it's too bad Ramm goofed up on the pol. if he just gave us two choices, i think the 50 player server would have won out. i hope he thinks about that when he makes his decision.
Upvote
0
Poll About Max Player Counts And Server Performance
- Thread starter [TW]Ramm-Jaeger
- Start date
55% is still not enough of a majority to make a decision with this poll. You can see it could be quite unpopular with a bunch of players
He can only use polls as extra sources of info though rather than just to do exactly what the poll says. Even if there was a very clear majority it would be down to them to decide what was best, them being actual game devs with experience in game networks and stuff. The 0.01% thing may have not been put across in a great way, but its still only a portion of the playerbase who can vote in anything
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Ah the 64 unranked option... like TWI don't know that no one play unranked.
People will always try to up the max players level and tends to join high players count servers. RO1 & DH proved us this fact.
I hope the first thing some people will do is to make a 64 players server mutator and whitelist it (like the mekhazio client side detection and tanktweak mutator). If i understand the politic of TWI with mods white listing, they can't refuse for this one.
Silly situation, it isn't ?
So, will TWI refuse to whitelist a 64 server players mutator because they are afraid some bad servers not under their responsabilities can not run it well ? Or will they find another excuse ?
Maybe they will try to hardcode it...
Some politics that remind me others games studios who i don't really love.
However, it the first time i see this sort of backpedaling stupidity almost 1 year after the game is launched. Tr
People will always try to up the max players level and tends to join high players count servers. RO1 & DH proved us this fact.
I hope the first thing some people will do is to make a 64 players server mutator and whitelist it (like the mekhazio client side detection and tanktweak mutator). If i understand the politic of TWI with mods white listing, they can't refuse for this one.
Silly situation, it isn't ?
So, will TWI refuse to whitelist a 64 server players mutator because they are afraid some bad servers not under their responsabilities can not run it well ? Or will they find another excuse ?
Maybe they will try to hardcode it...
Some politics that remind me others games studios who i don't really love.
However, it the first time i see this sort of backpedaling stupidity almost 1 year after the game is launched. Tr
Upvote
0
Actually, reducing the player count has 168 votes overall, where's keeping it only has 140.
So that's 54,55% for reducing and 45,45% for keeping
Which means the majority of people who voted want to have reduced player counts
So that's 54,55% for reducing and 45,45% for keeping
Which means the majority of people who voted want to have reduced player counts
Last edited:
Upvote
0
thats called political counting where you take polls in the way you want em to end, joining this with that till you get the right result
the actual vote for the options is most want 64 kept, and as every other polls gone on first past the post why change the rules for this one ?
the actual vote for the options is most want 64 kept, and as every other polls gone on first past the post why change the rules for this one ?
Upvote
0
You can read this poll two ways (when I posted of course):
Max limit 50 total or just ranked: 169 for and 141 against
- OR -
Max limit 64 ranked or unranked: 241 for and 69 against
Max limit 50 total or just ranked: 169 for and 141 against
- OR -
Max limit 64 ranked or unranked: 241 for and 69 against
Upvote
0
Actually, reducing the player count has 168 votes overall, where's keeping it only has 140.
So that's 54,55% for reducing and 45,45% for keeping
Which means the majority of people who voted want to have reduced player counts
Yeah. It also means almost HALF of the people who voted want to keep player counts as they are. It potentially means a lot of those people will quit on this game. I know I will. I'm still ticked that nothing seems to be getting done to fix the bullet lag (getting antilag mutator to work). At least there have been no updates, and whenever the topic has been brought up, at least in threads I've seen, TWI posters seem to disappear...
Upvote
0
The thing is, if some server operator doesn't have a good enough server, but still goes for 64 players even though he knows, his server can't handle it. This results in players either not playing at all and maybe bashing on the one who hosts it OR they come to the forums and bash on the devs for not having a 64 player support (even though a majority of servers can run 64 players fine)
Just my 2 cents
Which can be said for any player cap.
I could possibly start a server on a crappy old computer I have laying around and make a 32 player server. It would crash and lag like crazy, so obviously the 32 player cap would be too high, right?
I don't see why there is hate towards the big servers. As long as the devs have at least put some effort into making their player cap of 64 work, then it becomes the server hosts responsibility to make sure their hardware is good enough for what player cap they are hosting. If a server is ****ed, I just move on, but the 64 player servers I played on worked fine.
