Poll About Max Player Counts And Server Performance

[Private Who?]

I say cap it at 50.

50 players on Berezina was fun. 50 players on Black Day July was fun. There are no maps anywhere NEAR those sizes in ROHoS. I stay away from 64 player servers. On the maps we have, full 64 player servers are just too frenetic and feel overly crowded. It's hard for me to imagine that so many people would have that much LESS fun with two full 25 v 25 teams. I'd like to see a curve of server performance from 50 players to 64....because it feels like 50 is the max sweet spot, and 14 extra players makes it tank.

Seems like to me, aside from the benefit of reduced server & client load, capping it at 50 would spread the population out a bit. I'd be fine with a few less bots on any given server.

[Cat_in_da_Hat]

I understand the need to regulate player numbers according to what a server CPU can handle, but I don't think forcing all servers to smaller numbers is the answer.

Perhaps a better way to regulate this is for TWI to ask server admins what CPU they have and then TWI will tell them what the max player slot should be for that server to remain ranked. If they deviate from that then TWI takes away their ranking.

TWI just needs to do a few spot checks from time to time to see if anyone is cheating the system and everyone is happy.

It wouldn't be difficult to do as all ranked servers are already registered.

Why I am against is because my server the Aussie / NZ server has just undergone a CPU upgrade to the E3 1270 which in the original server recommendation for 64 players.

Prior to that my server was running 52 players on a 3.2Ghz CPU.

At the moment the new server is set to 58 people and I hope to test it with a full server this week. From there I will adjust player numbers up or down accordingly.

It is not my fault other server admin abuse their CPUs so why should I be punished for their actions.

[SolitarioSoldat]

I say leave it to server admins to descide whats best for the server, if you guys claim that you have fixed the ping issue by lovering it 50ms per player in general then having another 14 slots and raising my ping around 10 ms is etable.

[ross]

10ms is not helpful when, with the exception of a specific window during the evening, the populated server with the next lowest ping to me is nearly 300. There is no point losing player slots when we've already got an effective solution to the netcode issues in the form of Mekhazzio's mutator. It might not be perfect, but being able to actually hit what I aim at on US servers is certainly preferable to even a 20-30ms reduction in ping across the board.

...Not to mention it also solves the issue of having to lead far more than just for ballistics on servers located near me.

With regards to the common complaints of being exploitable by cheaters and giving high ping players an advantage, the former is solved by the fact server admins can ban those who do abuse it (and really, how prevalent is cheating in this game anyway? It's still a fairly niche game and there is no competitive scene to speak of anymore); as someone who played using the mutator on a 400-ping server, I can tell you that it seemed pretty fair to me and the locals weren't complaining of any unfair advantage.

[Squarebasher]

Leave it as it is, players can choose whether to play on a server or not.

[Nilsson]

Make it 50 for the free weekend. You can change it back to 64 in the future.

[Golf33]

Originally Posted by [SDS]DOA

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.

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.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Golf33

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 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.

[Cat_in_da_Hat]

I just did a very quick count of servers in the game browser.

Counted 36 servers that were 64 players. All others were below 50. Oh yes I only counted ranked servers.

This relates to my earlier point about regulating servers admins so they run their servers only to the recommend CPU. Small CPU small player numbers that sort of thing.

TWI need just contact 36 servers, ask them what CPU they have and if the gear is no good for 64 players they ask them to lower their player slots or risk losing their ranking.

TWI has the contact information of all the server admins as it is part of the ranking registration. This can't be a difficult thing to do.

Requires a bit of extra work and unwanted extra work for TWI, but to arbitrarily throttle all servers, seems draconian.

[tixhal]

i always preferred "smaller" servers, since most maps aren't well playable with 64 players. 30-50 players give me the best gaming experience on most maps.
i say cap ALL servers for the duration of the free weekend, then let the server admins decide if they want to re-raise the playercount again.
look at it this way: for every 4 full 64 player servers that are capped to 50 another server gets decently repopulated.
better pings ("hit-detection" everybody is complaining about because the pings are too inconsistent on 64 player servers), better fps, less random gameplay.
i could imagine if newcomers join a 64 player server that isn't up to the task (i exclude toga and 40-1, they aren't performing too bad when full) they will think "wth is this crap? i move 10m, get killed instantly and my shots don't register... good riddance!" and move on.
it takes some time to get used to the game, and it is definitely easier on smaller servers.

[Rak]

As I've stated the smaller, the better for me. Though, many server owners are paying according to the number slots on the servers they have. Now if TWI lowers the player counts one sided, doesn't it will have legal implications for TWI? I'd say both game server providers and admins will probably get mad.

[Calumhm]

I am certain that on good servers, I have had smooth 64 player experiences in RO2, although I could probably find frustrations with the latency if I was dashing around in close quarters.

But now with the beta boasting a 30-40 ms ping reduction; so long as you're on the same continent as the server I can really envisage 64 player servers that are flawlessly smooth. Or at least as smooth as RO1 used to be. Also, with unranked/ranked still on separate lists, unranking 64 player servers could practically eliminate 64p from the game.

It's just a question of admins finding servers that are up to the task, cos server companies will try their best to sell you creaky old 2005 servers as if they're capable. They're not.


Also, while the free weekend could revive RO2 so much that there'll be a server for every nationality.. as it stands, and may continue to stand, distant players such as Australians rely on Anti-Lag to have any enjoyable online play at all. We don't have to adopt AL, but we need to try and fix it's server-crashing bug.

[Calumhm]

Oh and another thing!

With the beta's new player count changes, displaying bot count and player count seperately, we may see servers fill up much more nicely in future. Instead of having 2 full 64p servers and a whole load with 30 bots and 4 players.

[FAFFER]

"leave it up to server admins" is only half working...

It's not just about cpu speed, a few don't seem to have the connection speed to cope either.

Still, forcing the sensible admins to 50 isn't the answer, so can't really vote.

A 10 bot limit is a great idea!!! I don't mind bots at all, but to put 60+ on to get to the top of the list is taking the p*ss...

[Mike_Nomad]

Originally Posted by FAFFER

"leave it up to server admins" is only half working...

It's not just about cpu speed, a few don't seem to have the connection speed to cope either.

Still, forcing the sensible admins to 50 isn't the answer, so can't really vote.

A 10 bot limit is a great idea!!! I don't mind bots at all, but to put 60+ on to get to the top of the list is taking the p*ss...

Absolutely!! And.. a 10 bot limit makes all the sense in the world.

[Meismenotyou]

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

Gets my vote. It has been a feature from release and should stay.

If there is made some kind of server specs requirement for ranked servers with high player cap, then that would be fine, I guess.

That doesn't mean the new players would suddenly get a pleasant experience, since there is probably plenty of servers with low player cap which are just as bad as the servers you are thinking of getting rid of.

I mainly play in 64 player servers and I enjoy it, when I play RO2.



On another note, if AntiLag gets fixed and spawning with enemy weapons gets removed... I would definitely play more

[gyps]

Leave to the server owners there the ones that pay for these

It's a bit big brother ish to be contacting server admins saying we think you should run less players,

As already stated natural attrition will kill the bad ones - and there plenty of smaller servers for those that want smaller servers.

The game was marketed as being a 64 player game, and many run successful 64 players servers.

So my 2p says leave well alone - we dont need to alienate more people by killing 64 players servers, especailly if the only reason is we are worried is about the free weekend players who may or may not take RO2 up

[Korn-Y]

All "free week end" operations are often laggy, i think people know the game isn't at his best stand during this free week end. 64 players is a good thing, must be let admins choose then.

[Dietl]

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.

[omniconsumer]

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.