Avian Gamers Network :: View topic - On the Subject of Retail Server Names

As it stands, we are not going to release the server list prior to release. I'd like to explain the reasoning behind this decision, as I know many of you have been curious about this for some time.

We have numerous realms ready to go when we launch. Not all of them will be available when the game first launches, however. If we gave the full list, many guilds would pick servers that may well be unavailable when they go to play the game. If we released the servers that we know will be available when the game launches, servers that come up days or mere hours later would be largely ignored, as most large groups would zero in on the servers they know will be there. Add this to the fact that most people, when presented with a list ahead of time, will focus on the "cool" names (which would you rather play on: Rabbit, or Doomguard?) and we would have many realms be neglected.

I apologize, as I know this makes it difficult for some guilds to meet up right off. As resourceful as you all are, however, I have no doubt you'll land on your feet. This is the best way to ensure comparable numbers across the available realms.

We have this site (and that's a big plus for communication)

We can either make up a rule (like the first/last server to begin with a "M") or just have the first person in pick the name and make a post here and the rest of us sheep can come along.

Probably an issue for our Leader to decide

I wonder if the industry is learning something? Seems like the SWG way was better because it keeps the players in mind. But if EQ2 and WoW are doing the same thing, it makes me wonder what they know that we do not.

Cyrus Rex wrote:

They know that there was a problem with the SWG that not all the promised servers were live at Day One and the community was not too happy about it, because they had decided to meet on servers that were unavailable. The Blizzard way allows them to bring their servers online to meet the demand instead of due to community pressure.

Edward

Here's a thought. Perhaps stupid.

Pick some kind of algorithm.

eg. The second letter of the server name closest to M, but not before. If two have the same letter then move to the third letter of the server name. etc.

or if numeric. The first server after the number 6.

That way on day 1 there won't be a mad rush to get in, find a server, post it here so everyone can then log on to the same server.

Comments?

We will encourage all members to choose the crappiest name possible so that we get on a server with less stress.

One thing though: Have we decided officially if we're going to a PVE-, RP-, or PVP-server?

Then I'd suggest putting that question up for an official vote to get any uncertainties out of the way.

Author:	Cyrus Rex [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 12:55 am ]
Post subject:	On the Subject of Retail Server Names
Caydiem wrote: As it stands, we are not going to release the server list prior to release. I'd like to explain the reasoning behind this decision, as I know many of you have been curious about this for some time. We have numerous realms ready to go when we launch. Not all of them will be available when the game first launches, however. If we gave the full list, many guilds would pick servers that may well be unavailable when they go to play the game. If we released the servers that we know will be available when the game launches, servers that come up days or mere hours later would be largely ignored, as most large groups would zero in on the servers they know will be there. Add this to the fact that most people, when presented with a list ahead of time, will focus on the "cool" names (which would you rather play on: Rabbit, or Doomguard?) and we would have many realms be neglected. I apologize, as I know this makes it difficult for some guilds to meet up right off. As resourceful as you all are, however, I have no doubt you'll land on your feet. This is the best way to ensure comparable numbers across the available realms.

Author:	WarRedd [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 1:33 am ]
Post subject:
Hmm.. Well with SWG, didn't they give us the full list and then tell us which would be going live at the start or not (think they had a few mistakes in there for a bit). I think blizzard is neglecting the community aspect a bit, seems like they are worry'n about the server loads to much. Of course people want to play on the servers with the best names, or the names they feel fits their gamplay personally. You guys think this move is a good idea? To me it'll make it harder for guilds to cordinate with their other members who are around at the launch but maybe I'm looking at it to hard.

Author:	Cyrus Rex [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 1:45 am ]
Post subject:
EQ2 did the same thing Blizzard is doing. I wonder if the industry is learning something? Seems like the SWG way was better because it keeps the players in mind. But if EQ2 and WoW are doing the same thing, it makes me wonder what they know that we do not.

Author:	WarRedd [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 1:53 am ]
Post subject:
I think your on to something there then, I didn't know EQ2 did the same thing. My guess, is that they only want o bring up as many servers as they think they need. Jam as many players into a small number of servers with plenty of backup options ready to go, instead of announcing 25 servers and having the load spread far out thus costing more money?

