• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Poll About Max Player Counts And Server Performance

Jump to latest Follow Reply

Poll About Max Player Counts And Server Performance

  • Reduce the player counts to 50 across the board

    Votes: 83 19.9%

  • Reduce the player counts to 50 on ranked, allow 64 on unranked

    Votes: 125 30.0%

  • Leave the player counts alone, we'll deal with it

    Votes: 209 50.1%
  • Total voters
    417
Sort by date Sort by votes
#101
Why is there such a witch hunt against(stable) 64 man servers? Just because you don't like playing on a server that has that many people on them, shouldn't mean that numbers should be limited to suit you. If people on 64 man servers hated lesser player count servers would you be happy if they got those servers shut down?

To answer your statements Ramm; I completely agree. A free weekend will have player numbers grow, and having those new players jump on a 64 slot server which can't handle the load, will have a negative effect on them. They will become quickly disillusioned by the game, and that will no doubt drive some of them away.

That being said, I completely disagree with the conclusion that you should therefore limit servers to 50. Why punish servers that can handle the load, and piss off people who like playing on 64 man servers? Why not set as default, all 64 man servers as unranked apart from those that can handle the load. There are a few servers right now that are known to handle the load. Leave them as ranked, and ask the others to provide evidence that they have a machine that can run it. Letting all admins' know that if their server at any time stops being able to handle it; will mean them being de-white listed.

Having 64 men ranked servers for the free weekend will be of benefit. People believe it or not actually like playing on larger servers :).

As for your point on the 10 ms benefit for having 50 player server. Get Merk's mod working and you can keep the 10 ms ;). Only about 5% of our server pop would benefit from this 10 ms anyway. The vast majority of people that are in our clan and play on our server have 80+ pings on our server. Therefore, saving 10 ms isn't going to mean anything, as we still are outside of the hallowed 50 ms ping. This is going to be your biggest problem with this game. Simply because, not everyone plays on low ping servers. People like playing on servers from other countries, so once they encounter the disadvantages of server-side hit detection, they are put off by the game. 90% of my clan don't play this game due to this fact(as well as some other gripes they have with the game). When we had Merk's mod running on the server their opinions of the game changed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#103
Golf33 said:
No, he's saying that even with anti-lag, if the server is performing badly, new players on a free weekend will quit the game instead of buying it. That outcome would be bad for all of us. Those new players might be filling up servers in your area :)

I'm for anything that gives the game the best chance of success and a big player population. That definitely means getting anti-lag working. It may also mean limiting player counts.
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed the server I play in performing badly even when full of 64 players. It used to have really bad lag spikes, but I think taking down punkbuster and/or a patch eliminated those completely. The only issue is the bullet lag due to the fact that it's server side hit detection and the only game with players in it is 4 time zones away forcing me to play with high ping. Playing servers that far away, my ping will be higher than I'd like no matter what they do to the game.

I don't think limiting player count will make a meaningful dent. I played in a lower player game last night on the same 64 person server (about 30-40 players online) and my ping was about 10 ms lower. The bullet lag didn't change though. The only thing that changed was the battle was much less intense.

Dionysos said:
I think what he means is that he fears players will quit just upon seeing they have a ping they think is too high, no matter what that actually means for game play.

I think the latency is mostly important because of the ballistics/"hit detection" experience. Lower latency with the current system obviously means better working ballistics. However, I don't think a slight improvement would make that much of a difference in perceived improvements. Even if the average experience of shots landing where theyre supposed to would improve, there would still be lag spikes frustrating players. Inconsistency is bad.

The complaint I feel I hear most from people in RL as well as across the internetz is that the shooting experience isn't consistent. Missing and not knowing whether you should've missed makes learning the game a chore because you don't have complete control over your performance game play wise.

I think fixing the mutator or implementing it yourselves should be a top priority before the free weekend. I also think it's more important than a slight average improvement of latency in terms of the old system.
Click to expand...

If that is what he thinks, then I think he's wrong. If I were trying out this game on a free weekend, seeing a high number next to my ping wouldn't make me quit outright. Having a high ping, and having horrible gameplay would make me quit. Obviously the high ping is a result of there being few people playing this game, but having massive bullet lag isn't helping that problem. Now if the antilag mutator was running and I had high ping, I'd see that the high ping doesn't really affect the gameplay and I'd have a blast.

I agree with everything you said in the rest of your post.
 
Upvote 0
#105
Maybe Tripwire could rent some servers for the weekend, with their own settings with a selection of action, realism and classic modes. Like with launch week, I think there were some TWI servers then.

The Instant Match feature could only choose between those servers so people who just hit that button will get on a safe server. Instant match should allow you to choose the server type tho

I don't think there will be a lack of servers though, just maybe some servers that won't run so well. Even if they bring it down to 50, you will see people doing 50 player servers that really should be 32. The game requires more from the server than other games I guess
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#106
melipone said:
Maybe Tripwire could rent some servers for the weekend, with their own settings with a selection of action, realism and classic modes. Like with launch week, I think there were some TWI servers then.

The Instant Match feature could only choose between those servers so people who just hit that button will get on a safe server. Instant match should allow you to choose the server type tho

I don't think there will be a lack of servers though, just maybe some servers that won't run so well. Even if they bring it down to 50, you will see people doing 50 player servers that really should be 32. The game requires more from the server than other games I guess
Click to expand...

