The problem with adding new servers

[beyurslf 5]

is that switching servers loses what you have already done.  I see a few open servers now so do I switch and start over?  What happens if the server I switch to is busy tomorrow? Do I just keep starting over every time I play?

[Sunfighter 186]

is that switching servers loses what you have already done.  I see a few open servers now so do I switch and start over?  What happens if the server I switch to is busy tomorrow? Do I just keep starting over every time I play?

 

On the bright side, youve probably not done much yet.

[beyurslf 5]

Very true.  But I did have one city that was starting to look nice.  Of course, I don't think it saved because it gave me some error as I exited it yesterday.  I did get logged on briefly a few minutes tonight but my whole region was gone, just cities named but totally empty. I exited out and haven't gotten back in.  I am hoping that was an error.

 

The main reason I don't want to start over is is that it took FOREVER for my cities to "see" each other for deals to be set up.

[AIX 270]

You would think having some sort of "sync" between all the servers so saved cities could be available no matter what server would be Basic Infrastructure 101.

[dce21b 0]

When they say they are adding server i dont think they mean like north america 3.  They are just adding more servers and assigning them to the existing regions you are already have available.

 

But then again that would make sense so....

[loerelau 5]

I just read that this is actually the case...

 

To be honest, like the game! Server issues will be solved eventually, i hope... I started a region, but tried so many times to connect, I don't know which server it is.

Anyway, I can not log into anyone right now!

[GenXisT 127]

You would think having some sort of "sync" between all the servers so saved cities could be available no matter what server would be Basic Infrastructure 101.

 

Love your sig, BTW.

 

On topic, they absolutely MUST fix this server sync issue.  There's NO WAY they can honestly and reasonably expect people to just "start over" whenever they connect to a different server.

It's totally ridiculous.  I've played about 15-20 hours so far. I don't wanna just lose out on what i've done because I can't connect to Europe West 2!!! (the fact that i have to connect to Europe West 2 is an entirely different topic all on its own).

 

On top of not being able to blow up my own city and start over, not being able to sync whilst on a different server is idiotic.  I mean, my stats in BF3 still follow me no matter what server i'm on.

I don't suddenly start out as a private all over again.

[loerelau 5]

And you are finally logged into another server and you get the d*mn tutorial again...

[nhgriffith 179]

Well... part of the advantage of NOT having all your cities available on every server is that you get extra save slots. Currently, there are like 10 different server options, right? And with 10 save slots available per server, that's 100 different regions you could be playing in.

Now, I don't think it could possibly work for Player A in Region X to be playing on Server 1 while Player B, also in Region X, plays on Server 2... I don't think there's a way for them to make that work.

However, it would be nice if allowed players the ability to transfer a region from one server to another. So, if you had been playing on Server 1, but now you want to play on Server 2 because that's where all your friends are, or because it's closer to you geographically, or it just works better, it'd be nice if they let you import your Server 1 save slots into your Server 2 save slots. This would actually also solve the issue of people wanting to do the disaster then reload previous save deal.

[loerelau 5]

Why do you want 100 saves slots? Two would be enough for me, one for my private region and one multiplayer.... As long as they sync. Or let me know which region is saved on which server... Just got disconnected again and don't have a clue which server it was (Europe 3 or 4).

[Kythlyn 80]

Well... part of the advantage of NOT having all your cities available on every server is that you get extra save slots. Currently, there are like 10 different server options, right? And with 10 save slots available per server, that's 100 different regions you could be playing in.

Now, I don't think it could possibly work for Player A in Region X to be playing on Server 1 while Player B, also in Region X, plays on Server 2... I don't think there's a way for them to make that work.

However, it would be nice if allowed players the ability to transfer a region from one server to another. So, if you had been playing on Server 1, but now you want to play on Server 2 because that's where all your friends are, or because it's closer to you geographically, or it just works better, it'd be nice if they let you import your Server 1 save slots into your Server 2 save slots. This would actually also solve the issue of people wanting to do the disaster then reload previous save deal.

 

Was about to post this, but you beat me to it. 10 save slots per server... bring on the servers!! Though honestly I wish they'd just abolish the save slot limit or extend it or something. They're underestimating the need of the most hardcore SimCity fans.

[sidnitzerglobin 0]

Why do you want 100 saves slots? Two would be enough for me, one for my private region and one multiplayer.... As long as they sync. Or let me know which region is saved on which server... Just got disconnected again and don't have a clue which server it was (Europe 3 or 4).

So we can play w/ each region?  Each region you start takes a save slot so I don't think it would take me long to fill up 10, assuming stuff gets fixed soon and I don't just give up on the game entirely...

[matizami 1]

only now i know that i can't play my save in every sever. i changed server without noticed which  server i played on and had a save. how can i find my old server? i don't want to connect to each server to find out...

[hellmunkey 30]

Have you guys not played a lot of online games before?  A new server = a fresh start.  Most online games are like that.  Your characters dont sync between servers on an MMO.  Can you imagine how much overhead there would be syncing everything across all servers globally?  I mean for all games, not just Simcity.  That would be a logistical nightmare.  Its not like an FPS with or something with a local save and you just need a matchmaking service.

[sidnitzerglobin 0]

Have you guys not played a lot of online games before?  A new server = a fresh start.  Most online games are like that.  Your characters dont sync between servers on an MMO.  Can you imagine how much overhead there would be syncing everything across all servers globally?  I mean for all games, not just Simcity.  That would be a logistical nightmare.  Its not like an FPS with or something with a local save and you just need a matchmaking service.

Totally depends on the game.  In my experience most of them at least offer the ability to migrate servers. 

 

I'm having the same problem finding my regions/cities.  Some kind of a "My Cities" listing in launcher would be really nice.

[hellmunkey 30]

Have you guys not played a lot of online games before?  A new server = a fresh start.  Most online games are like that.  Your characters dont sync between servers on an MMO.  Can you imagine how much overhead there would be syncing everything across all servers globally?  I mean for all games, not just Simcity.  That would be a logistical nightmare.  Its not like an FPS with or something with a local save and you just need a matchmaking service.

Totally depends on the game.  In my experience most of them at least offer the ability to migrate servers. 

 

I'm having the same problem finding my regions/cities.  Some kind of a "My Cities" listing in launcher would be really nice.

Even so, migrate and sync are two totally different things.  Being able to migrate is nice, but if the host server is down, how do you migrate to the destination server?

[VikingPea 0]

If they get up enough servers to get the game running smooth and patch the big problems I would be HAPPY to start all over

[GenXisT 127]

Have you guys not played a lot of online games before?  A new server = a fresh start.  Most online games are like that.  Your characters dont sync between servers on an MMO.  Can you imagine how much overhead there would be syncing everything across all servers globally?  I mean for all games, not just Simcity.  That would be a logistical nightmare.  Its not like an FPS with or something with a local save and you just need a matchmaking service.

 

Yeah, but the thing is... Sim City is NOT an MMO.  It was, is and always will be a Single Player game.  As soon as you get away from that glaring fact, this is the result.

It is NOT multi-player in any way, shape, or form.

 

Maxis probably know this.  But EA don't and forced it on them.  Maxis then had no choice but to toe the line on it and then try to say "oh it'll be great playing on a global scale"

 

No, no it is not. Not when I run the very real risk of NOT getting back to my city, let alone not being able to save anything locally.

It should've never gone down this path. Ever.

[Randall_Lind 19]

You would think having some sort of "sync" between all the servers so saved cities could be available no matter what server would be Basic Infrastructure 101.

 

I agree why  should the user need to know what server to log on to? It should show no matter what server. I can see this has being a major issue. EA doesn't get a Simcity player still. we spend hours days maybe longer working on a region so to restart every time will get old fast.

[Spatzimaus 77]

Yeah, but the thing is... Sim City is NOT an MMO.  It was, is and always will be a Single Player game. 

 

Yes, it IS an MMO.  Just because you wish it wasn't, doesn't make it so.  The earlier posters were talking about the difficulties involved with multiple servers (as opposed to a single virtual server whose processing is spread across multiple sets of hardware), and for that, comparisons to previous MMOs are perfectly valid.  Besides, there are some of us that DO like the addition of multiplayer.

