Trion RIFT introduces "load balancing" to make game appear alive.

[theWocky]

WoW cleverly used phasing, but Trion just FORCE ports people on logon to a completely different shard (server/realm) -

ALL PLAYERS FROM SIX SHARDS ON ONE SHARD it appears.

RIFT also doesn't tell people on login that they have been automatically ported to a different shard from their origin.

In a more serious light, Faeblight (RolePlay) RP shard players are STILL being put on PvP and other shards.
Many complaining it ruins their game experience.

On the plus side, Seastone PvP players must be ecstatic to actually see another player appear on their shard.

My latency is 30~50ms worse on the "load balanced" shard (a German Shard) and FPS is 40% worse as the game engine can't cope with the extra players.

At least one post on the forums from one German guy complaining about the lag - on EU, it appears we're all being dumped on his shard, Brutwacht EU.

This is clearly not "load-balancing", but an attempt to make the game appear to still have a population by putting 6 shards' population on 1.

Video below represents actual evidence of worse FPS and worse latency.

Guys on my Teamspeak were just moments ago complaining of lag spikes.

[Eleccybubb]

Just a trick to make it look like the game is populated come expansion. Nothing more.

[Edge-]

Just a trick to make it look like the game is populated come expansion. Nothing more.

Eh, I like the idea behind it, it's far from a "trick". It's a smart move to try to consolidate players without additional actual server merges. Kinda like WoW making the virtual server clusters that automatically move folks around rather than merging servers.

There are definitely issues with its execution (mainly that it gives folks who may not be aware this is happening any warning at all) but honestly, it's a great type of system to add.

[Eleccybubb]

Eh, I like the idea behind it, it's far from a "trick". It's a smart move to try to consolidate players without additional actual server merges. Kinda like WoW making the virtual server clusters that automatically move folks around rather than merging servers.

There are definitely issues with its execution (mainly that it gives folks who may not be aware this is happening any warning at all) but honestly, it's a great type of system to add.

System itself is good. But it's no coincidence they are doing this right before launch.

[Jtbrig7390]

The system itself is good, but the reason and execution of it isn't.

[Edge-]

System itself is good. But it's no coincidence they are doing this right before launch.

Sure it's not a coincidence, it's an expansion. You know, when new systems like this are often implemented : )

[Eleccybubb]

Sure it's not a coincidence, it's an expansion. You know, when new systems like this are often implemented : )

Yeah but cmon lets face it. I highly doubt the population is so high to warrant a system. It really is about making certain realms look fuller than they are. These systems are usually to prevent mass lag on launch night and I'm not just going on one of my rants here but I highly doubt Rift would suffer from any issues without it. Tbh they should have just done a Megaserver system in the first place for a game like that,

- - - Updated - - -

The system itself is good, but the reason and execution of it isn't.

This is what I wanted to say basically.

[Edge-]

Yeah but cmon lets face it. I highly doubt the population is so high to warrant a system.

Dude, this type of system is specifically designed to help manage lower populations. Something like this isn't terribly useful for the game if all the servers are heavily populated already, it's for when servers have low populations and they need to consolidate players to keep the game world populated.

Again, same as like what Blizz did with CRZ/virtual server clusters, both of which were also to combat declining server populations.

It really is about making certain realms look fuller than they are. These systems are usually to prevent mass lag on launch night and I'm not just going on one of my rants here but I highly doubt Rift would suffer from any issues without it.

Prevent mass lag on launch night? How? A system designed to put people together is going to counter lag? You realize that those two things are completely opposite...right?

Tbh they should have just done a Megaserver system in the first place for a game like that

They more or less have one, it's keeping the old foundation of discrete shards at its base. This makes it more like a megaserver, if anything.

This is what I wanted to say basically.

Honestly, if that's what you were aiming for, you missed...by a lot. Because your post absolutely came off as some hater-level, low effort shitpost, to be honest. It's not a trick, it's a system designed to combat an existing problem in the game.

[Eleccybubb]

Dude, this type of system is specifically designed to help manage lower populations. Something like this isn't terribly useful for the game if all the servers are heavily populated already, it's for when servers have low populations and they need to consolidate players to keep the game world populated.

Again, same as like what Blizz did with CRZ/virtual server clusters, both of which were also to combat declining server populations.



Prevent mass lag on launch night? How? A system designed to put people together is going to counter lag? You realize that those two things are completely opposite...right?



They more or less have one, it's keeping the old foundation of discrete shards at its base. This makes it more like a megaserver, if anything.



Honestly, if that's what you were aiming for, you missed...by a lot. Because your post absolutely came off as some hater-level, low effort shitpost, to be honest. It's not a trick, it's a system designed to combat an existing problem in the game.

Well the idea of sharding is usually if one instance of a zone is full then it creates another instance hence the term sharding. The system overall is meant to reduce lag. That's what Blizzard achieved with Legion is what I meant. Rift just has server hopping for now. Also yeah I'm not denying I missed the ball by a metric fuckton actually.

[Edge-]

Well the idea of sharding is usually if one instance of a zone is full then it creates another instance hence the term sharding.

In a sense, yes. But I was talking about discrete shards like Rift has right now.

The system overall is meant to reduce lag.

Discrete shards are, yes. Channels are, yes. A system that's mean to consolidate players onto a single shard/channel, is not. It's literally going to produce the opposite effect of slightly increasing it (usually on the user end) due to areas being more populated.

Yes, there are other sytems designed to move folks around to prevent overcrowding in some games (GW2 uses this with its channel system, as does SWTOR and a number of iters), but that's not what Trion is implementing here.

That's what Blizzard achieved with Legion is what I meant.

I'm not sure what happened with Legion so I'm not sure I understand the reference you're trying to make.

[StationaryHawk]

I'm all for condensing the playerbase to allow for a more lively world, but their method doesn't seem to be the most efficient out there.

[Eleccybubb]

In a sense, yes. But I was talking about discrete shards like Rift has right now.



Discrete shards are, yes. Channels are, yes. A system that's mean to consolidate players onto a single shard/channel, is not. It's literally going to produce the opposite effect of slightly increasing it (usually on the user end) due to areas being more populated.

Yes, there are other sytems designed to move folks around to prevent overcrowding in some games (GW2 uses this with its channel system, as does SWTOR and a number of iters), but that's not what Trion is implementing here.



I'm not sure what happened with Legion so I'm not sure I understand the reference you're trying to make.

Ah I see. My bad on that. But on the topic of Legion it's smooth launch was contributed to the instancing of zones. Basically players weren't all in one zone at once like WoD hence of course the pisspoor launch among other factors. Everybody got into Dalaran ok and was out questing instead of being either stuck in a lagfest, dc limbo or on the gunship for hours like a lot of servers were during MoP launch. Tbh Guild Wars 2 has the best to be honest. Anytime it's ported me personally I've always been on a map with loads of players and that movement speed bonus is quite cool.

But as Wocky has posted Load Balancing seems to be causing lag and fps issues for now along with it's still throwing RP players onto a PvP shard which isn't the best method. The system is great but Trion seem to have had issues implementing it. Especially when it's throwing RP players onto a PvP shard. No game does that for a reason. They really need to get on with fixing it as well we have like 11 days till the game launches.

[Edge-]

Ah I see. My bad on that. But on the topic of Legion it's smooth launch was contributed to the instancing of zones. Basically players weren't all in one zone at once like WoD hence of course the pisspoor launch among other factors. Everybody got into Dalaran ok and was out questing instead of being either stuck in a lagfest, dc limbo or on the gunship for hours like a lot of servers were during MoP launch.

Ah yeah, they've done a ton of work with CRZ/server clusters to dynamically shift populations between phases (channels). It's a more more robust and expanded system compared to something like this. This system is designed to automatically move players one way at login, WoW's moves them back and forth dynamically during gameplay.

Tbh Guild Wars 2 has the best to be honest. Anytime it's ported me personally I've always been on a map with loads of players and that movement speed bonus is quite cool.

Yeah, I like the system GW2 uses. It puts you on a channel on your home shard based on population, but allows you to move to a more populated channel (and get a buff!) if yours ends up losing enough players or a higher population channel gets some openings.

[Eleccybubb]

Ah yeah, they've done a ton of work with CRZ/server clusters to dynamically shift populations between phases (channels). It's a more more robust and expanded system compared to something like this. This system is designed to automatically move players one way at login, WoW's moves them back and forth dynamically during gameplay.



Yeah, I like the system GW2 uses. It puts you on a channel on your home shard based on population, but allows you to move to a more populated channel (and get a buff!) if yours ends up losing enough players or a higher population channel gets some openings.

I just don't think it should do it automatically personally either. Should offer you the choice when you log in maybe with a small perk.

[theWocky]

There are definitely issues with its execution (mainly that it gives folks who may not be aware this is happening any warning at all) but honestly, it's a great type of system to add.

Also, no issue with idea, but...

WoW never had any increased frame rates or latency issues, lag spikes, etc.
The phasing thing in wow is awesome.

and... not thinking before shoving RP players onto PvP and other shards. Just crazy.

You should also get a choice before logging in. How hard could that be?
"Your shard is busy - would you like to go to a less populated shard?"

The system itself is good, but the reason and execution of it isn't.

Agreed - as per most things they do lately

Sure it's not a coincidence, it's an expansion. You know, when new systems like this are often implemented : )

Expansion is a real stretch. It's just a large content patch - a DLC to be bought from the store like ESO, DCUO, etc. 2 dungeons, no raid, 4 zones on launch. one fire planar adventure. no news of the siege thingy. Even quest content is minimal. I think I did less than 20 quests to make a level from 65 to 66 and ready to move onto next zone. Also, I'd argue they've made the upgrade process for planar fragments worse, more expensive and a hassle than before.

Other people complaining about lag - also, many people moaning about 1/2 their FPS in some areas:

[Edge-]

Expansion is a real stretch. It's just a large content patch - a DLC to be bought from the store. 2 dungeons, no raid, 4 zones on launch. one fire planar adventure.

That's considerably larger than any content patch I can think of, and it does have a raid coming shortly after launch no? Either way, even though it may be a smaller expansion it's still an expansion nonetheless.

Even quest content is minimal. I think I did less than 20 quests to make a level from 65 to 66 and ready to move onto next zone.

Given all the complaints I remember hearing about how long it took to level in NT, I'd think that reducing the amount of time/grinding necessary to level would be a welcome change rather than a point of criticism. 20 quests (story quests, I'm assuming?) is a lot under the current system.

Also, I'd argue they've made the upgrade process for planar fragments worse, more expensive and a hassle than before.

Yeah, I'm keeping a bit of an eye on it and I dislike how it's being handled so far, but that has nothing to do with whether or not this is an expansion or not. Because it is an expansion, even if it's a smaller scale expansion.

[Pachycrocuta]

An increase of 16ms latency and decrease of 3 fps doesn't seem like a huge detrimental effect. I agree that doing this is rather dumb, and should give people a choice before they are automatically moved (like GW2). I would rather stay on Faeblight with little to no people, where I can usually be free of people with names like "Epicbowjob" or "Shakendatass" (which were both actual names in seperate Instant Adventures I have done in the last week, and those are just the ones that stick out to me).

[Edge-]

An increase of 16ms latency and decrease of 3 fps doesn't seem like a huge detrimental effect.

Honestly, I'm curious as to what would even cause that. Servers are centralized to a single location per region, no? And while I could see some FPS drops due to more players being around, I can't imagine why it would otherwise decrease FPS for some reason.

@theWocky looking at those screenshots, I don't see anything out of the ordinary.

3fps difference is easily accounted for due to the number of players on screen (higher FPS screen has 3 other players, lower FPS screen has13+) and the latency difference is negligible at best. I'm curious as to where these "halved" framerates come from as well as if there's any statistically significant differences in latency.

[theWocky]

3fps difference is easily accounted for due to the number of players on screen (higher FPS screen has 3 other players, lower FPS screen has13+) and the latency difference is negligible at best. I'm curious as to where these "halved" framerates come from as well as if there's any statistically significant differences in latency.

My video shows a much greater difference in FPS and latency as I move around. The guy with the screenshots took stills.

Guys complaining about lag spikes though is the main issue.

[Edge-]

My video shows a much greater difference in FPS and latency as I move around. The guy with the screenshots took stills.

Guys complaining about lag spikes though is the main issue.

Interesting, now I'm curious as to if something going on behind the scenes involved with rerouting players to the "main" active server at a time is related to the spikes. Like a batch of people all logging in at once and being redirected to the "main" server causes a temporary hiccup that results int he lag spike.

Watched your video (sorry, I normally don't watch them. I generally dislike video content and much prefer text based communication, I'm strange) and honestly...seems like what I said. Your latency was 188-200 on your home server and 200-220 or so on the other, that's a very minor change that's easily attributable to standard latency variations and not anything that's really going to significantly impact general gameplay.

Same goes for the framerate, which bumped up on your home server because there was a whopping 1 player in the area compared to what looked like around 20 on the "main" server. So losing about 8ish FPS seems pretty reasonable.

There may be more evidence, but from those images and your video, honestly I'm not seeing anything that really corroborates consistant and significant changes to player latency/framerate that aren't easily attributable to normal latency fluctuations and regular drops in framerate as areas get more populated.