@ Machinist, I agree completely.

@ Melipone, While I know you mean well, that's an awful suggestion. To literally freeze us out on what might be the biggest weekend in months? Why not have all of us take down our servers altogether... then you have nothing to worry about! Besides, you contradict yourself, in one breath you say segregate and then in another, you say there'll be plenty of servers. Please remember, There are those of us (Server/Owner/Admins) who went the extra mile to ensure the server's performance would be of unquestionable high quality.​

In the end, I still say "leave the player count alone". Those wishing to play RO2 during that event and first timers are far more sophisticated and experienced in online game play than many realize. We'll all do OK.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#107
You wouldn't be cut out, but if TWI want a controlled environment for new players they could look into it. You might get more competition for a weekend, but surely you can live with that if it results in a better overall experience for players, which may in turn result in more players long term for your server after the weekend.

Its just an idea anyway. If TWI want they could probably try to get some of the more popular servers to run settings of their choice for the weekend too, if they get some cooperation from server owners
 
Upvote 0
#110
I don't see why people have a problem with "unranked" servers having a 64 person option. Why restrict "unranked". Anyone joining one will know what they are doing.

Personally, I wish there weren't any 64 person servers. That's a lot of players soaked into one server that could be joining other ones. The performance on that 64 person server that's always full isn't great. It works better when there are 50 people on and the gameplay difference is hardly noticeable.
 
Upvote 0
#113
omniconsumer said:
Call me hopeful, but I think a 30-40ms improvement in ping is pretty damn good. Just being able to see that drop will help keep people around.
Click to expand...

Upgrade your computer.

I know, it's already awesome.

Look, I ahve a decent rig, and I can run 64 players, max. Thing is, my rig is CLEAN.

Leave us alone who can get performance out of our computers. This game put out all the flashing lights to get with the times; do it again, and give us big battles.
 
Upvote 0
#114
Its nothing to do with a clients PC. That would only affect his FPS, not ping

This is about servers not having the bandwidth to give all 64 players a stable and reliable ping within the expected range for a pc game. 50 is about where it should be, not 100+. Thats not reasonable for a game in this day and age
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#115
I like the 50 player idea but I'm really not passionate about it. Bot limit however gives me a raging :D! While I've made several posts hating on bots, but I do like idea of having the odd bot (ie: 10/64 or 8/50) here or there who represents someone who doesn't know where the F he is (which is hard to recreate when everyone knows every square inch of the map) and giving a slight mechanical element to the battle - as you may have seen in Stalingrad with the "Private! Do this or I shoot you" mentality that was prevalent on the Eastern Front.
 
Upvote 0
#116
please don t do that ,i understand you want the game to be smoother and to run better , but if you take off 64 ranked,that would be very bad ,why not 50 players ranked and 64 players ranked? why 64 unranked?let us bloody choose ,don t choose for us,i m level 78 now and less player in the server less to kill so ranking go much slower ,and it is already getting harder to bring the level up for me now,i m so use to 64 and i m always a rifleman and why do you want to change the game when you still have some other issues that you should solve,better keep your faithfull players happy first.you made bad choices before don t make anymore
 
Upvote 0
#117
melipone said:
Its nothing to do with a clients PC. That would only affect his FPS, not ping

This is about servers not having the bandwidth to give all 64 players a stable and reliable ping within the expected range for a pc game. 50 is about where it should be, not 100+. Thats not reasonable for a game in this day and age
Click to expand...

i just find it a bit funny that joint operations released in 2004 held 150 players in a warzone with vehicles and we are on about going down to 50 players from 64 in this day and age for RO2. i mean i have noticed the UT3 engine sucking a bit in general with a range of games its used in, including unreal tournament 3 its self, it feels like it cant handle large areas and large amounts of details etc. hense why alot of the games i see that use it try to focus on tight/limited areas with the illusion of openness.

i mean TW whats the problem does the UT3 engine suck that bad or do you fail at networking etc?

can we have a blunt answer on this from TW?

personally i think the UT3 engines cross platform focuses probably effected its PC capabilities when you try to crank it up, it wouldnt surprise me if the UT2 engine which RO1 was build with could handle a player count with larger maps, but id like to hear TW's response from their POV
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#118
Cutting down player counts is as bad as reducing graphic details for better performance.
If a server can handle 64 players, then leave it as it is. If some server admin chooses to run 64 players, while his system can actually not handle it, the server will stay empty. Players will choose accordingly.

What is far more important to me is to get rid of the bots. It's just awful to see 200 players online, distributed on 25 different servers with each of them 5-10 players farming 50 bots. That's actually the main reason for me to drop the game when I am actually willing to play it.
 
Upvote 0
#120
melipone said:
Its nothing to do with a clients PC. That would only affect his FPS, not ping

This is about servers not having the bandwidth to give all 64 players a stable and reliable ping within the expected range for a pc game. 50 is about where it should be, not 100+. Thats not reasonable for a game in this day and age
Click to expand...


There you go again with the 50 player nonsense.... Leave the 64 Player dealio ALONE!
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu