Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Thread: $2.5 Million BUY BETTER SERVERS

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    $2.5 Million BUY BETTER SERVERS

    Hey there, so I have been playing the alpha now for a few weeks, i was a king backer and I realize this is the alpha and its buggy and stuff like that, but one of the biggest problems I see so far aside from cards not acting right is the server issues you guys are having. We way overshot your goal for the kickstarter and when the game releases I am sure most of us are going to spend a boat load of money on ingame purchases. So could you possibly not try and use a lame 3rd party hosting site like gameforge and buy some nice high quality servers to run the system. An offline play and LAN mode option would be nice to see as well.

  2. #2
    Devoted Emissary
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Barrie, Ontario
    Posts
    133
    I have no doubt they will get more servers to support the game, it doesnt happen instantly though. And the best time to crash the servers is during alpha anyways so things are pretty much as planned at the moment.
    Last edited by XagoTrunk; 11-20-2013 at 01:06 AM.

  3. #3
    It's not about more, it's about optimized. And they are working on it as fast as they can. It's alpha, take a chill pill.

  4. #4
    Handsofevil, this game will create revenue, IMO they really shouldnt plan on using that money for YEARS down the line, just up until release. Trading card games are very lucrative and profitable and they will have plenty of revenue since its all digital, they dont need to pay a printing company or a distributor or shipping costs. This intial start up money should be just for that, the initial start up. We didnt pay for a full game and every feature that it will ever have like other kickstarters where you get the full game. We get depending on your pledge, a few starters, a bunch of boosters, and some exclusive cards, but we are for the most part, all hooked into their ecosystem and will be giving them a lot of money for years to come, plus when the game releases and they gain an even larger audience it will be a cash cow.

  5. #5
    $2.5 Million is designed to be spent over months or even years. They are upgrading their servers, they just need to learn what parts need to be upgraded. You also seem to have ridiculous expectations for Alpha. "An offline play and LAN mode option would be nice to see as well." That would take a decent amount of extra, and unnecessary, amount of work. Odds are they will have some for of that in full release, but definitely not in Alpha. This is an Alpha for the game, and for the company. They are learning from their mistakes, obviously, and the stability steadily improves. Stop complaining that you have issues playing for a few days and be happy you're playing.

  6. #6
    Ok, like I said, understand its alpha, and I am not a computer noob either. I have worked as a computer tech for a few years and I am currently making my own game studio. I am just stating a fact that the amount of server related issues is a sign that they need to upgrade a better option. Although right now its most likely not an issue of it being the alpha, its an issue of bad quality servers or lack of enough servers, either way it needs to be improved. Its not like we are playing a fps where there is a ton of data being transmitted. Aside from the patching of the game, and the inital loading of your decks (and even then this should be small as well), very minimal traffic should need to be sent through the server at all. And so far maybe 20,000 people are in the game. Thats tiny. I mean SUPER tiny. If you compare that to how many people are in normal MMO's at a time, thats maybe a 1/10th, and thats being nice. And those games have to do a lot more thinking, they have to keep track of a lot of things in real time. This is just keeping track of things at its own pace and it can barely do that.

    I understand everybody wants to be nice and defend the creators, and I am not trying to attack them, I am trying to look at it from the side of reason. Yes they need to recoup some of the costs that it took to create the game up to this point. Yes they need to pay back their investors, their parent company, their employees, and what not. But big picure, server reliability is pretty much top 3 single most important things when it comes to running anything based, whether it be a game, an app, search engine, website, whatever.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by dachewster99 View Post
    Ok, like I said, understand its alpha, and I am not a computer noob either. I have worked as a computer tech for a few years and I am currently making my own game studio. I am just stating a fact that the amount of server related issues is a sign that they need to upgrade a better option. Although right now its most likely not an issue of it being the alpha, its an issue of bad quality servers or lack of enough servers, either way it needs to be improved. Its not like we are playing a fps where there is a ton of data being transmitted. Aside from the patching of the game, and the inital loading of your decks (and even then this should be small as well), very minimal traffic should need to be sent through the server at all. And so far maybe 20,000 people are in the game. Thats tiny. I mean SUPER tiny. If you compare that to how many people are in normal MMO's at a time, thats maybe a 1/10th, and thats being nice. And those games have to do a lot more thinking, they have to keep track of a lot of things in real time. This is just keeping track of things at its own pace and it can barely do that.

    I understand everybody wants to be nice and defend the creators, and I am not trying to attack them, I am trying to look at it from the side of reason. Yes they need to recoup some of the costs that it took to create the game up to this point. Yes they need to pay back their investors, their parent company, their employees, and what not. But big picure, server reliability is pretty much top 3 single most important things when it comes to running anything based, whether it be a game, an app, search engine, website, whatever.
    So which server to they need to add? Which one is the cause of the issue? Most games have a variety of servers hosting a variety of functions. Each one running individual software that needs to be optimized with error handling and queue processing to ensure stability. Sure the game doesn't have a ton to keep track of but it also has a greater deal of validation than your average FPS would. When money is involved a lot of steps have to be taken to ensure data integrity during the processing to avoid injection cheats. There could be issues in there, there could be a rogue raid group on a storage server that isn't properly balanced because disk was added to the aggregate and it was never re-balanced causing heavy read/write to a smaller number of disks than expected which is pushed in load to the breaking point. There could be a gateway server that is running out of sockets because the software isn't cleaning them fast enough after a connection is closed.

    I don't think you actually do understand that this is an alpha. Throwing more hardware at an issue really doesn't mean you fix it, maybe it masks it, maybe it does nothing. You have to test to find what is wrong to fix it, hence alpha. Integrating a new server, storage system, database host, switch or any other number of hardware items isn't exactly an instantaneous action either. First you have to procure it, this isn't bought from the local hardware store so you have to go through the various channels. Once you do have it you don't just throw it into production either. They may have already identified what they need and are getting to the point where they can install it now.

  8. #8
    They should scale up their hardware definitely... but the problem is when ? and by how much?

    I think they are figuring it out right now.

  9. #9
    Given the server issues they had at initial alpha launch and throughout October, I feel like priority #1 should have been "get beefier servers" before they decided to open the floodgates. They overestimated their servers before and they're overestimating them now. Crypto should have seen this coming, at least to some extent.

    Now, I may very well change my tune if this gets fixed in the next few hours. As someone who works in IT, I can understand how letting in 20,000 people is different than letting in 5,000 people, and can cause different issues. But they aren't foraging into a new frontier here. This type of thing has been done before, and done well. They had something to go off of, and they should know what the possible issues are with this type of thing. If that is the case and they've done their homework, the engineers should have an idea of what the issue is by now and be working on a workaround/fix. But If a majority of people still can't get past the "Loading Data" screen on Friday, I'll be pretty disappointed with Cryptozoic.

  10. #10
    If you honestly did not expect double the amount of people to stress the server to breaking point you really dont understand alpha phases at all

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •