Recently Jouska made a post on the forums with a poll to find out which server configuration was preferred by the playerbase. Some of the terminology used in the post is a little confusing, so I wanted to try to clarify a few things in a way current MMO players might be able to better understand, along with my personal thoughts on the matter. The poll suggested two different server configurations, along with a question about channels. I will go into each in more detail throughout this article.
Multiple Servers
The first option on the poll is for multiple servers per region, each consisting a multiple channels (5 to 10), or fixed instances.This means that even if they decide implement this option, you will still have different identical “layers” that you can switch to, on a cooldown to prevent hopping instances too frequently (assuming the Western version follows the Korean version). Some games have used such a system, such as Age of Conan (released in 2008 by Funcom).
The main advantage multiple servers bring is a sense of community, server pride (server X is better than server Y!), and more claimable territories, as each server will have separate nodes and towns that can be claimed by the guilds of that server. Before summer of 2015 Black Desert Korea also used this system, but as the player base declined, they opted to utilize a Megaserver.
The Megaserver
A Megaserver is a single server with a number of channels appropriate for the player base. This is the way the Korean version of the game is currently set up. This is rapidly becoming the standard in MMO’s with Guild Wars 2, Elder Scrolls Online, and the newly released Blade and Soul utilizing such technology, with the main difference being that all the games mentioned use Dynamic channels instead of fixed ones (see below for a description of how Dynamic channels work).
The main advantage of a Megaserver with fixed channels is that you don’t have to worry about creating your character on a specific server just to play with your friends, and should the player base decline, you can simply reduce the number of static channels without having to merge servers together, which can create a real headache if character names are not unique to the region. Also, if multiple servers need to be merged together some guilds will lose claimed territory as their servers are merged into another one.
Dynamic Channels
The third poll question relates to Dynamic channels. Dynamic channels are channels that exist only when needed, and will delete themselves when there aren’t enough players occupying them. As I mentioned earlier, most games that use Megaserver technology have dynamic channels.
The reason why I suspect this is tricky for Pearl Abyss to implement (the poll says “if possible”) is that all the other games I have mentioned are heavily instanced, something that Black Desert is not. There are no zone breaks with loading screens, no instanced dungeons, and no fast travel mechanic that will pop you in a more populated instance seamlessly while you load, which means that Pearl Abyss will have to create a mechanic that will close a zone when there are too few players to occupy it.
My thoughts
I believe that Pearl Abyss should go the multiple server route, with the caveat that names are unique by region, so that if servers need to be merged at a later date, no one is going to get upset that their name has been already taken on the destination server. While some guilds might be upset that they are losing territory, I don’t see it as a huge issue as territory will change hands frequently anyways, and Pearl Abyss might decide to reset all territories in the event of a merge to have everyone start off on equal footing.
Personally, I am torn about Dynamic channels. While I like the idea, I am concerned that a forced channel transfer might be immersion breaking if not properly implemented. If they go the static channel route, I would base the number of how many servers they intend to offer, because 5 or 10 channels might not be enough if they are only going to create 2 or 3 servers for each region.
Server Location
Something not specifically mentioned in the poll, but I feel should be addressed however, is the locations of the servers in the North American region (for Euro players the servers are in Amsterdam, which I believe has decent coverage for all of Europe, please someone let me know if I am mistaken). The current plan is for the servers to be based in California. This I feel is a huge mistake. Most MMO companies in the US either put their servers in multiple locations or centrally locate them (either in Texas or Illinois). This not only ensures that both sides of the country have a decent ping, but it also allows European players to roll on NA if they want to. While this may not seem to be much of an issue, many Euro players like to play on NA for a variety of reasons.
Pearl Abyss also risks alienating the streamer community (something that these days is pretty important to help popularize a game, particularly at launch). Many streamers create guilds that allow their community to join so they can play with each other, and if the Euro players cannot play with them because their ping is too high, you are going to upset the streamers that provide you a huge amount of free advertising who may decide to stream other games instead.
One of the reasons we promote Streamers on Black Desert Blog is to encourage them to stream the game, which I believe is going to attract a substantial amount of new blood. Streamers can teach players about the game, provide direction to new players who have no idea idea where to start, and can even promote content by encouraging activities through Role Playing, Exploration, PvP, and guiding players taking their first steps into the world of Black Desert Online.
Post a Comment