[Faustie]

We could cycle simply EU Rockford, yet keep US Rockford online 24/7? That means that at peak time (late week and weekends) there are two EU servers and one US server, otherwise one EU and one US server. It's clear that despite suggestions and so on most people still prefer EU 33x for whatever reason, so unless that starts to change this option might make sense.

[Burnett]

I've said it before: My view is a CDN to forward connections to a core service.
No need for multiple physical servers, just a network (Content Delivery Network) to provide alternate IP's across the world to the same server. Great connection all round, and one single player base.

This is not easy as it sounds. Our backend consist of multiple systems that simply cannot operate with a CDN. Next is the custom protection software which is logically bound to one network. We sys-admins (Faustie, Myself) figured various solutions that could operate with every system in our backend. A CDN is definately not one of these. It depends on how much money can be put into a globalized network. As of now this is not possible.

@Topic:

Our network ain't just two dedis. There are a lot of other things that are part of it. We highly appreciate your suggestions, however - Basic solutions such as a CDN cannot be applied. The best solution we discussed is a virtual-private-lan-network. That way traffic can be shared among datacenters without high-latency. It would also allow us to keep our current protection-setup is place.
However. With a great solution comes higher costs. I wont go deeper as I dont want to compromise our security-setup.

[Raptor]

Again, this is what is being discussed. We can always trial these sort of things and will take ideas from the community.

If this is still being discussed they why talk about it in public? 

We could cycle simply EU Rockford, yet keep US Rockford online 24/7? That means that at peak time (late week and weekends) there are two EU servers and one US server, otherwise one EU and one US server. It's clear that despite suggestions and so on most people still prefer EU 33x for whatever reason, so unless that starts to change this option might make sense.

If hope this doesn't mean that the EU server cycles between v33x and Rockford, let's not forget that this is mostly a EU community. 

As nevy said, the US server was made to get more players from the US in the US timezone why get the EU server involved with this? this would get us less players than more players.

[Faustie]

No, it means that the EU 33x server would be up permanently as it is now, as would the US Rockford server. At times of high EU demand, EU Rockford would then come up. It's not an ideal solution, but until we have more players on those servers we have to direct traffic a little. Players can vote with where they go, but the vast majority choose to stay on EU 33x.

[Soviethooves]

No, it means that the EU 33x server would be up permanently as it is now, as would the US Rockford server. At times of high EU demand, EU Rockford would then come up. It's not an ideal solution, but until we have more players on those servers we have to direct traffic a little. Players can vote with where they go, but the vast majority choose to stay on EU 33x.

Or we can give the US Rockford only (seeing as EU Rockford has been doing terrible), so EU players can increase population on the US server if they want to play on a more populated server. US players have been doing this for years and we have not complained half as much as EU players have been compaining about US ping servers. Just let them deal with it and have both parts of the community come together.

[Voluptious]

Just slippin it in here.

[George]

Again, this is what is being discussed. We can always trial these sort of things and will take ideas from the community.

If this is still being discussed they why talk about it in public? 

You'd prefer it if we had no community input?

[George]

Not bad for a weekday.

[Jono]

No, it means that the EU 33x server would be up permanently as it is now, as would the US Rockford server. At times of high EU demand, EU Rockford would then come up. It's not an ideal solution, but until we have more players on those servers we have to direct traffic a little. Players can vote with where they go, but the vast majority choose to stay on EU 33x.

Or we can give the US Rockford only (seeing as EU Rockford has been doing terrible), so EU players can increase population on the US server if they want to play on a more populated server. 

The same argument can be made for the US rockford though? I've seen far more people playing Rockford EU at peak times on weekends, than people playing rockford US at the US peak-time.

And also has the US playerbase increased? Is there some figures we could have about the number of new players on the US server, and how often they play now?

I'm all for supporting a US server, I mean I can't play the US server for 10 mins with that ping, so I understand the yankees argument, but I feel like the arguments being given have no real basis.

[Soviethooves]

No, it means that the EU 33x server would be up permanently as it is now, as would the US Rockford server. At times of high EU demand, EU Rockford would then come up. It's not an ideal solution, but until we have more players on those servers we have to direct traffic a little. Players can vote with where they go, but the vast majority choose to stay on EU 33x.

Or we can give the US Rockford only (seeing as EU Rockford has been doing terrible), so EU players can increase population on the US server if they want to play on a more populated server. 

The same argument can be made for the US rockford though? I've seen far more people playing Rockford EU at peak times on weekends, than people playing rockford US at the US peak-time.

And also has the US playerbase increased? Is there some figures we could have about the number of new players on the US server, and how often they play now?

I'm all for supporting a US server, I mean I can't play the US server for 10 mins with that ping, so I understand the yankees argument, but I feel like the arguments being given have no real basis.

It actually was increasing, again when the server was up to date and bug free. However due to the map change that was made, the US Server was left to collect dust because who wants to play on a broken map?

[sauce]

I've said it before: My view is a CDN to forward connections to a core service.
No need for multiple physical servers, just a network (Content Delivery Network) to provide alternate IP's across the world to the same server. Great connection all round, and one single player base.

This is not easy as it sounds. Our backend consist of multiple systems that simply cannot operate with a CDN. Next is the custom protection software which is logically bound to one network. We sys-admins (Faustie, Myself) figured various solutions that could operate with every system in our backend. A CDN is definately not one of these. It depends on how much money can be put into a globalized network. As of now this is not possible.

@Topic:

Our network ain't just two dedis. There are a lot of other things that are part of it. We highly appreciate your suggestions, however - Basic solutions such as a CDN cannot be applied. The best solution we discussed is a virtual-private-lan-network. That way traffic can be shared among datacenters without high-latency. It would also allow us to keep our current protection-setup is place.
However. With a great solution comes higher costs. I wont go deeper as I dont want to compromise our security-setup.

Sorry - Haven't been keeping up to date with this thread, so slightly late response.

I agree with what you are saying here, it most definitely would be expensive, alongside constant expense that would have to be forked out to manage such system. However a CDN can not really be classified as a 'basic solution', even if it is not the solution to this problem. Security is great and obviously paramount in any network. However, I think it is most likely safe to say that the security of Limelight Gaming is not necessarily a big issue, as long as certain standards are in place. After all; this is a games server, not the NSA.

With that said, on another note a good service is provided here across different continents for various users.
Although members of the community are quite right to question the purpose of the US server, due to the fact that it is struggling to get players online. Even US players would rather play on the EU servers if there are actually people online. Nobody wants to play alone. 

Would it not be better to invest thoughts into such development of the network and develop a solution to this problem rather than throw money into servers to manage the US side that are currently failing?

[Stomm]

It'd really help if the U.S. server was actually taken care of. We lost a lot of people starting out because no one cared to fix reported bugs on Rockford until the EU Rockford went up....

[Soviethooves]

It'd really help if the U.S. server was actually taken care of. We lost a lot of people starting out because no one cared to fix reported bugs on Rockford until the EU Rockford went up....

Once we resolve the host issue, it needs to be top priority.

[SirWulf]

I'm debating on taking the initiative and only playing on US Rockford when it comes back up. If it shows at least a few players, more will trickle in. But nobody wants to play on an empty server.

[Soviethooves]

I'm debating on taking the initiative and only playing on US Rockford when it comes back up.  If it shows at least a few players, more will trickle in.  But nobody wants to play on an empty server.

I'm with ya brotha