 

Honestly, it's the same basic setup as the original Guild Wars: a shared economy, but the gameplay is fully instanced to where you can do it by yourself, with friends you've invited, or with total strangers.  If you want a single-player experience you can get it, and if you feel like playing a little multiplayer action you can do that too.  In GW1 I spend 95% of my time soloing (with NPC heroes), so it might as well have been an offline game except for the economy.  Characters are stored on their central servers, and you have limited slots.  Sounds a lot like SimCity...

 

To the OP, in the short term all they really need to do is give you a way to see how many save slots you're currently using on each server.  If you've got a server with a (10) next to it, you know that's the server you did most of your regions on, while that server with a (1) is clearly the one you used when the first was unavailable.  But honestly, these are Day One problems; once the game has stabilized, you won't change servers ever again.  Even last night I had no problem getting into the server I wanted and staying there all night, so why would I bother making cities on other servers?  When the game first launched I made a couple cities on whichever servers I could get into, but that's not the case any more.

Now, in the long term, I'd like to see more detailed browsers.  Imagine if you could go to a webpage to see an automatically-generated isometric screenshot of your cities/regions, along with the basic statistics like population, education level, and so on.  Besides making it easy to keep track of your regions, this'd let you show those pages to other people if you chose.  (As an analogue, remember your personal page on Spore, that showed your creatures to other people.)  Even if the pages were private by default (say, with basic password protection), they'd be really handy for personal use.

[GenXisT 127]

Yeah, but the thing is... Sim City is NOT an MMO.  It was, is and always will be a Single Player game. 

 

Yes, it IS an MMO.  Just because you wish it wasn't, doesn't make it so.  The earlier posters were talking about the difficulties involved with multiple servers (as opposed to a single virtual server whose processing is spread across multiple sets of hardware), and for that, comparisons to previous MMOs are perfectly valid.  Besides, there are some of us that DO like the addition of multiplayer.

 

This has nothing to do with me.  It has everything to do with the facts.  Fact is, Sim City is NOT an MMO.  This is proven by just what has happened.

It's not the multi-player causing the problem... it's not being able to save (or play) locally without being on a server.  it's rubbish.

 

What happens in a year and a half when EA decide they don't want to support this game anymore and pull the plug on the servers?  You're stuck with a non-working game that you paid up to $80 for.

Whereas if they had simply left well enough alone, Sim City, single-player phenom, then everything would be fine.

 

Throwing servers into the mix of a digital genetically single player game results in this.  Why do you think GTA has always had a really hard time with multi-player?  They've made promises for GTA:V, but up till now, it has been a disaster. Why?  Because like Sim City, GTA is a single player game. That one will probably work better because that type of multi-player doesn't really require saving anything except for stats.  Like BF3 or Counter Strike.

 

Sim City requires saving work you've done.  And you quite obviously cannot do that on these servers.  Someone said earlier it would be a logistical nightmare.

But it sure seems bizarre since saving data locally would be really simple, ... why? Oh,  yeah, because it has been like that for 24 effing years!!!!

[City Planner 121]

Personally, the way that I think it should have worked would be as thus:

 

1. You login to the game and choose to make a new region, you don't choose what server you login to, the software takes care of that and logs you into the best server for your location and connection (i.e. ping etc).  

 

2. When you come back to play later you are shown a list of regions that you own or are playing on and you simply choose one of them to go play and the server takes care of the connection to whatever server that region happens to be on.

 

That's the way that they should have made it work but we all know they didn't decide to do it that way.

[hellmunkey 30]

 

Yeah, but the thing is... Sim City is NOT an MMO.  It was, is and always will be a Single Player game. 

 

Yes, it IS an MMO.  Just because you wish it wasn't, doesn't make it so.  The earlier posters were talking about the difficulties involved with multiple servers (as opposed to a single virtual server whose processing is spread across multiple sets of hardware), and for that, comparisons to previous MMOs are perfectly valid.  Besides, there are some of us that DO like the addition of multiplayer.

