Why can MCG afford to have so many empty servers?

[Kezzer]

With the new merge coming up removing servers would be a bad move. Also just think about how the fiber optic connection will massively improve gameplay. If it is an improvement it is definitely not a waste of money. If we had the perfect number of servers for example to have them full all the time this would mean that someone somewhere is unable to play. You need excess servers to cope with the overflow however yes maybe there could be a few less to try and fill more games and potentially save a small amount monthly for the server. At the end of the day Chad and the devs do what they think is right for the community.

 

[arsenal]

With the new merge coming up removing servers would be a bad move. Also just think about how the fiber optic connection will massively improve gameplay. If it is an improvement it is definitely not a waste of money. If we had the perfect number of servers for example to have them full all the time this would mean that someone somewhere is unable to play. You need excess servers to cope with the overflow however yes maybe there could be a few less to try and fill more games and potentially save a small amount monthly for the server. At the end of the day Chad and the devs do what they think is right for the community.

I am not complaining about the fiber optic. I support that. I am pointed out that it would be easier to fund that if we saved some money. So that is why I asked the question of why we have so many extra servers. In terms of the merge, we won't need more servers because even though we are getting more players, they will be spread across all the new game modes.

 

[Mamiamato24]

I am not complaining about the fiber optic. I support that. I am pointed out that it would be easier to fund that if we saved some money. So that is why I asked the question of why we have so many extra servers. In terms of the merge, we won't need more servers because even though we are getting more players, they will be spread across all the new game modes.

Didn't Devin already explain everything?
And honestly, we are clueless about McGamer's exact economic situation, so I wouldn't question it nor make a proposal without knowing. In the end, while it seems odd to the naked eye, everything they do is for the betterment of the servers and community.

And I can assure you most of them will be going to Survival Games since barely any other gamemodes are actually played

 

[LovinMcBitz]

No offense, but you sort of asked the owner and the devs to reply to this in their defense.

 

[arsenal]

No offense, but you sort of asked the owner and the devs to reply to this in their defense.

Well if they don't give a good reason, then it would look as if they are wasting money.

 

[ChadTheDJ]

Again, we buy physical servers that power multiple games within 1 node. Sure we have tons of empty lobbies maybe during odd hours, however it's there for when MCGamer gets to it's peak time. Play on any network during their afternoon as almost every server is full.

 

[arsenal]

Again, we buy physical servers that power multiple games within 1 node. Sure we have tons of empty lobbies maybe during odd hours, however it's there for when MCGamer gets to it's peak time. Play on any network during their afternoon as almost every server is full.

SGC had TWO live games in the middle of the afternoon today. I think we could do with less. Ava also said it is possible to have multiple gamemodes running in one node. So we could have a node that runs 10 QQ and 10 SGC and save some money right? Currently there are probably two for SGC and one node for QQ, so why not make it one node?

 

[ChadTheDJ]

Realize this as well, different games consume more or less resources. SGC and QQ have more in a single node and is different than MCSG itself. I think you are honestly making way too many assumptions based on visuals not facts.

Plus to add: Is it go to have more than enough servers rather than not enough at all? A long time ago, this place was called the "Donor Games" because there were not enough servers to handle the demand. You basically had to pay to play here. Now I find it funny you are complaining we have too many.

 

[Rusty]

You're walking in to a car park during off peak times, and saying "Holy crap there's a tonne of empty parks, why do they have so many"

 

[dv90]

SGC had TWO live games in the middle of the afternoon today. I think we could do with less. Ava also said it is possible to have multiple gamemodes running in one node. So we could have a node that runs 10 QQ and 10 SGC and save some money right? Currently there are probably two for SGC and one node for QQ, so why not make it one node?
View attachment 29431

Yes, that is correct but I think the point that most of us are trying to make is that it doesn't really make a dent in the cost of the servers to justify doing so. Sure you might be able to get rid of one box, maybe two, but that's a drop in the bucket when you're paying thousands just to keep the server running.

One of the main reasons we keep spare servers is that it's harder to scale up when you don't already have resources allocated. Think about it like this: say someone really popular joins and starts playing SGC or QQ or any game mode and 200, 500, or maybe even 1,000 new players are online wanting in. If we only had a few of those servers available in the first place, it's going to take us longer to set up more servers to handle all of those players which will just be a disappointment for them. If we have a lot of empty servers available for them to use - in a sort of "what if" case - then it's all covered and the devs don't need to bother with it.

You're walking in to a car park during off peak times, and saying "Holy crap there's a tonne of empty parks, why do they have so many"

^

 

[Ava]

SGC had TWO live games in the middle of the afternoon today. I think we could do with less. Ava also said it is possible to have multiple gamemodes running in one node. So we could have a node that runs 10 QQ and 10 SGC and save some money right? Currently there are probably two for SGC and one node for QQ, so why not make it one node?
View attachment 29431

One for QQ, one for SGC. Even though QQ has only 14 servers, it still uses a whole node, as due to the natural disasters and such, it uses twice the amount of RAM an average SG server does.
Either way, at the end of the day, we do our best to do what's right for the community. To be honest, our financial situation is not of our players' concern; although we are the fourth largest Minecraft network in the world, we do make much less money than the other 3 top networks and even some below us, as we have never resorted to making pay-to-win a solution to our problems. Making much less money than other networks means that we do have to properly appropriate the money that we do make, and we're doing a pretty good job at that, otherwise we wouldn't still be alive after 2 years.

 

[LieutenantIV]

Realize this as well, different games consume more or less resources. SGC and QQ have more in a single node and is different than MCSG itself. I think you are honestly making way too many assumptions based on visuals not facts.

Plus to add: Is it go to have more than enough servers rather than not enough at all? A long time ago, this place was called the "Donor Games" because there were not enough servers to handle the demand. You basically had to pay to play here. Now I find it funny you are complaining we have too many.

This.

I see you making way too many assumptions based off raw numbers and unsolid evidence.