Poll About Max Player Counts And Server Performance

[Cat_in_da_Hat]

TWI just need to go all Walker Texas Ranger on servers that over run their CPUs. If they are making the game look bad by running with too many players, then TWI should take away their ranking.

Easy to manage as there are not that many servers that are filled!

Right at this moment there are four servers that have above 50 players in game.

Would it be difficult for a TWI representative to pop on each of those servers and determine if the server slot number should or should not be reduced?

 

[gyps]

All this they should reduce numbers what people need to keep in mind is TWI dont pay for these servers the admins and the clans tha run em do

Now while agree we have more servers than players - if TWI start interfering in how people admin there serevrs we might find some just say nuts to this and shut there servers down and clans down.

Someone above got it right if TWI are worried for the free weekend then pay for the servers themselves then they can set player levels at whatever they like.

This going onto servers and removing ranking or dropping player numbers is very big brother 'ish and is something that TWI should avoid getting involved in

Just my 2 p

 

[Centimeter]

Actually, reducing the player count has 168 votes overall, where's keeping it only has 140.



So that's 54,55% for reducing and 45,45% for keeping

Which means the majority of people who voted want to have reduced player counts

i'd vote for raising, but there is no such option.

 

[ChargerCarl]

Agreed,

Though the 2fgj does have higher lag with 64 players on it. No server seem to truly be able to run it great. Albeit 50 players should be run mostly.. Though 64 players are very fun! Maybe only 64 with the anti-lag mutulator on. -When fixed of course...

IMO 2fgj runs great with 64. have never had a problem there.

 

[omniconsumer]

We're actually trying to put up a 64 player ranked dedicated server right now, so I voted for the leave it alone option.

Personally, I think the whole ranking system should be done away with, but hey... I just play here.

 

[eliterizzo]

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.

YESSSSSS!!!!! the antilag mutator works wonders!!!!!! please take this into consideration TWI

 

[Snuffeldjuret]

Reading through this topic makes me lose hope in humanity. SO many people do not think by themselves and apply logic to those thoughts, but just go with what someone else said to them at some point in their life :/.

Obviously option 1 and 2 are extremely similar and at this point should be treated as such. But as that option would if implemented force a huge change, I don't think simple majority is enough. 60% majority at least.

Democrazy has it's flaws, and polling has even more. You need to think before you act based on it/them.

I voted for 50 across the board, but if I were TWI I would dimiss this poll. You can easily get to 60% by just kindly asking some friends to vote in it.

 

[M-A]

There are 64 player servers that work fine so I don't see a reason to force them to change the settings.

If the reason for this is only to make free weekend more playable, perhaps the 50 player limit could be forced on only during that free weekend/time period? After that, 64 would be possible again?

Then again, if the reason to reduce player numbers in servers is because there are so few servers with players and this way they would spread to more servers, I find this quite pathetic.

 

[PeteAtomic]

Reading through this topic makes me lose hope in humanity. SO many people do not think by themselves and apply logic to those thoughts, but just go with what someone else said to them at some point in their life :/.

Obviously option 1 and 2 are extremely similar and at this point should be treated as such. But as that option would if implemented force a huge change, I don't think simple majority is enough. 60% majority at least.

Democrazy has it's flaws, and polling has even more. You need to think before you act based on it/them.

I voted for 50 across the board, but if I were TWI I would dimiss this poll. You can easily get to 60% by just kindly asking some friends to vote in it.

For game optimization during a number of free weekends, I think a 50 player cap isn't unreasonable, but then allow the server admins to go back to whatever they want afterward. I love the 64 player servers. Besides, the private servers aren't owned by TWI, and if I donate for a 64 man server, that's what I expect.
Heck if it were possible to have company sized fights (or bigger), I'd be all for it.

 

[boogada]

Tanks not sliding all over the damn place and warping adds a lot more enjoyment to the game for me than 12 more riflemen shooting at nothing from spawn.

 

[PhoenixDragon]

Tanks not sliding all over the damn place and warping adds a lot more enjoyment to the game for me than 12 more riflemen shooting at nothing from spawn.

I solve all tank problems by not playing with tanks :>

Which admittedly is a shame, as if not for the bugs, RO2 would have one of the most simulator-level tank systems. Better than many games that have billed themselves as tank simulators.

 

[MarioBava]

Tanks not sliding all over the damn place and warping adds a lot more enjoyment to the game for me than 12 more riflemen shooting at nothing from spawn.

I think "~10ms" of latency is not going to be the thing that stops tanks from sliding and warping.

 

[LATTEH]

i can barely make it into a game with players in it that has a 64 player count. having 50 will make it even harder for me to enter a game for 30 minutes of fun!

 

[Miro]

Virtually everyone I spoke to in game is for leaving 64 players servers alone. It's funny how that's not what this poll depicts.

I'm sure all the votes for 50 player servers come from the same people that kept whining about not having pure rifleman battles, or to remove the zoom so they can pixel hunt again, or maybe to lower movement speed so that it takes 10 minutes to reach the battle like in RO1.

It would be nice if TWI implemented these polls in game, so that people who actually play the game and own a copy vote, and not anyone with a forum account.

 

[Ducky]

Virtually everyone I spoke to in game is for leaving 64 players servers alone. It's funny how that's not what this poll depicts.

I'm sure all the votes for 50 player servers come from the same people that kept whining about not having pure rifleman battles, or to remove the zoom so they can pixel hunt again, or maybe to lower movement speed so that it takes 10 minutes to reach the battle like in RO1.

It would be nice if TWI implemented these polls in game, so that people who actually play the game and own a copy vote, and not anyone with a forum account

Pointing fingers and making assumptions like that does not help anybody. It's a poll and anybody is free to add his vote. If you have the feeling that reality doesn't match the current poll results, then you should try to motivate those others to join the poll.

 

[boogada]

I think "~10ms" of latency is not going to be the thing that stops tanks from sliding and warping.

It's not just latency that causes it, when the servers cpu gets bogged down the tanks get really wonky.

 

[tixhal]

during the beta event today i noticed that my ping was usually around 180-200ms with 30-50 players, with 60+ it spiked beyond 220. i don't think it will be this severe on servers near me but imo 20ms less ping is worth cutting down the player numbers. (btw guppy hax )

 

[greenlemonade]

Even though Im for 50 max for ranked,

I suppose TW could make the "start playing" option seen in beta only connect players 50 person or less servers. Better yet, servers with noted bad performance should temporarily lose their "ranked" status.
And perhaps on the free weekend, make 50 the limit for ranked servers. Then when its done, change it back.


Would that make everyone happy?

 

[Tim270]

Just ignore this poll and put option 2. If people really want to play 64, they can go to some unranked server. Dont force the rest of us to have to play with worse latency.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Just ignore this poll and put option 2. If people really want to play 64, they can go to some unranked server. Dont force the rest of us to have to play with worse latency.

Keep in mind, no one would be forcing you to join a 64 player server. You can always join one set at 50 max. Joining a 64 player server, ranked or unranked, is a choice