Poll About Max Player Counts And Server Performance

[[TW]Ramm-Jaeger]

As we're finalizing our optimizations to the server and the client for the coming RO2 update, we're considering an option that I'd like to get feedback from the community on. We've made great strides in improving the server CPU performance in the beta with what looks to be a reduction of 30-40ms off of the ping times of players. We are at the point now with the beta where we truly believe that we've eeked out just about every last bit of performance that we can out of the server.

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. The number we've been kicking around as a possible best compromise would be about 50 players (same max as RO1). In our server tests that has resulted in pings that are a good 10+ milliseconds lower than with 64 players.

Since this is a big change I figured we ought to poll you, the community, before we made it. At the end of the day, we believe the most important thing is that players have a great experience when they play the game. Especially with an upcoming free weekend and promotions around the game, we feel the player experience will be vital to growing the playerbase. And with the gameplay experience between 50-64 players we feel it is potentially worth it. If players have an even better ping, and even better client performance it means there are more people that can get into and enjoy the game.

One idea we are considering as well is reducing the ranked server max to 50, but allowing unranked servers to run 64 players. In this way players still have the option to play on a 64 player server if their machine can handle it, and if the server CPU can handle the load.

So with all of that said, here is the poll, please let us know what you think.

- Reduce the player counts to 50 across the board
- Reduce the player counts to 50 on ranked servers, let unranked run 64
- Leave the player counts alone, we'll deal with it

 

[Gervaise Brook-Hampster]

I say this:

Reduce the player counts to 50 on ranked servers, let unranked run 64

 

[RAF_Pstyle]

Ramm, a reasonable suggestion I think.

Reduce Ranked max to 50
Leave unranked max at 64

I have no complaints about the above.

 

[Catalavos]

Sound like a great compromise. I don't feel like having 6 fewer players per team is that big of a deal if it improves performance for everyone.

 

[Korn-Y]

"Reduce the player counts to 50 on ranked, allow 64 on unranked" is fine in my mind.


But, what about differents weapons and classes available ? Classes need to be balanced for 50 players, no?

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I think the server admins really have to step up and if their server can't handle 64 players, then they should lower the maximum number of players themselves. I'm guessing that there may be a few servers out there running 64 players and they shouldn't and the admins will be reluctant to lower the count.

I'm leaning towards 50 max ranked/64 unranked, but not voting yet. It would be a shame to step back from 64 regardless of the reason. I do know I have played on 64 player servers that ran well and others not so...

 

[Zetsumei]

The difference between 16 player versions of maps and the higher player amount versions of maps is not that big in possible play ground. Initially a high player amount server to me feels awesome and big, but its too continuous and without some rest or less intensive moments. Which to me makes 50 player servers feel like the loudness/dynamic compression of music these days, its nice initially but it quickly tires me out and maps lose their characteristic properties. I like bits with high action like on 50 player servers, but some bits of low action inbetween to take a breather so you can appreciate the higher action later on. So in general for the sake of game play i think limiting the max players is a good thing to do.

Next to that in terms of server performance for ranked servers I hope that the max allowed server slots are based on the processor type and speed. As many servers that should not even be running 32 players are often running 50 players to the demise of the entire community. And some 32 player servers should not be running more than say 20 slots.

Its perhaps a bit rigid in that sense so keep it free for unranked, but servers underperforming for me have always been a big issue.

 

[Sojuz]

Lowering server slots to 50 while keeping 64 slots on unranked at the same time is totally wrong idea.
For many reasons reducing server capacity will be good for game.
So the best option is - Reduce the player counts to 50 across the board.

 

[PermenentMarker]

I would say leave it as is.

Put a disclaimer that Tripwire recommends up to 50 players.
Beyond 50 players, server admins must run the highest end cpu hardware.


I say this because I have not seen any issue with 2fgj server and they are always full @ 64 players.


But besides that, I don't mind the cap at 50.

 

[flashmozzg]

I think if 64 players servers become unranked, then there would be hardly any of them. (Because people won't spend their time playing on unranked server just for 14 more players) You can just lowere default number of players and recommended maximum to 50. For example you can make >50 players option available only on servers with quad core CPU.

 

[Nikita]

If we're already seeing a 30-40 ms reduction, I'd prefer to have 64 players over the extra 10 ms. I've been leading for ping my entire FPS career, and my machine generally runs 64 players just fine.

Mekhazzio's mutator also has excellent potential.

 

[Piscator]

Why make them unranked if there are 64 slots? If people are fine with their pings then there is no need to unrank it. It should be up to the hopefully wise judgment of the admins.

The problem I see is the class system as it appears to me that the available classes are the same on 50 slot servers as they are on 64. Too many squad leaders then etc. But I might be wrong there so please ignore this if it is not true.

 

[Zetsumei]

Time has shown that server admins do not care about their performance they care on seeing people in their servers. So unless there is a limitation based on server performance, server admins will continue to run more slots than their servers can handle.

People go where the people play at the moment they join and often sort servers by player amounts especially since the showcased server ping is nowhere close to the in game ping you will end up experiencing.

As long as players cannot have an easy and clear indication in the serverbrowser on how good a server is actually performing. (like a measurement of the average server tickrate, note NOT max tickrate!). Even the wild bunch servers actually run at about a 12 ticks/second tickrate when 50 players are on them and do not seem to be able to keep a stable 20 tick even though that's on beast hardware.

Its not that odd to even see a server go down to 5-7 ticks per second, and that is before servers that will often end up seeing packetloss.

 

[RAF_Pstyle]

Initially a high player amount server to me feels awesome and big, but its too continuous and without some rest or less intensive moments. Which to me makes 50 player servers feel like the loudness/dynamic compression of music these days, its nice initially but it quickly tires me out and maps lose their characteristic properties.

This is an excellent comparison.

 

[Rak]

Reduce them across the board. RO doesn't really need 64p meatgrinder servers.

 

[Proud_God]

I mistakenly voted 'Reduce the player counts to 50 on ranked, allow 64 on unranked' but I meant 'Leave the player counts alone, we'll deal with it'.

Ranked/unranked should have nothing to do with max player numbers.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

I think the server admins really have to step up and if their server can't handle 64 players, then they should lower the maximum number of players themselves. I'm guessing that there may be a few servers out there running 64 players and they shouldn't and the admins will be reluctant to lower the count.

I'm leaning towards 50 max ranked/64 unranked, but not voting yet. It would be a shame to step back from 64 regardless of the reason. I do know I have played on 64 player servers that ran well and others not so...

This Gentlemen, is the true answer. ^

Common Sense points to;

Leave the player counts be and let the Admins deal with it.
​

Believe this:

The players will decide which servers are worthy of 64 players and which are not... allow the process of attrition to work its wonders. Attrition works very well.
​

There are times when the remove, delete and/or lessen techniques do not reach the intended goals nor do they serve the users well.

 

[Ossius]

Best games I've ever played were on 32 player servers. Everything is better about it, the avatars move better, the bullets seem to go where you place them. I support 50 players on ranked 64 for unranked.

 

[hockeywarrior]

As we're finalizing our optimizations to the server and the client for the coming RO2 update, we're considering an option that I'd like to get feedback from the community on. We've made great strides in improving the server CPU performance in the beta with what looks to be a reduction of 30-40ms off of the ping times of players. We are at the point now with the beta where we truly believe that we've eeked out just about every last bit of performance that we can out of the server.

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. The number we've been kicking around as a possible best compromise would be about 50 players (same max as RO1). In our server tests that has resulted in pings that are a good 10+ milliseconds lower than with 64 players.

Since this is a big change I figured we ought to poll you, the community, before we made it. At the end of the day, we believe the most important thing is that players have a great experience when they play the game. Especially with an upcoming free weekend and promotions around the game, we feel the player experience will be vital to growing the playerbase. And with the gameplay experience between 50-64 players we feel it is potentially worth it. If players have an even better ping, and even better client performance it means there are more people that can get into and enjoy the game.

One idea we are considering as well is reducing the ranked server max to 50, but allowing unranked servers to run 64 players. In this way players still have the option to play on a 64 player server if their machine can handle it, and if the server CPU can handle the load.

So with all of that said, here is the poll, please let us know what you think.

- Reduce the player counts to 50 across the board
- Reduce the player counts to 50 on ranked servers, let unranked run 64
- Leave the player counts alone, we'll deal with it

I think reducing the count to 50 is a good idea. In addition to the ping boost (which is always welcome), I think most of RO2's current mostly-urban maps would also play better with 10 less people on the battlefield.

 

[fiftyone]

Why can't 50 & 64 servers both be ranked ?
I choose which server I play on by player count, not by ping, I can deal with that.
Leave it as it is, voted I.