TaylorSwift Posted June 16, 2019 Report Share Posted June 16, 2019 (edited) I'd like to start by addressing that I am aware of dedicated housing, that people would be upset at their server being shut down, and with V2 and a DLC coming up the population may support more than 1 server. Obviously people would be upset that their server was shut down, but lets look at the current state of things. We have 2 servers that both are dead the majority of the time. Many new players and old players alike are leaving, wanting to leave, or not even joining due to the servers being dead. If we combined the population of server 1 and 2 into one we would have an active server that new and old players would want to play instead of 2 dead servers they don't want to play. I think this would not only make the server more enjoyable to play but also increase growth. I know when I'm looking for a server to play I go to see which servers are the most populated. Then when a server is full and active is when people are going to feel secure that fun will be there for them to commit to long term, gaining you players. But what if we just lose all the players from the shut down server instead of consolidating them? I don't think this would be the case. In fact I think Asylum is losing far more players to having dead servers than they would lose by shutting down server 2. Of course some players would have this reaction but I think many would actually be happy at this decision with others agreeing perhaps reluctantly this is for the best. I have spoken to a handful of people myself in pitching this idea initially to people , many of which were long time members that are invested in their server, that agreed they would be happy to see this change. Another argument is that the upcoming update V2 or the new DLC might restore the population and there will be no need for this. To that I say, what if it doesn't? The problem is shutting down a server shortly after the release of a major update would be very demoralizing to new and old players who in their excitement became very invested in their server only to have it taken away. The better time to do it is now. If left as two servers in a few months time we may be right back where we started with the servers being dead and less and less people wanting to play, or mid pop and lack luster not reaching their potential leading to a slow and steady decline with the solution of shutting down a server now off the table for some time until population is low enough. By that time the opportunity to capitalize on the potential snowball growth of V2 and the new DLC will be gone. But what if with the release of V2 and the new DLC the population can support two servers? I think the superior approach to this is having one server with more slots. There are currently many successful Arma 3 servers that can support 130, or even 200 players. If this is not possible for Asylum servers I suggest opening non dedicated housing servers like strife, or non dedicated housing Tanoa Life servers as needed that can be closed depending on the player base with little or no consequence. Here are a few other thoughts and potential benefits Having one server would greatly improve the economy of the house market by increasing demand Asylum could have VIP slots to help with donation goals I think it would only be appropriate assuming the server cap remains 85, to only open an auxiliary server if there is thought to be at least 70 surplus players trying to connect in the event everyone on the main server decided to leave to the auxiliary server there would still be 70 players that could then occupy the main server I think it would encourage more donations - Taylor Goldberg Edited June 16, 2019 by TaylorSwift Walt and Bag Of Funyuns like this Link to comment
... Posted June 16, 2019 Report Share Posted June 16, 2019 Everyone who votes no is a S2-house-owning-cuck bum41 and Walt like this Link to comment
Bag Of Funyuns Posted June 16, 2019 Report Share Posted June 16, 2019 Yep, you're promoted for being our most retarded member. Link to comment
Sheriff Rick Posted June 16, 2019 Report Share Posted June 16, 2019 Really we just gotta wait until Asylum V2 unfortunately. Maybe with no more crashing ( If it does fix it that is ) then Asylum can have more of a population when you can do basic task when there is actually players on the server and it doesn't crash Bag Of Funyuns likes this Link to comment
Leady Posted June 16, 2019 Report Share Posted June 16, 2019 At this time there are no plans to close or consolidate server 2. V2 will be here before you know it. Jake and Face Chaser like this Link to comment
Walt Posted June 16, 2019 Report Share Posted June 16, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, TaylorSwift said: Very well written, and I completely agree that Asylum should consolidate to one sole server. Edited June 16, 2019 by Walt Link to comment
Azeh Posted June 16, 2019 Report Share Posted June 16, 2019 Fried Rice and Swade White like this Link to comment
Maaqs Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 (edited) Nice name. but no. Edited June 17, 2019 by Maaqs Link to comment
The Boss Posted June 17, 2019 Report Share Posted June 17, 2019 (edited) 13 hours ago, TaylorSwift said: I'd like to start by addressing that I am aware of dedicated housing, that people would be upset at their server being shut down, and with V2 and a DLC coming up the population may support more than 1 server. Obviously people would be upset that their server was shut down, but lets look at the current state of things. We have 2 servers that both are dead the majority of the time. Many new players and old players alike are leaving, wanting to leave, or not even joining due to the servers being dead. If we combined the population of server 1 and 2 into one we would have an active server that new and old players would want to play instead of 2 dead servers they don't want to play. I think this would not only make the server more enjoyable to play but also increase growth. I know when I'm looking for a server to play I go to see which servers are the most populated. Then when a server is full and active is when people are going to feel secure that fun will be there for them to commit to long term, gaining you players. But what if we just lose all the players from the shut down server instead of consolidating them? I don't think this would be the case. In fact I think Asylum is losing far more players to having dead servers than they would lose by shutting down server 2. Of course some players would have this reaction but I think many would actually be happy at this decision with others agreeing perhaps reluctantly this is for the best. I have spoken to a handful of people myself in pitching this idea initially to people , many of which were long time members that are invested in their server, that agreed they would be happy to see this change. Another argument is that the upcoming update V2 or the new DLC might restore the population and there will be no need for this. To that I say, what if it doesn't? The problem is shutting down a server shortly after the release of a major update would be very demoralizing to new and old players who in their excitement became very invested in their server only to have it taken away. The better time to do it is now. If left as two servers in a few months time we may be right back where we started with the servers being dead and less and less people wanting to play, or mid pop and lack luster not reaching their potential leading to a slow and steady decline with the solution of shutting down a server now off the table for some time until population is low enough. By that time the opportunity to capitalize on the potential snowball growth of V2 and the new DLC will be gone. But what if with the release of V2 and the new DLC the population can support two servers? I think the superior approach to this is having one server with more slots. There are currently many successful Arma 3 servers that can support 130, or even 200 players. If this is not possible for Asylum servers I suggest opening non dedicated housing servers like strife, or non dedicated housing Tanoa Life servers as needed that can be closed depending on the player base with little or no consequence. Here are a few other thoughts and potential benefits Having one server would greatly improve the economy of the house market by increasing demand Asylum could have VIP slots to help with donation goals I think it would only be appropriate assuming the server cap remains 85, to only open an auxiliary server if there is thought to be at least 70 surplus players trying to connect in the event everyone on the main server decided to leave to the auxiliary server there would still be 70 players that could then occupy the main server I think it would encourage more donations - Taylor Goldberg This is like the 3rd post on this in as many weeks. No. Oh and the servers can support up to 130... but the spaghetti code for the server cannot. Shutting down S2 wont magically make the server full. The best thing they can do is finish V2 cuz no on wants to play with the obscene amount of lag it currently gets when the pop is over 40. This post is full of ignorance and misinformation. Edited June 17, 2019 by The Boss Link to comment
Recommended Posts