Impending EU Server Clusters

Hello guys!

So as seen on this WG topic: http://worldoftanks.eu/news/6481-maintenance-european-server-goes-multi-cluster-tomorrow/

The EU server will receive 2 separate game clusters tomorrow. While this is welcomed due to the fact the game will not longer crash when players hit 180k, this does present an acute problem.

According to the relevant forum thread on the WoT Forums, it will NOT be possible to play in a platoon together if player X is on Cluster 1 and player Z is on cluster 2. Only if both players are inthe same game cluster will they be able to platoon together.

Hence, I think it'll be wise to gather all our information together and decide on a game cluster SGTA will participate in....as so much of the academy is based on platoons (and TCs). If anyone has any contributory info which may help the decision it would be appreciated.

I will delete this thread and replace it with a new announcement thread once we've decided.

It should be noted that players on different clusters can still use the same clanchat, if it works the same as in test server. I would say cluster 2 might be better, as cluster 1 will be used for CW so there is a lot of people that NEED to use it instead of cluster 2.

CW will be on server 1. I think especially clans with good (green - purple) players will do well in CW (just my thoughts, dont know reality). So, will the majority of the good players play on server 1?

It is up to the SGTA leadership since I am not in the clan anymore.

You will find me on Cluster 1 if you need me.
Trev wants us on 1 for CW and ESL.

Cluster 1 might have a little bit higher quality teams but not that much because I think there will be still 90-100k players as max. for every cluster so much space for not that great players.

o7 Wasp

someone should explain WG what cluster means, it's not "adding a second seperate server".

My pitch for a suggestion is that we go cluster 1 for 1 week then cluster 2 for next week. Then evaluate if there is a noticeable difference in gameplay/player rudeness/skill/lag/etc.

After 2 weeks we open this thread again and ask people what they think. If there is no preference then leadership make a choice for members.

Note that obviously a few ex-SGTA player will be on cluster 1....but I don't see why they can't switch to cluster 2 to platoon with us (or vice versa) if we want to platoon as you can't possibly be doing CW while platooning lol.

What do you guys think?

I want to play with and against players that own me badly, so I can learn after I'm killed and during gameplay. All those people will be on server 1.

I'm gonna pick whichever cluster that has players with generally nicer attitudes lol.

So i can force you're hand by playing on server 2 for a week? :-P

Harald_Brinkhof wrote:So i can force you're hand by playing on server 2 for a week? :-P

Was that aimed at me? lol

If it was...I think you have nice attitude?

Ding760 wrote:My pitch for a suggestion is that we go cluster 1 for 1 week then cluster 2 for next week. Then evaluate if there is a noticeable difference in gameplay/player rudeness/skill/lag/etc.

After 2 weeks we open this thread again and ask people what they think. If there is no preference then leadership make a choice for members.

Note that obviously a few ex-SGTA player will be on cluster 1....but I don't see why they can't switch to cluster 2 to platoon with us (or vice versa) if we want to platoon as you can't possibly be doing CW while platooning lol.

What do you guys think?

I think we can assume that the clusters will be sized by WG in a way that both will perform well enough (if not, players will switch cluster anyway, which automatically balances performance). Player rudeness and behaviour is a matter of character and professionalism. Hard to believe that it will be focused on a specific cluster rather than widespread among both clusters.

Player skills ... with all cw players on cluster 1 it is likely harder to play and win on this cluster, right. But at the same time there may be less teams pitching tents in the magic forest of murovanka ...

Of course, technically former SGTA members could switch to cluster 2 to join SGTA activities, but I don't see the point of raising such additional obstacles for them. Different clan chats are already disrupting enough and it should be our interest to keep access to SGTA platoons, tcs and training rooms for our former members as simple as possible.

Thus, my clear preference is cluster 1 as default and whenever I feel like playing with teams that cross the fields of malinovka one by one (which I really do enjoy sometimes for pure entertainment) I have the choice to switch to cluster 2 myself.

But why not having a trial period on both clusters to get a clear picture, sounds reasonable. However, cluster 1 is definetely my prefered choice so far.

I'm leaning towards Cluster 1 myself now.

Although my main (stereotyped) dislike is that since Cluster 1 has more CW oriented people... I expect a lot more abuse...

What I find tends to be that some of the most vocal abusers in chats are CW people (I recognize half of them as they hurl abuse as they post on the forum lol). CW has a tendency to authenticate people they they are the best and hence have the authority to tell others what to do, etc.

Anyways...im getting ahead of myself. Although I'm leaning towards Cluster 1 to play with decent players. I PERSONALLY wouldn't hesitate to switch to cluster 2 as default if I find cluster 2 do have a generally more amicable population.

Clan chat appears to work fine across the two clusters.

Cluster 1 my preference.

I agree with cluster 1, although we all have big L's on the back of our tanks, it makes sense to learn with the best. Otherwise we will all get amazing stats and thing the sun shines out of our arseholes on cluster 2, then get schooled when we finally join cw (assuming we do)

Nobody has mentioned where the servers are located. Lemmingtrain hinted in game that EU1 might be located in Münich and EU2 in Amsterdam, for me as an Scandinavian player I would say that both have about the same latency. But mileage may vary depending your own location. I'm not sure if latency is even a issue to anybody but I just wanted to point it out.

Maybe you should take in consideration that CWs are played on EU1 then it will most like have more players -> more lag.

Does anyone have a rough idea what % of the total playerbase play CW? After all, we may only be looking at small numbers here. While theorectically the quality of play should be marginal better, this might well drop during CW slots as the better players get 'sucked' out.

That's true, but I'm worried about the effect it will have when even only the impression is created that one server is 'the one to be on', for whatever rational or irrational reason.

If everybody is constantly trying to get on the 'good' server then you will still have one server frequently being overstressed while the other one is underused.

Such an impression is always likely to arise by sheer coincidence (one person posts about it on the forum one day and confirmation bias will do the rest...), but now they've probably gone and created it before the new setup is even running.