folks that like busy crowded servers.

I would like to point out (again, I think):

 

Populous servers, do not have to also be crowded servers.  The HC devs could dial back the population limit per shard, so that there just aren't that many people in any one instance of (for example) Atlas Park ... while at the same time, arranging for everyone to be on, perhaps, one HomeComing server.

 

IOW, we literally could "have it both ways": less-populated zones, on more-populated servers.  🙂

[Twisted Toon]

2 hours ago, PaxArcana said:

I would like to point out (again, I think):

 

Populous servers, do not have to also be crowded servers.  The HC devs could dial back the population limit per shard, so that there just aren't that many people in any one instance of (for example) Atlas Park ... while at the same time, arranging for everyone to be on, perhaps, one HomeComing server.

 

IOW, we literally could "have it both ways": less-populated zones, on more-populated servers.  🙂

That would not alleviate this ...

3 hours ago, Twisted Toon said:

  a couple of dozen blind invites every hour ... The blind invite is a pet peeve of mine.

 

If you can solve that problem with populous servers, then I'll be 1000% behind you. Until then, leave me my peace. I get blind invites on Reunion as it is. Granted, not many, and way more people ask me if I'd like to join a team instead of just flinging an invite my way, but, as I said before, blind invites are a pet peeve of mine. They REALLY irritate me, irrationally, for some reason.

[PaxArcana]

Actually ... I do have an idea how to solve that: a new setting in the LFG pane, "decline all invites".

VOILA ... no more blind invites.  🙂

[Beul]

Haha nice PaxArcana. Was just gonna mention it.

[Eva Destruction]

Just hide from searches.  They can't blind invite you if they don't know you exist.

 

Although I've only gotten I think one blind invite ever in all my time on Homecoming, even before I started hiding from searches, so I don't know where you're getting several an hour.

[THEDarkTyger]

3 hours ago, Eva Destruction said:

Just hide from searches.  They can't blind invite you if they don't know you exist.

 

Although I've only gotten I think one blind invite ever in all my time on Homecoming, even before I started hiding from searches, so I don't know where you're getting several an hour.

I had a run of them the other night. And random tells asking to group. While I was tied up in some SG RP. And they didn't want to take no for an answer. I hate ignoring, but I had to drop some people down the oubliette.

[Lunchmoney]

14 hours ago, PaxArcana said:

Actually ... I do have an idea how to solve that: a new setting in the LFG pane, "decline all invites".

VOILA ... no more blind invites.  🙂

Already a thing. In the Team tab select the red, Not Accepting Invites, option. 

I'll take a screenshot later.

Edited August 19, 2019 by Lunchmoney