Poll About Max Player Counts And Server Performance
- Thread starter [TW]Ramm-Jaeger
- Start date
Please stop changing things for the sake of changing things. 
Leave it as is, and let server admins decide slots on their server.
Leave it as is, and let server admins decide slots on their server.
Upvote
0
I like the idea of reducing the player counts to 50 on ranked, while still leaving the option to bump it up to 64 in unranked.
Upvote
0
No one play unranked, putting the 64 servers on unranked it's just like removing the 64 players possibilities from the game.
We will deal with it. If your not happy go on a 50 players server. If you are happy stay on 64. I love "classic" mode and i don't whine on "realism" mode & people, each their mode.
You like 50 and less players servers, go on 50 and less, let us 64 in peace.
This should be the server admin choice, point. They have right to choose if they want custom maps, one or another rotations, some others settings. They can choose themselves what they want between a 64 or 50 players server. Look the popular servers, some have a pretty decent ping full at 64. Others don't. Admins faults shouldn't lead to the removal of features.
64 players unranked => no more full 64 players servers ever.
You are always speaking of giving the choices to people. Classic, Action mode, readouts, custom... I hope we will still have the choice of choosing how many players we want to host and how many players we want to join.
Well, i will start play a bit more RO2 and enjoy the 64 players servers before it's disappearance.
There was some great times on them, r.i.p 64 players mode.
We will deal with it. If your not happy go on a 50 players server. If you are happy stay on 64. I love "classic" mode and i don't whine on "realism" mode & people, each their mode.
You like 50 and less players servers, go on 50 and less, let us 64 in peace.
This should be the server admin choice, point. They have right to choose if they want custom maps, one or another rotations, some others settings. They can choose themselves what they want between a 64 or 50 players server. Look the popular servers, some have a pretty decent ping full at 64. Others don't. Admins faults shouldn't lead to the removal of features.
64 players unranked => no more full 64 players servers ever.
You are always speaking of giving the choices to people. Classic, Action mode, readouts, custom... I hope we will still have the choice of choosing how many players we want to host and how many players we want to join.
Well, i will start play a bit more RO2 and enjoy the 64 players servers before it's disappearance.
There was some great times on them, r.i.p 64 players mode.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
After voting for the IMO wrong option (50 ranked and 64 unranked) I felt a need to correct myself. I don
Upvote
0
I voted for 50 players, 64 as unranked. But at this point I expect there could be some grumbling over people feeling they lost something they liked. Maybe just make it known that TWI recommends 50 players max, and put a warning when you first join a 64 player server.
Hopefully we can get some range of servers though, I'd like to see a bunch of popular 32/40/50 player servers. Maybe there can be some agreement amongst clans to go for different audiences with their server. When bots aren't plaguing the server list it might not be just a competition to get the server near the top and people will have servers spread out in the list, not just hidden amongst the bots or at the top
Hopefully we can get some range of servers though, I'd like to see a bunch of popular 32/40/50 player servers. Maybe there can be some agreement amongst clans to go for different audiences with their server. When bots aren't plaguing the server list it might not be just a competition to get the server near the top and people will have servers spread out in the list, not just hidden amongst the bots or at the top
Last edited:
Upvote
0
![[TW]Ramm-Jaeger](/data/avatars/s/0/2.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Just to put a little more input in here. While I generally agree with the idea that players will play on the servers where they enjoy the game the most, and thus bad (i.e. CPU overloaded servers) will go away by attrition, there is another wrinkle to this.
Lets say we have a free weekend, and a half a million potential new RO2 players play the game for the first time over those couple of day. Lets also say that within the couple days a free weekend lasts, there may well be lots of poorly performing 64 player servers. Yes over the long term those servers would likely be weeded out, but over the short term they won't. So the experience that those free weekenders could end up with is a poor one. And you never get a second chance to make a first impression.
In other words, while YOU personally might be a savvy long time RO players who will choose where you want to play (after already owning the game), a free weekender potentially is not. They are there to check out the game, and if they don't have a positive experience they may well just move on.
Lets say we have a free weekend, and a half a million potential new RO2 players play the game for the first time over those couple of day. Lets also say that within the couple days a free weekend lasts, there may well be lots of poorly performing 64 player servers. Yes over the long term those servers would likely be weeded out, but over the short term they won't. So the experience that those free weekenders could end up with is a poor one. And you never get a second chance to make a first impression.
In other words, while YOU personally might be a savvy long time RO players who will choose where you want to play (after already owning the game), a free weekender potentially is not. They are there to check out the game, and if they don't have a positive experience they may well just move on.
