I'd like to suggest having 2 servers each for the US and the UK.
The Pro's:
With smaller player limits on each server, gameplay can be tailored more effectively to ensure that players find companions with competitors of similar interests. This contributes to more enjoyable gameplay experiences for all players involved. Utilizing two smaller server limits offers more flexibility in responding to fluctuations in player numbers at different times of day or during promotional events. Developers can actively manage their server resources and adjust them according to current demand, improving overall resource utilization and potentially saving costs.
One of the main advantages of opting for two 64-player servers over one 128-player server is enhanced server stability. The idea of Smaller servers with this idea in mind are less likely to suffer from lag, crashes, and other performance issues caused by an excessive number of gamers on a single server. This results in an much smoother gaming experience, which is highly desired by gamers and essential for the game's reputation.
Two 64-player limit servers may appear to hold the greater financial burden initially, but in the long run, they are a more cost-effective approach. When considering the maintenance costs related to fixing performance issues associated with larger servers, it is clear that the price difference is negligible in comparison with stability benefits.
The Con's:
Loss of Social Interaction and Community Building:
you might not consider this option with you worrying about the price you may spend on having 2 separate servers for each major location region, and I have listed a reason on why it may not be a good idea as well, so I may remain an unbiased side in this.
Loss of Social Interaction and Community Building:
By splitting the player base into two , the places for social interaction and friendships are inherently limited. In a 128-player server, players can engage with various playstyles and experience camaraderie through shared challenges with larger groups. On the other hand, two smaller servers limit these interactions and create smaller, separated communities that may struggle to retain a consistently enjoyable atmosphere.
Increased time spent waiting in line:
Having two separate smaller servers can result in uneven distribution of players across both servers. Players might congregate on one popular server, leaving the other underpopulated. Consequently, this could cause waiting times to increase as more players attempt to join the favored server while others remain underutilized.
Technical Challenges:
Managing multiple servers demands increased technical resources and monitoring compared to maintaining a single-server system. By dividing resources across two separate 64-player servers, each individual server becomes more vulnerable to downtime or technical hiccups that might arise from issues such as overloaded networks or hardware malfunctions. As a result, overall performance could suffer.
As we reach the end of this admittedly unnecessarily long suggestion, I hope you can understand where many of us are coming from with this idea, be it players with low end computers, or others with unstable connections (I myself am both unfortunately) I hope you all can come to an agreement on whether to use this suggestion or not, and to that.
I bid you good day.
--Astral.
The Pro's:
With smaller player limits on each server, gameplay can be tailored more effectively to ensure that players find companions with competitors of similar interests. This contributes to more enjoyable gameplay experiences for all players involved. Utilizing two smaller server limits offers more flexibility in responding to fluctuations in player numbers at different times of day or during promotional events. Developers can actively manage their server resources and adjust them according to current demand, improving overall resource utilization and potentially saving costs.
One of the main advantages of opting for two 64-player servers over one 128-player server is enhanced server stability. The idea of Smaller servers with this idea in mind are less likely to suffer from lag, crashes, and other performance issues caused by an excessive number of gamers on a single server. This results in an much smoother gaming experience, which is highly desired by gamers and essential for the game's reputation.
Two 64-player limit servers may appear to hold the greater financial burden initially, but in the long run, they are a more cost-effective approach. When considering the maintenance costs related to fixing performance issues associated with larger servers, it is clear that the price difference is negligible in comparison with stability benefits.
The Con's:
Loss of Social Interaction and Community Building:
you might not consider this option with you worrying about the price you may spend on having 2 separate servers for each major location region, and I have listed a reason on why it may not be a good idea as well, so I may remain an unbiased side in this.
Loss of Social Interaction and Community Building:
By splitting the player base into two , the places for social interaction and friendships are inherently limited. In a 128-player server, players can engage with various playstyles and experience camaraderie through shared challenges with larger groups. On the other hand, two smaller servers limit these interactions and create smaller, separated communities that may struggle to retain a consistently enjoyable atmosphere.
Increased time spent waiting in line:
Having two separate smaller servers can result in uneven distribution of players across both servers. Players might congregate on one popular server, leaving the other underpopulated. Consequently, this could cause waiting times to increase as more players attempt to join the favored server while others remain underutilized.
Technical Challenges:
Managing multiple servers demands increased technical resources and monitoring compared to maintaining a single-server system. By dividing resources across two separate 64-player servers, each individual server becomes more vulnerable to downtime or technical hiccups that might arise from issues such as overloaded networks or hardware malfunctions. As a result, overall performance could suffer.
As we reach the end of this admittedly unnecessarily long suggestion, I hope you can understand where many of us are coming from with this idea, be it players with low end computers, or others with unstable connections (I myself am both unfortunately) I hope you all can come to an agreement on whether to use this suggestion or not, and to that.
I bid you good day.
--Astral.
Senior Developer
Mapping Team
Content Team
