• 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
If all this is for the free weekend then we want something that works right away. Free players aren't going to waste time trying to find the right server. They are going to pay the game for an hour or 2 and make their decision.

So it's mez that made the mutator. Crazy how just 1 person was able to do that. I have a feeling all this great improvement isn't going to be that great. If the devs are up to a point where they are considering cuttin player size just to try and fix the problem, then idk. I hope I'm wrong.

Get the mutator to work again as well as custom maps. After that then do the free weekend. If not the free players are going to play a game where the same 3 maps are always played and the shots arent Landing where they are suppose to. These things will be seen within the first hour of playing The game.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sojuz
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
"leave it up to server admins" is only half working...:eek:

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...:mad:
 
Upvote 0
"leave it up to server admins" is only half working...:eek:

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...:mad:

Absolutely!! And.. a 10 bot limit makes all the sense in the world.
 
Upvote 0
"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 :)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
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
 
Upvote 0