Upvote
0
Another option maybe is to only allow certain groups to have a 64 player server. So you are automatically black listed (or set unranked) unless TWI decides your server is good enough for 64 players or just give it to 1 server only to start with or something
I think its generally healthier to have smaller servers too, it gives people more options with server types and maps and makes the game look more alive
I think its generally healthier to have smaller servers too, it gives people more options with server types and maps and makes the game look more alive
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
It depends. Without the antilag mutator, a 50 player limit for ranked servers would be preferable to me, mostly for the reduced ping and I guess for the free weekend'ers. I really hope the issue with the antilag mutator is fixed before then though, it might have quite an impact on peoples impressions.
Upvote
0
Hmmm, I do see your point.
I personally voted to leave things as they are now. Under these circumstances and trying to get the free weekend to work out as best as possible to please and hook as many players as you can, I'd be more inclined to go 50 Ranked/64 Unranked for the time being. From a business perspective you want the potential customers to think the best of the game, at the same time 64 players has been advertised for awhile. I could get behind that for now.
I assume if 50 became the limit for ranked servers, that at some point in the future 64 may become the official max # for ranking? Personally ranking doesn't matter to me, but as we all know most players flock to ranked servers whenever possible.
Upvote
0
I'm done with this kind of attitude towards the current RO2 players who are left. Chasing after this 'ghost crowd' you're targeting isn't going to help me a single bit and has let to many core problems with RO2 which are now being solved slowly in the beta. So I voted last option. No change.
There are servers who can handle it, and that's where you can find me. I've had little trouble with 64 player servers as well as others who play with me and enjoyed it.
64 player server is one of those things where RO2 beats RO1, and I don't like to see that threatened too.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
In this case, for me, prevention is more efficient than rude treatment.
It's to the servers admins to know their limits and run well the shop. Not the game & the players to pay for it and see a removing of this feature.
And an advertising message about the risk of lags when you enter the server, like the message we have in classic, is a nice idea.
Anyway, unranking things in this game is killing them. Especially with an influx of new players.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
![[40-1]MORD](/data/avatars/s/34/34566.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
I agree with that.
Looking at server rankings the servers populated the best are 64 men servers ( considering time for how long they are full, when ppl start and finish to play )
Players chose the servers with good performance already. If they liked to play on 50 slot server they would have probably done that.
I agree that all what neccesary should be done to attract new players but please dont upset ppl who been playing for months on 64 slot servers.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Did I miss something? Doesn't pretty much everyone want more people playing RO2, with better performance and lower ping? Sorry but if those are bad goals for someone running a game studio to have, you all better get them to fire me right now
Upvote
0
Just look closely the signature of [40-1]MORD . What do you think we players like?
This is a very good server with good performances and not exaggerated ping. People play it. People like it. Olds or newcomers. I don't even see the point of seen it removed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
If we had a limit on bots i'm sure we'd see more populated servers in the 32-50 player range. Part of the reason 64 players are popular is people don't want to mess about finding a server and because the game is kind of geared towards that game style, thats just how its designed. If we get classic out and a limit on bots up to like 10 bots max, we will probably see more servers around 32-40 players. For people who want that slower paced, more tactical gameplay
Upvote
0
Please stop changing things for the sake of changing things.
Leave it as is, and let server admins decide slots on their server.
this the toga server was running 64 players before and the performance was already good, with the refinements of the beta servers are even better, if you want that better performance go on a server with lower player slots.
i realy like the massive 64 players, i like them even more with the slower classic gameplay.
also in ro 1 there was(is?) a DH server with 70 player slots it was realy awesome with so many players.
Upvote
0
Did I miss something? Doesn't pretty much everyone want more people playing RO2, with better performance and lower ping? Sorry but if those are bad goals for someone running a game studio to have, you all better get them to fire me right now
What is this I don't even....
Look, reducing player count to 50 is going to piss off a lot of people who had no trouble with playing on those server in the first place, like me. I play on Euro 64 player servers which results in a good ping for me, the vocal group who had problems with ping are from all over the place except where the server is located. How do I know this? Because I ask around on the server when people are spamming the chatbox with LAgg LaGG lag lAG , ect. And then I ask where they are from and then it turns out theyre on the other side of the planet. No ping reduction is going to help those guys form experiencing lag. Only a server in their region would help.
The only reason you do it is because you can satisfy more people during a free weekend! I'm all for ping reduction and the other niceties but not when I didn't have a problem in the first place, and get yet another gameplay reducing cut in the game on top of it.
Last edited:
Upvote
0