Upvote
0
As a person who is admin to two servers at the moment, I'd say leave it alone for the server admins to judge. A good admin can determine if he is driving a server too hard and pull back accordingly. The players will let him know soon enough if he doesn't. Most issues are tied up in either low-budget broadband or unrealistic hardware expectations loaded on old systems. I love the fact that the server software is being optimised for a fifty player count, but for heavens sake, don't drive us into a one-size-fits-all cage by threatening to diminish ranking to 50.
Upvote
0
Interesting thing for me to see everytime I am opening the server browser is the following:
2.Fjg is always full, close to full, or fills up within an hour I play on it
A 2nd 64 player server that is occasionally full
The 32 Aussie player server from Cat_in_the_Hat that is full most of the time
about 10-15 servers that have like 5-10 (often less) farming bots from which:
7 are 64 player servers
If anybody thinks that the "bad performance of 64 player servers"(?) is a reason of unhappy players abandoning RO 2 in the masses, I would simply encounter with: It's the huge amount of bots keeping players playing on different servers either trying to seed a server with best connection for themselves, or bot farming.
Now making 64 player servers unranked is a polite form of "we have tried keeping them alive, didn't work", while actually cutting down a product feature.
If that's gonna happen, I would probably quit the game completely because it would give me an entire different idea of "problem solving" by TWI.
And I don't say that I am not willing to play on lower count servers, but the option of higher count servers needs to be left alone.
If a server is not capable of running 64 players because of its specs, well, players will stay away from the server, not necessarily the game.
2.Fjg is always full, close to full, or fills up within an hour I play on it
A 2nd 64 player server that is occasionally full
The 32 Aussie player server from Cat_in_the_Hat that is full most of the time
about 10-15 servers that have like 5-10 (often less) farming bots from which:
7 are 64 player servers
If anybody thinks that the "bad performance of 64 player servers"(?) is a reason of unhappy players abandoning RO 2 in the masses, I would simply encounter with: It's the huge amount of bots keeping players playing on different servers either trying to seed a server with best connection for themselves, or bot farming.
Now making 64 player servers unranked is a polite form of "we have tried keeping them alive, didn't work", while actually cutting down a product feature.
If that's gonna happen, I would probably quit the game completely because it would give me an entire different idea of "problem solving" by TWI.
And I don't say that I am not willing to play on lower count servers, but the option of higher count servers needs to be left alone.
If a server is not capable of running 64 players because of its specs, well, players will stay away from the server, not necessarily the game.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Well after reading and thinking about it some more, I am still sticking with my vote of "Leave it the way it is."
Except for the first few months after release, I really can't recall any poorly performing 64 player server that I was on. If a server performed poorly, is was extremely temporary and not worth remembering (I will admit that I haven't tried all the 64 player servers). The single biggest thing that I notice in game is every few minutes I get a quick drop in fps that I can only imagine happens because of PB and I am not even sure about that.
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a few servers with less players say 50 - 54 max. That setting would be more appropriate for those run-n-gun maps like Aparments or Barracks.
When the free weekend rolls around there will be little we can all do to prevent new unknowing players from starting up a server on their computers that can't handle those numbers, be it 64, 50, 32 players or whatever. We should just trust the current admins and leave it.
Except for the first few months after release, I really can't recall any poorly performing 64 player server that I was on. If a server performed poorly, is was extremely temporary and not worth remembering (I will admit that I haven't tried all the 64 player servers). The single biggest thing that I notice in game is every few minutes I get a quick drop in fps that I can only imagine happens because of PB and I am not even sure about that.
That said, I wouldn't mind seeing a few servers with less players say 50 - 54 max. That setting would be more appropriate for those run-n-gun maps like Aparments or Barracks.
When the free weekend rolls around there will be little we can all do to prevent new unknowing players from starting up a server on their computers that can't handle those numbers, be it 64, 50, 32 players or whatever. We should just trust the current admins and leave it.
Upvote
0
The if it aint broke dont fix comes to mind
to a large set players it aint broke
I'm definately in the leave it alone let server providers decide - even if you believe it's a problem it should be upto the people who pay for the servers
to a large set players it aint broke
I'm definately in the leave it alone let server providers decide - even if you believe it's a problem it should be upto the people who pay for the servers
Upvote
0
I voted to reduce to 50 on all modes, but I changed my mind. Peronally I think 50 is a good number but it's a bad idea to force it. If it's mainly because of the free weekends TWI should just set up servers with 50 slots to showcase the game in the best way.
Upvote
0
Agreed,
Though the 2fgj does have higher lag with 64 players on it. No server seem to truly be able to run it great. Albeit 50 players should be run mostly.. Though 64 players are very fun!
Maybe only 64 with the anti-lag mutulator on. -When fixed of course...
Upvote
0