Poll About Max Player Counts And Server Performance
- Thread starter [TW]Ramm-Jaeger
- Start date
I agree. I like that we have a lot of freedom to change settings and still remain Ranked so how about helping players by making more obvious which servers are running what "realism" level.
Like all servers running "Classic" could have a slight red highlight.
Servers running "Realistic" could have an orange highlight.
Servers running "Action" could have a slight green highlight.
Servers in "Custom" would have no highlight.
Something like this to help new players realize the difference between servers on the browser (if they don't use the "start playing" option):
Upvote
0
Just fix the anti-lag mutator!
There is no need to cut features from the game.
Players who are used to lag-compensated games will NOT understand the need to lead for ping whether you shave another 10ms or not. They will play on your 50-player server and say "this game has rubbish hit detection "just like they did with the initial release and like they did with Oaffront.
There is no need to cut features from the game.
Players who are used to lag-compensated games will NOT understand the need to lead for ping whether you shave another 10ms or not. They will play on your 50-player server and say "this game has rubbish hit detection "just like they did with the initial release and like they did with Oaffront.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I agree. There really needs to be some sort of obvious distinction between the different modes the servers run on. Otherwise it could cause confusion when one server has crosshairs and another doesn't.I agree. I like that we have a lot of freedom to change settings and still remain Ranked so how about helping players by making more obvious which servers are running what "realism" level.
Like all servers running "Classic" could have a slight red highlight.
Servers running "Realistic" could have an orange highlight.
Servers running "Action" could have a slight green highlight.
Servers in "Custom" would have no highlight.
Something like this to help new players realize the difference between servers on the browser (if they don't use the "start playing" option):
Upvote
0
I say leave it as it is, if you are already making improvements with the classic mode and new patch then the small gain from cutting to 50 player servers from 64 is not worth losing a popular feature of the game.
I play on servers with 64 players when I can because I CHOOSE to and have no problems on servers in europe (where I live) or the U.S.
As long as you pick servers with a reasonable ping then you shouldn't have too many problems.
Just too put the final nail in the coffin, my clan has a forty player server which I find lags more than the 64 player ones I use.
So your 50 player limit would look silly when these new players jump on loads of rubbish servers that are 'OK'. just because they have less than 51 players.
And where do you stop? Would RO2 look better with 16 players? Maybe mano a mano would play well?
I play on servers with 64 players when I can because I CHOOSE to and have no problems on servers in europe (where I live) or the U.S.
As long as you pick servers with a reasonable ping then you shouldn't have too many problems.
Just too put the final nail in the coffin, my clan has a forty player server which I find lags more than the 64 player ones I use.
So your 50 player limit would look silly when these new players jump on loads of rubbish servers that are 'OK'. just because they have less than 51 players.
And where do you stop? Would RO2 look better with 16 players? Maybe mano a mano would play well?
Upvote
0
People seem to think reducing player counts to 50 max in Ranked would "remove features", but the 64 person feature would still be available in "unranked". So it's not so much removing features as it is removing "level-ups" on 64 person servers.
If people are worried that a 64 person server won't be popular because know one checks the "unranked" section, what about removing the "unranked" section from the server browser completely in favor of just marking Unranked servers on the browser and giving them a "Dimmed" look to more clearly communicate this.
I've also noticed many people who say "keep things the way they are" are only saying this assuming the "anti-lag" mutator is the all ending solution. What if its not? How about limiting "ranked" to 50 until "anti-lag" mutator works perfectly (if it ever does)?
If people are worried that a 64 person server won't be popular because know one checks the "unranked" section, what about removing the "unranked" section from the server browser completely in favor of just marking Unranked servers on the browser and giving them a "Dimmed" look to more clearly communicate this.
I've also noticed many people who say "keep things the way they are" are only saying this assuming the "anti-lag" mutator is the all ending solution. What if its not? How about limiting "ranked" to 50 until "anti-lag" mutator works perfectly (if it ever does)?
Upvote
0
![[TW]Ramm-Jaeger](/data/avatars/s/0/2.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Just to add a little more to the discussion here:
- Don't look at it like reducing the player counts only helps "bad servers" run well. Even the fastest servers commercially viable have been struggling to run the game with 64 players. This is considerably better now in the beta. But even the fastest servers don't quite run the game as well as I'd like with 64 players even with all of the optimizations.
- Remember, reducing the max player counts also helps clients perform better to a degree.
- As we've already mentioned, we are looking into client side hit detection (we wanted to get all of our server optimizations completed first before adding another variable to the equation). Regardless of having this though, if ever server a player joins their ping is higher than they would like, they may well just quit the game.
Finally please try and keep this constructive. We put up this poll because we're interested in getting the communities opinion. If we didn't care, we would have just made the change without even discussing it with you all. So please keep that in mind
- Don't look at it like reducing the player counts only helps "bad servers" run well. Even the fastest servers commercially viable have been struggling to run the game with 64 players. This is considerably better now in the beta. But even the fastest servers don't quite run the game as well as I'd like with 64 players even with all of the optimizations.
- Remember, reducing the max player counts also helps clients perform better to a degree.
- As we've already mentioned, we are looking into client side hit detection (we wanted to get all of our server optimizations completed first before adding another variable to the equation). Regardless of having this though, if ever server a player joins their ping is higher than they would like, they may well just quit the game.
Finally please try and keep this constructive. We put up this poll because we're interested in getting the communities opinion. If we didn't care, we would have just made the change without even discussing it with you all. So please keep that in mind
Upvote
0
I voted that 50 player ranked, and 64 player unranked would be the best. Playing for accurate statistics should generally be in an arena where all players get to enjoy an equal and fun gaming experience, where competitiveness is achieved by eliminating as much external influences as possible. Lag and low framerate is generally considered to be detrimental to competitiveness.
Many of the current official maps are aimed towards less than 64 players, it is very chaotic when playing with so many people on a map that is relatively small. 40 players is what I'd consider to be the best number of actual players in one server.
Thus in my opinion limiting the server capacity to 50 on ranked servers seems to have little detrimental effect on the gameplay. There's those that find filled 64 player maps to be exciting, but as far as I'm concerned statistics do not matter to the point that they would refrain a player from visiting unranked servers if they wish to do so.
That's why I picked this option, because the advantages far outweigh the negatives. However I've played on client side hit prediction servers in the past, and while the "getting shot behind a corner" effect is noticable, playing at 150 ping is very doable.
So perhaps if you are planning to officially introduce a client side prediction server setting, then why not allow 64 players on those servers?
Many of the current official maps are aimed towards less than 64 players, it is very chaotic when playing with so many people on a map that is relatively small. 40 players is what I'd consider to be the best number of actual players in one server.
Thus in my opinion limiting the server capacity to 50 on ranked servers seems to have little detrimental effect on the gameplay. There's those that find filled 64 player maps to be exciting, but as far as I'm concerned statistics do not matter to the point that they would refrain a player from visiting unranked servers if they wish to do so.
That's why I picked this option, because the advantages far outweigh the negatives. However I've played on client side hit prediction servers in the past, and while the "getting shot behind a corner" effect is noticable, playing at 150 ping is very doable.
So perhaps if you are planning to officially introduce a client side prediction server setting, then why not allow 64 players on those servers?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don't want to go off topic but maybe client side hit detection would be a better way to increase ping performance? It wouldn't require a reduction of player numbers either.
I voted 50 for ranked and 64 for unkranked. I don't think this game needs more negative publicity, and the media would love to jump on it.
I voted 50 for ranked and 64 for unkranked. I don't think this game needs more negative publicity, and the media would love to jump on it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hit detection calculations are statistically a very small part of the server CPU load and wouldn't have a significant impact on server performance.
Upvote
0
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm nearly done with my studies this semester and was looking forward to playing RO2 again, but the more I check up on the forums the more forced changes I see being planned.
Last time I played RO2, which was about a month ago, I had great fun and have been patiently waiting for the free time to play some more. Now, not so much.
Upvote
0
Think twice before making decision. This will be your second chance to convince people to HoS. Is it really so important to have 64 slot servers ?
For some strange reasons people play Call of Duty while there are max 20 slot servers or sth like that.
Gameplay on 64 slots is ridiculous, I have never seen spamfest like in this game (maybe it was caused by fast paced feeling). From what I remember this game supposed to be tactical-realism shooter. Yeah, tell that to the crowd who will come here to check if HoS is worth buying. Take into account your maps design... these two things do not go hand in hand.
Oh, one question have you fixed sprint animation ? It was awful, I don't wish anyone, such experience.
For some strange reasons people play Call of Duty while there are max 20 slot servers or sth like that.
Gameplay on 64 slots is ridiculous, I have never seen spamfest like in this game (maybe it was caused by fast paced feeling). From what I remember this game supposed to be tactical-realism shooter. Yeah, tell that to the crowd who will come here to check if HoS is worth buying. Take into account your maps design... these two things do not go hand in hand.
Oh, one question have you fixed sprint animation ? It was awful, I don't wish anyone, such experience.
Upvote
0
No more options. The community is divided enough.
If 64 players is a problem, turn off all the flashing lights. All of them.
If 64 players is a problem, turn off all the flashing lights. All of them.
Upvote
0
Is it possible to add a color-coded indicator in the browser for server performance? Most people know about ping, but if a server is struggling under load (tick-rate whatever) it would be nice to know that also.
green bars = optimal
orange = struggling
red = bad
green bars = optimal
orange = struggling
red = bad
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Please leave it alone. I like 64 man battles. They are more intense and you actually get a feel like there is a front line.
Too bad the antilag mutator doesn't work otherwise this game would be awesome.
Too bad the antilag mutator doesn't work otherwise this game would be awesome.
Upvote
0
My first thought was that reducing the player count to 50 would be the answer. However, it is not only server admins that push their hardware past its capabilities, its also the GSP's. So, if the player counts were reduced to 50, what would keep the GSP from loading more instances of the game on the same box?
Then there are the loadouts to consider. Would there be another break (or lessor classes) in a 50 player count. Or would it be the same as the 64?
I say split the difference......54 with different loadouts seems like a good compromise to me...
Then there are the loadouts to consider. Would there be another break (or lessor classes) in a 50 player count. Or would it be the same as the 64?
I say split the difference......54 with different loadouts seems like a good compromise to me...
Upvote
0
YES! I couldn't agree more with this. I've had discussions with my friends and they say almost exactly what you posted.
Please tell me I'm misunderstanding this part. To me, it sounds like you're telling players like myself, who have to find servers 4 time zones away that actually have players in them, to just quit? Like there is nothing you can do? Yes there is. Fix the antilag mutator. Voila.
Upvote
0
TWI should stop worrying that much... if people don't like playing on a server because it's too crowded or too laggy or any other reason, all they have to do is play elsewhere. That rule should apply for other topics too... Instead of wasting hours in endless meetings about such things, they should just let users and admins sort this out implicitly.
Last edited:
Upvote
0