Author:	Arindel [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:56 am ]
Post subject:
We have this site (and that's a big plus for communication) We can either make up a rule (like the first/last server to begin with a "M") or just have the first person in pick the name and make a post here and the rest of us sheep can come along. Probably an issue for our Leader to decide

Avian Gamers Network http://avian-gamers.net/forums/

On the Subject of Retail Server Names http://avian-gamers.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=13398	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Locke_Trinmin [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:01 am ]
Post subject:
Arindel wrote: We have this site (and that's a big plus for communication) We can either make up a rule (like the first/last server to begin with a "M") or just have the first person in pick the name and make a post here and the rest of us sheep can come along. Probably an issue for our Leader to decide I think the idea outlined int he bold text is the best.

Author:	Master Edward [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 5:05 am ]
Post subject:
Cyrus Rex wrote: I wonder if the industry is learning something? Seems like the SWG way was better because it keeps the players in mind. But if EQ2 and WoW are doing the same thing, it makes me wonder what they know that we do not. They know that there was a problem with the SWG that not all the promised servers were live at Day One and the community was not too happy about it, because they had decided to meet on servers that were unavailable. The Blizzard way allows them to bring their servers online to meet the demand instead of due to community pressure. Edward

Author:	Locke_Trinmin [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:20 pm ]
Post subject:
Master Edward wrote: Cyrus Rex wrote: I wonder if the industry is learning something? Seems like the SWG way was better because it keeps the players in mind. But if EQ2 and WoW are doing the same thing, it makes me wonder what they know that we do not. They know that there was a problem with the SWG that not all the promised servers were live at Day One and the community was not too happy about it, because they had decided to meet on servers that were unavailable. The Blizzard way allows them to bring their servers online to meet the demand instead of due to community pressure. Edward I think that's a good idea.

Author:	Cyrus Rex [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 2:47 pm ]
Post subject:
It sucks for groups like us. We would love to get our server choice over with so that would be one less thing to worry about on release day. But I do understand how players will gravitate to particular servers based on the name, or other large groups. This way it is much more likely that server population will be spread out evenly. I think it is funny how with SWG we were trying to join servers that had other large groups on it. However with the lag of two weeks ago, we in WoW want to choose a server that has no other large groups. Ironic isn’t it.

Author:	tobiasds [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:01 pm ]
Post subject:
The committee of three will post a decision on this by no later than Monday. We don't want there to be any confusion about where we are going. I hope to be in the game by 11 AM on Tuesday of the launch day. I should have the game and be home by 10:30 I have to patch and then create three accounts (Mine, Flyoc's, and ME's).

Author:	Golga Bolg [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:08 pm ]
Post subject:
Here's a thought. Perhaps stupid. Pick some kind of algorithm. eg. The second letter of the server name closest to M, but not before. If two have the same letter then move to the third letter of the server name. etc. or if numeric. The first server after the number 6. That way on day 1 there won't be a mad rush to get in, find a server, post it here so everyone can then log on to the same server. Comments?

Author:	tobiasds [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:43 pm ]
Post subject:
Golga Bolg wrote: Here's a thought. Perhaps stupid. Pick some kind of algorithm. eg. The second letter of the server name closest to M, but not before. If two have the same letter then move to the third letter of the server name. etc. or if numeric. The first server after the number 6. That way on day 1 there won't be a mad rush to get in, find a server, post it here so everyone can then log on to the same server. Comments? Are you serious? I am still trying to figure out what you are saying. This is the first day of a really popular game. I know I will be in a mad rush to get in anyway. To put your mind at ease about how the dynamic selection could work, it would be something like this... We have a pre-made thread in the public forum with the server selection title. You check the site while you are installing and or patching. If there is still no server listed, you double check right before selecting the server by alt-tabbing out of the game. After you make the selection, you enter the site, post your pick, and refresh to make sure no one else was on simultaneously. If someone was, you choose the server posted first in the thread. You are now done. Everyone else will see your selection and choose appropriately. We will also have TS up to aid in the process. We will encourage all members to choose the crappiest name possible so that we get on a server with less stress. Since we all plan on being on fairly early there is no way to avoid being on a fairly crowded server unless you all want to wait a few days to see where everything settles out at.

Author:	Golga Bolg [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 3:53 pm ]
Post subject:
tobiasds wrote: We will encourage all members to choose the crappiest name possible so that we get on a server with less stress. All I'm saying is that by choosing via an algorithm you can effectively select a server without prior knowledge of the names. What I consider the crappiest name is not neccesarily what you'd consider the crappiest name. Then Alt-tabing and refreshing the Avian site wouldn't be neccesary. Eg. Banjo Cauliflower Earthmother Magazine Opulent If we pick the server with where the first letter is after E, but not including it, we would all choose Magazine without previously knowing the list of servers.

Author:	tobiasds [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:09 pm ]
Post subject:
That won't work because the server names change position depending on load. So what is there when you choose may be different than when I choose. Regardless of the criteria, subjective or objective, algorithm or random, the first person in will still be making the choice. Everyone else should check the site before wasting time leveling a character on a server when everyone might end up on a different one. It only takes 15 secs. We could simply ask the first person in to choose the least lightly loaded server. Yes it could turn out to be the most heavily loaded server when all is said and done but so could the first server with e but not e in the title. By picking a crappy name, because this is subjective, one might end up with only the third crappiest name, the point is it gives us a tiny chance beyond total randomness to get on a less lightly loaded server.

Author:	Rocklar [ Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:39 am ]
Post subject:
I'd say TS, MSN and Yahoo IM are a fairly good backup. Hmm, I could publish a teleconference number. It's an 800 number but US only.

Author:	Locke_Trinmin [ Sun Nov 21, 2004 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:
Do we have a current/up to date list of MSN people? I'll have to download msn myself, and create an account, since I'm only using icq and aim these days.

Author:	bigyak [ Sun Nov 21, 2004 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:
Get Trillian!

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Golga Bolg [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:15 pm ]
Post subject:
No problem, we'll do it that way. I thought there might be some benefit, but your way is much simpler, and the gains are probably negligible relative to the risks.

Author:	Kharlaq [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:21 pm ]
Post subject:
One thing though: Have we decided officially if we're going to a PVE-, RP-, or PVP-server?

Author:	tobiasds [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:21 pm ]
Post subject:
I don't mean to try to bully anyone into doing it my way... too much. This isn't now anyway as the committee or perhaps just our leader will have final say. I just fear the last minute change by Blizz that could throw the best laid plan awry or cause confusion, causing us to be on seperate servers.

Author:	tobiasds [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:23 pm ]
Post subject:
Kharlaq wrote: One thing though: Have we decided officially if we're going to a PVE-, RP-, or PVP-server? Ugh good question. I think the consensus was to go PVE because of the flexibility. RP still an option but if there is only one it could be very crowded.

Author:	moonraker66 [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:24 pm ]
Post subject:
Kharlaq wrote: One thing though: Have we decided officially if we're going to a PVE-, RP-, or PVP-server? I was pretty sure we starting the "official" guild on a PVE server.

Author:	Kharlaq [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:26 pm ]
Post subject:
Then I'd suggest putting that question up for an official vote to get any uncertainties out of the way.

Author:	Arindel [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:
Kharlaq wrote: Then I'd suggest putting that question up for an official vote to get any uncertainties out of the way. Always a good idea. Rocklar should make it so (for now, as I don't think Mr. Nota has a chance in beating a quality candidate like Rock).

Author:	bigyak [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:09 pm ]
Post subject:
But... remember that on the first day of SWG live that the forums went down... So, have a backup communication line (like MSN or AIM) would be my recommendation.

Author:	tobiasds [ Sat Nov 20, 2004 6:43 pm ]
Post subject:
We need a backup website I suppose. We could borrow the EQ2 website the boys have started up just in case. We also have the TS server. It allows text messages.