Too Many Servers!

The lack of interaction between players is astounding. Pretty much the only way to play with someone is to have a friend playing with you. This is mainly due to the fact that there are several servers for each region. So where there may be 20-30 daily players in one region, they are spread out between 5 or more servers. For the sake of better interaction between players and a better environment to test player interaction, I suggest that some of the extra servers be disabled. I could understand this being a problem for players who have a lot of time invested in a specific server. But in my opinion, I wouldn’t mind starting over if it meant meeting people and forming unique relationships in game. For the game being in pre-alpha it doesn’t make sense to me for there to be that many servers.

1 Like

about if youve spent 200+ hours of work into one build project


Yeah see that’s the problem. If only there were a way to preserve those projects to make everyone happy. But like I said, just my opinion. Understandable why others would be opposed to this.

To be honest, I don’t mind being alone^^


As kuma said, some people wants to be alone when building, some wants to keep their projects for themselves, i think its honorable you want to play with more people but i would recommend planning it with them over forums then rather than suggesting to take down servers :smile:

Well, I would like if later when new features like the regeneration or others that will need new worlds are coming there will be only few new ones, so that there is more place to meet. When we have playermade beacons there is no need for a multiverse of lonelyness. Lesser new worlds would also mean lesser work for the devs, lesser investment in beta servers and better tests how the netcode can handle more people at once. I think two worlds per global region would be enough (so there would be also enough place for having all colors of materials :wink: )

1 Like

It would also mean less worlds to discover, something that is great about the game is the massive amount of worlds to choose from, i dont think anybody feel forced and most people can always find what they think is the ‘‘perfect’’ spot.

i would support ways to communicate better with players in the world atm, however less worlds does not sound like a good idea, to me atleast.

and in terms of having ‘‘more people on servers’’ i think someone found a stat saying that the peak of players were 13 players, using that logic even 1 world would be too much (if we talk about having builds side by side)

Looking at the other side of the coin, it sounds nice that you ‘‘want to meet people to build with’’ but as kuma also said ‘‘some people dont WANT other people near their builds’’ to advocate for the removal of that privacy, no matter how well intented it is. seems a bit… meh.

But both birne and OP have good points to be fair :smile:

it’s not even an alpha, so why but to much efforts in empty worlds then in more time (and may be money through lesser server costs) for the final game?

I think the worlds are big enough to have many hundreds of players at the same time without them seing each other. If you want to explore just go away from the spawn region. So if you have 5 worlds, you would have more then enough space for all players who are just playing the game :wink:

I for my part think less about the aspect of having player forced to see each other then about the aspects of development and financing :wink:

Cause one world does not equal one server, i thought that at first but i was wrong. @lucadeltodecso can you explain? am i completely wrong?

as i said, with the size of the worlds you could do this with 1 world, so i dont think that is a good argument, maybe it does make some servers cost less, but as i said i think that the worlds are like 5 or 6 worlds for 1 server, so it might not be as many servers as you might think.

Well I personally would not mind if they take worlds offline since the game will probably have a reset anyway when it goes 1.0 or other major changes are added.
But I also think that taking worlds offline is not an option since most people would be pretty upset if their builds vanish for the sake of increasing the player density.
I´d suggest that the devs should stop to add new worlds until the community agrees that new ones are needed.


this is indeed the ideal solution.

but again, can we please distinguish between servers and worlds? i think there is a difference.

i feel the next big time we need more worlds is when the tier system kicks in, we should have atleast a few worlds for each tier to keep it satisfactory, my hope is that we get entirely new worlds for that (with the buildings people want move to the tier 1 worlds) so we have to explore new world rather than moving on some which we might know inside and out.

Sorry, this server=world thing is just too stuck in my head from other games :sweat_smile:

ah yeah, apologies too, no offense to you personally. it just me being ego because i feel like i too will forget that 1 world does not equal 1 server if we keep writing it XD

to be fair though, i dont know how it works, and i cant remember where i saw it, just remember one of the devs mention it

@ben @james

its just especially important in this discussion if it involves ‘‘less server cost’’

i agree with you though, i dont think we can remove worlds because builds are split over so many worlds, and no matter which world you will remove atleast some players will feel cheated.

I thought the devs confirmed 1 world = 1 server
It would make sense, since you rent 1 server for 1 world (in the future), or that’s at least how I remember it^^

1 server can easily host several worlds. I think the AUS server is an example of this, all AUS worlds seem to be on one single physical server. AUS is too remote to need more, and this services the entire region for the cost of just one server.


Can you link the post where they stated that?

No, because it has never been stated. However, based on my own experiences hosting multiple worlds from a single physical server with very little difficulty (100+ players per world) and understanding the geographical isolation of the AUS region and how often game companies ignore the entire region all together, this is easy to infer. It’s also implied by the fact that the AUS region has the fewest worlds to play on- There is only one server in that region opposed to 2-3 servers for US and EU regions.

but it was… somewhere… i swear.

As long as the make no statement about it I trust my memory^^ (for what it’s worth)
It always depends on what kind of world you host from a server and what type of server it is.

Geographical isolation doesn’t play into this at all. Either you can have multiple worlds on one server or not. Doesn’t matter if the server is in US, EU, AUS or the moon.
And less worlds does in no way implie multiple worlds on one server.

But if you can link a post where they stated that there is only one server in AUS then we can talk about it again.

Pretty sure the abundance of worlds is to allow people to explore different regions to get a feel for how robust the game is.

If you want to try to find people, your best bet right now is Kovah.