 

This has nothing to do with me.  It has everything to do with the facts.  Fact is, Sim City is NOT an MMO.  This is proven by just what has happened.

It's not the multi-player causing the problem... it's not being able to save (or play) locally without being on a server.  it's rubbish.

 

What happens in a year and a half when EA decide they don't want to support this game anymore and pull the plug on the servers?  You're stuck with a non-working game that you paid up to $80 for.

Whereas if they had simply left well enough alone, Sim City, single-player phenom, then everything would be fine.

 

Throwing servers into the mix of a digital genetically single player game results in this.  Why do you think GTA has always had a really hard time with multi-player?  They've made promises for GTA:V, but up till now, it has been a disaster. Why?  Because like Sim City, GTA is a single player game. That one will probably work better because that type of multi-player doesn't really require saving anything except for stats.  Like BF3 or Counter Strike.

 

Sim City requires saving work you've done.  And you quite obviously cannot do that on these servers.  Someone said earlier it would be a logistical nightmare.

But it sure seems bizarre since saving data locally would be really simple, ... why? Oh,  yeah, because it has been like that for 24 effing years!!!!

Well, the fact is this incarnation of simcity is an MMO.  Should it be?  Absolutely not.  I agree 100% that SC is a single player experience.  Designing/creating games are best left to single player.  One of my fav ps3 games, Little Big Planet, has multiplayer create mode, and its a pain in the ass, even when friends.  Its great for sharing or helping, but the nuts n bolts creating is best when solo. 

 

Hell, they didnt even get the MP right in this game.  I think it would be much better to be creating cities together, not working on 2 cities in the same region.

[GenXisT 127]

 

 

Yeah, but the thing is... Sim City is NOT an MMO.  It was, is and always will be a Single Player game. 

 

Yes, it IS an MMO.  Just because you wish it wasn't, doesn't make it so.  The earlier posters were talking about the difficulties involved with multiple servers (as opposed to a single virtual server whose processing is spread across multiple sets of hardware), and for that, comparisons to previous MMOs are perfectly valid.  Besides, there are some of us that DO like the addition of multiplayer.

 

This has nothing to do with me.  It has everything to do with the facts.  Fact is, Sim City is NOT an MMO.  This is proven by just what has happened.

It's not the multi-player causing the problem... it's not being able to save (or play) locally without being on a server.  it's rubbish.

 

What happens in a year and a half when EA decide they don't want to support this game anymore and pull the plug on the servers?  You're stuck with a non-working game that you paid up to $80 for.

Whereas if they had simply left well enough alone, Sim City, single-player phenom, then everything would be fine.

 

Throwing servers into the mix of a digital genetically single player game results in this.  Why do you think GTA has always had a really hard time with multi-player?  They've made promises for GTA:V, but up till now, it has been a disaster. Why?  Because like Sim City, GTA is a single player game. That one will probably work better because that type of multi-player doesn't really require saving anything except for stats.  Like BF3 or Counter Strike.

 

Sim City requires saving work you've done.  And you quite obviously cannot do that on these servers.  Someone said earlier it would be a logistical nightmare.

But it sure seems bizarre since saving data locally would be really simple, ... why? Oh,  yeah, because it has been like that for 24 effing years!!!!

Well, the fact is this incarnation of simcity is an MMO.  Should it be?  Absolutely not.  I agree 100% that SC is a single player experience.  Designing/creating games are best left to single player.  One of my fav ps3 games, Little Big Planet, has multiplayer create mode, and its a pain in the ass, even when friends.  Its great for sharing or helping, but the nuts n bolts creating is best when solo. 

 

Hell, they didnt even get the MP right in this game.  I think it would be much better to be creating cities together, not working on 2 cities in the same region.

 

Fair enough.

 

another issue with this being online is the "griefers"  I know you can make a "Private" region, but then you have to rely on limited friends to play, where as public you have more of a chance.

But then you run the risk of some punk messing up the game on purpose.

 

I guess that's why i'm more miffed about this being online.  This type of thing online is more bound to hurt the gameplay than to help it.