• 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

Poll About Max Player Counts And Server Performance


  • Total voters
    417
I can't speak for others, but in my personal experience in playing RO2 since original Beta and in the Sept Launch, I have never had any issues playing on any server, regardless of player counts.

In other words, I never experienced any performance hits on 64 player servers.

Specs:
Intel Core i5-2300 CPU @ 2.80GHz
8GB of RAM
Windows 7 64-Bit Operating System
Nvidia GeForce 210 - 4GB of RAM
1TB Internal HD
Hi-Speed Telstra (Aus) Internet, Hard Wired (not Wi-Fi)


I am aware that others have experienced issues.... I'm just posting my own experience and thus, voted to leave things as they are & let server admins sort it out.

This has absolutely nothing to do with how well the game performs on your computer. It's a about server lag, being that the servers can't handle the 64 player so it creates terribly high ping.

There's no way to avoid this and it has nothing to do with the specs of your PC. Reducing the players to 50 is the only way to fix it by putting less strain on the servers.
 
Upvote 0
Reducing the max slots from 64 to 50 will also mean that less players can enter today's top servers. These days only a few servers have a constant head count of 64. If they have only 50 available slots, then players need to look for another server and in time they will find again a "favorite" one. The server owners benefit from this. More servers will have human players. Even so will it increase the chance that for instance east-coast players do find a by humans populated server with acceptable ping.

When my favorite server is full I keep spamming the "join" button until I join. Even if it boots me while I'm on the loading screen (I assume someone took the spot before I had a chance to join) I continue to try to join. I'll rather spare 2 or 3 minutes of staring at the server screen and end up playing on the server I want to play on than play on a server that I don't typically play on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mikeedude
Upvote 0
Cutting 16 players from the game to save a mere 10ms on overloaded servers strikes me as ridiculous.

First off, it does nothing to prevent servers from still running more players than they can handle. There are plenty of servers that can handle 64 players, and there are servers that can't handle 50. All this does is prevent anyone from running the former, while still leaving the later. What do we do when we have the same problems at 50? Keep cutting players?

And second, 10ms shouldn't be a big deal. It isn't in most games. It's absurd to be cutting features to save a mere 10ms. Unfortunately, it is a big deal in RO2 because of the choice of network model. If the bug in the base-game were fixed so that people didn't have crash issues with antilag, then we wouldn't even notice the difference between cutting 30ms vs cutting 40ms.
 
Upvote 0
And second, 10ms shouldn't be a big deal. It isn't in most games. It's absurd to be cutting features to save a mere 10ms. Unfortunately, it is a big deal in RO2 because of the choice of network model. If the bug in the base-game were fixed so that people didn't have crash issues with antilag, then we wouldn't even notice the difference between cutting 30ms vs cutting 40ms.

Yep, if we had client side hit detection we wouldn't have to worry about this. But sadly since we have server side even 10ms can make an annoying difference.
 
Upvote 0
---SNIP---
And second, 10ms shouldn't be a big deal. It isn't in most games. It's absurd to be cutting features to save a mere 10ms. Unfortunately, it is a big deal in RO2 because of the choice of network model. If the bug in the base-game were fixed so that people didn't have crash issues with antilag, then we wouldn't even notice the difference between cutting 30ms vs cutting 40ms.

It's not to reduce ping by 10ms, but because some servers are running with an overloaded CPU. The pinging actually doesn't require much from the servers load. It's just small simple code. This means you can still have a good ping on an overloaded server, but it will have those terrible ping spikes where the ping jumps up to 300+. I even have seen servers where the ping sometimes went up to 600+. Antilag won't help you there, because the server will still show stutters now and then and it can even crash due to the overload.
 
Upvote 0
It's not to reduce ping by 10ms, but because some servers are running with an overloaded CPU. The pinging actually doesn't require much from the servers load. It's just small simple code. This means you can still have a good ping on an overloaded server, but it will have those terrible ping spikes where the ping jumps up to 300+. I even have seen servers where the ping sometimes went up to 600+. Antilag won't help you there, because the server will still show stutters now and then and it can even crash due to the overload.

Yeah, you're right. As soon as a server would start getting higher than about 50 players ping would spike up to 250ms or more. Obviously it varies per server but usually when servers stayed under 50 players the servers ran much better.
 
Upvote 0
It's not to reduce ping by 10ms, but because some servers are running with an overloaded CPU.

The 10ms figure was directly from Ramm's post at the start: reducing player-count to reduce server load and decrease latency by ~10ms. As for the server being overloaded, that's what my first point was addressing, the part you snipped off. Yeah, there are computers that will croak on 64 players. There are also computers that will croak on 50, or 32, or 16 players.

Antilag won't help you there, because the server will still show stutters now and then and it can even crash due to the overload.

Of course it won't help with server crashes (Though I suppose it will handle warping much better). But it helps when playing on a server that can handle the load (Which is most of the ones I've been on), even if the ping isn't good. The proper solution to server overload is, of course, not to run a server beyond its ability - whether that ability is 50, 64, 128, or whatever. It just seems absurd to limit servers universally to some arbitrary lower number of players when it's been perfectly well established that there are plenty of servers that can run more than that.
 
Upvote 0
Living in Australia though I imagine you are used to often playing with a higher ping though yes?

What sort of ping do you play with on RO2 usually in 64 player servers?

Well I usually found up to 10 available servers with pings under 60, be that empty, full or loaded with bots. As noted before, I never noticed a difference in my ping with higher player counts up to 64..... as I don't just stick to one or two servers. I choose my servers based on Ping and when I join, it's usually the same ping.

One time I remember getting a ping of 4 in one match..... the server must have been hosted by the guy in the next apartment :cool:

Though if I play on the TW Servers, I'm looking at a ping 300+.... usually in the 400 range.

The last time I ever played an online FPS with a 400+ ping was Team Fortress Classic on my old 33.6k Dial-Up Modem.


This has absolutely nothing to do with how well the game performs on your computer. It's a about server lag, being that the servers can't handle the 64 player so it creates terribly high ping.

There's no way to avoid this and it has nothing to do with the specs of your PC. Reducing the players to 50 is the only way to fix it by putting less strain on the servers.

Regardless if it has anything to do with my system computing all the other players on the server or the server handling all the players and feeding me the information to my system, I have been on 64 players servers many times that had pings well below 100 (usually 60 or below)..... so reducing players on servers to 50 is irrelevant if those 64 player servers can handle it, which with my experience, a decent number of them can.

Yeah, you're right. As soon as a server would start getting higher than about 50 players ping would spike up to 250ms or more. Obviously it varies per server but usually when servers stayed under 50 players the servers ran much better.

Then those running the server should adjust their servers accordingly if their pings start to go crazy on high player counts.... otherwise they will lose players as they move to more stable servers.

There is no need to handicap RO2 and force every person running their servers to have only 50 players, as the players themselves will dictate this by just not playing on their servers.

That way, those who have servers that can handle 64 players can still have 64 player servers in RO2.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
With that said we believe the game could still potentially benefit from lowering the max player count by reducing the server CPU load more and improving client performance.


Let me rephrase:
"We promised a bunch of cool **** at launch like 64 players, native voices, and fully crewed, accurately modeled, working tanks. Seeing as how we have delivered nearly none of that so far, we don't think its a big ideal to knock 14 off the total player count and cap it at 50."



When's that patch coming out? I've seen the beta update a bunch of times, but still no updates to the game itself. It is now EIGHT MONTHS after launch and the game still doesn't have native voices!



//waits for mods to come out, for ****s sake
// thx for deleting my post about the bug tracking software - hit a little close to home?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
God knows why we had to open this can of worms but we have so here goes

Many servers run 64 players and players are fine with this - an enforced drop to 50 open all sorts of arguments - one being as this is not what was advertised and marketed will result in "can i get a re-fund" and it'll will go on and on

If you make 64 players servers - unranked people will use the argument there being Penalised and they'd be right why should they not be ranked just because some servers are not good.

If you wanted to do this it should have been done before launch - the sheer loss of face on this alone should make it clear it has to be left alone.



 
  • Like
Reactions: Roland Kaul
Upvote 0
God knows why we had to open this can of worms but we have so here goes

Many servers run 64 players and players are fine with this - an enforced drop to 50 open all sorts of arguments - one being as this is not what was advertised and marketed will result in "can i get a re-fund" and it'll will go on and on

If you make 64 players servers - unranked people will use the argument there being Penalised and they'd be right why should they not be ranked just because some servers are not good.

If you wanted to do this it should have been done before launch - the sheer loss of face on this alone should make it clear it has to be left alone.

Best Opinion I've seen yet!! Cheers!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roland Kaul
Upvote 0
God knows why we had to open this can of worms but we have so here goes

Many servers run 64 players and players are fine with this - an enforced drop to 50 open all sorts of arguments - one being as this is not what was advertised and marketed will result in "can i get a re-fund" and it'll will go on and on

If you make 64 players servers - unranked people will use the argument there being Penalised and they'd be right why should they not be ranked just because some servers are not good.

If you wanted to do this it should have been done before launch - the sheer loss of face on this alone should make it clear it has to be left alone.

So basically you're saying that whenever a problem occurs, the prevention of loss of face takes priority to actually fixing the problem. TWI has already taken quite a loss of face in order to correct the poor state the game was in. Why not cope with the loss of face a little longer in order to make the game as flawless to newcomers as possible.

The current playerbase isn't anything to be proud of. However I think that if they go all in with a couple of free weekends and new content right after releasing classic mode, it should revitalize the playerbase quite a bit.

In my opinion TWI is well on their way to redeem their reputation with the many improvements they are making. It's turning out to be quite the jewel. I believe Killing Floor also had something like a cup parabola for it's player numbers over the years.

But the important thing is that it still has a playerbase large enough to support online play without much effort. Because face it, what's so good about 64 players when there aren't enough players to fill them?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
God knows why we had to open this can of worms but we have so here goes

Many servers run 64 players and players are fine with this - an enforced drop to 50 open all sorts of arguments - one being as this is not what was advertised and marketed will result in "can i get a re-fund" and it'll will go on and on

If you make 64 players servers - unranked people will use the argument there being Penalised and they'd be right why should they not be ranked just because some servers are not good.

If you wanted to do this it should have been done before launch - the sheer loss of face on this alone should make it clear it has to be left alone.

64 players are fine and should be left untouched. Admins choice! Why mess with it? Once larger maps come out we need 64 players to make it a better experience. And why make it unranked? Because it may have a slightly worse latency? The reasoning behind this dazzles me...
Maybe a disclaimer for 64 player servers to point out the problem but why should they be unranked? Seriously why?
It makes no sense to me. Even before if someone changed the weapon loadout to a more realistic setting made the server unranked. But farming bots is ok...this all lacks logic.

64 players for those of us who enjoy it and for those who prefer 50 players there are plenty of servers or you can start your own and then you decide.
 
Upvote 0
there are full and good 64 players servers certainly in uk / europe there more than few and they get full

the fact they fill means people want big 64 player servers, if they didn't the 32 -40 etc would be full and there not - cant speak for the rest of the world but in europe if you want a full server it probally needs to be a 64 player and a good one at that as there are plenty to choose from

now with regards to your statement here : So basically you're saying that whenever a problem occurs, the prevention of loss of face takes priority to actually fixing the problem.

thats not what i said at all or implied

deleting players numbers isn't fixing the problem is it ? it would be hiding it at best - but what makes this even dafter is we have working 64 player servers with hit reg that people are happy with if you doubt it try joining some of the better ones - your in for a wait as theres a que.

I've played on many of the european 64 players servers and there fine.

I dont doubt that a few free weekends and more content will bring some new players, I do doubt that cutting the servers from 64 - 50 will make much difference TBH and is likey to tick off as many players as it brings in
 
Upvote 0
Roland Kaul, if you'll purposely make posts forcing the moderation to appear the have no fear - it will. Restrain yourself from argumentum ad hominem and stay on target. It's not dicussion about TWI but about "max player counts and server preformance" and people's opinion on the subject. Being offensive and aggresive won't benefit anyone. Stay on topic. Be civil in your posting.

As for the native language - they are in Beta Classic. From what I know it was told that the Beta should go live in a matter of weeks after this last patch. I guess that all the others should also be able to have an option of the native laguages, but I can always be wrong

For the topic itself - I think it should be handled by the community itself. Restricting playercount for a small boost isn't a solution I'd go for. My hope is that anti-lag mutator will be fixed when the TWI will have more hands to work on it with the Classic released.
 
Upvote 0
Roland Kaul, if you'll purposely make posts forcing the moderation to appear the have no fear - it will. Restrain yourself from argumentum ad hominem and stay on target. It's not dicussion about TWI but about "max player counts and server preformance" and people's opinion on the subject. Being offensive and aggresive won't benefit anyone. Stay on topic. Be civil in your posting.


Disambiguation of 'mod':

"waits for mods to come out, for ****s sake " == I'm waiting for game mods to come out (rising storm, iron europe) not forum moderators.

There are no personal attacks here, just simple statements of the truth.

It just boggles the mind to think that 8 months after release, TWI is still shaving off features because they can't get said features, that were promised at launch, to work correctly.

The fact that moderators around here are so testy about any criticism, warranted or not, is proof that the game has fallen flat on it's face.
 
Upvote 0
Work is in progress to bring features into the game. While removal of max player count for server performance is not what I'd like to hear it's still an option for the overall community to be considered. It's the community's opinion if 60 players servers (personally my favorite) are to say or not, for the sake of preformance. No one is arbitrary removing 64 players servers from ranked. It's a bit of goodwill with the main goal to make the game better for the players. All the people have to do is leave feedback.

Don't confuse my opinion as a player with my role as a moderator. They are separated. If you want we can talk via PMs about me, moderators and all that. If only to clear what is what.
 
Last edited:
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 :)
 
Upvote 0