Poll About Max Player Counts And Server Performance
- Thread starter [TW]Ramm-Jaeger
- Start date
Reducing the max slots from 64 to 50 will also mean that less players can enter today's top servers. These days only a few servers have a constant head count of 64. If they have only 50 available slots, then players need to look for another server and in time they will find again a "favorite" one. The server owners benefit from this. More servers will have human players. Even so will it increase the chance that for instance east-coast players do find a by humans populated server with acceptable ping.
Well looking at the poll, 55% wouldn't mind it going down to 50, out of 248 voters. Thats quite a few who may complain though if they made the change. I doubt anyone would even notice tho 6 fewer players on each team, and its mostly a complaint they wouldn't mind if they actually saw its effect for themselves. BTW, we originally had 64 players in RO1 when they first lifted the server cap from 32. It kept going down until they felt 50 was generally OK. Judging from RO2's initial release they had more concern with client ping/performance rather than higher slot numbers in RO1 days than RO2
. I wish they never bothered going from 32 though personally, it was bad for gameplay and killed off clan servers. At the same time they had no respect for original class limits, and kept the 64 player role limits even with 50 players. This period was the start of TWI's change of focus with the game series imo, we got the warning signs thenAnyway in RO2's defence, they have bullet penetration now and the server might track more stuff, and we have anti-cheat so that might account for more server power needed
I don't think the servers properly utilize multiple cores though and they can't use Linux servers. UT3 is designed for consoles and I think by the time RO1 released the basic UT engine had been through more revisions or more PC games had used it?
Theres a few options for TWI..another is maybe having their own 64 player servers for EU, NA west and East. Then set the cap for everyone else down to 50 and release some recommendations for server hardware for different player counts
Last edited:
OK you're right....
@ Mel 115 want it left alone... if you are gonna spurt numbers - spurt numbers not %'s. Percentages can be very misleading.
Its fairly obvious that the majority want the 64 player Servers left as is. I voted too and I am not trying to push my opinion or agenda - just asking that good enough be left alone.
Last edited:
No you have no respect for people with differing opinions to your own, as usual
If you look at the results, only 46% voted for leaving it alone, the rest 54% voted for only 50 players ranked or across the board, 64 unranked. And unranked makes your server unpopulated anyway but at least the option would be there. I voted for the middle one, just so the option would be there. If the middle option wasnt there though I would have chosen the first one
If you look at the results, only 46% voted for leaving it alone, the rest 54% voted for only 50 players ranked or across the board, 64 unranked. And unranked makes your server unpopulated anyway but at least the option would be there. I voted for the middle one, just so the option would be there. If the middle option wasnt there though I would have chosen the first one
Thank you for the insulting personal attack........
I merely asked for numbers - not %'s or biased interpretations.There is no combining the categories, its each standing on its own merit (in this case - votes). The majority, 117 ppl, voted to leave the 64 player servers alone. There's no talking around that vote.
I chose to leave it at 64.
Last edited:
You quoted me when I was correcting someone who thought someone needed to clean his PC to get a better ping..and came in with your usual attitude, calling it "nonsense" to change from 64. Don't try to take some kind of moral highground Mike lol
Then you claim that the majority "obviously" doesn't want it to change, which is again false
I'm not adding the numbers together for you, you can see from the poll a bit less than half want it to stay as is for ranked
I wouldn't say that 50% is a good indication either way though, and I would err on the side of caution with so many voting to leave it as is, but there are options ofc. As usual TWI will want to get feedback from other sources probably. I don't feel too strongly either way, I just wouldn't mind it being 50 players if it meant better performance
Then you claim that the majority "obviously" doesn't want it to change, which is again false
I'm not adding the numbers together for you, you can see from the poll a bit less than half want it to stay as is for ranked
I wouldn't say that 50% is a good indication either way though, and I would err on the side of caution with so many voting to leave it as is, but there are options ofc. As usual TWI will want to get feedback from other sources probably. I don't feel too strongly either way, I just wouldn't mind it being 50 players if it meant better performance
Last edited:
You conveniently used that reply to assert your 50 player opinion again.
Whatever............. Paint me as the "bad guy" I'm used to it.
Truth is, You can't stand having your opines questioned.
Last edited:
^ This is what happens with the way that some polls are created; the results are often twisted to suit the argument. Mike sees only the largest number and disregards any other analysis (ironic given the emphasis), which suits his argument and thus posts accordingly. On the other hand, Melipone adopts a more statistically sound approach and sees that the majority (small though that majority is at time of posting) of total respondents favour a player cap reduction where it matters (i.e., on ranked servers), which suits his argument and he in turn posts accordingly. For the record I
- Leave the player counts alone, we'll deal with it - has the most votes.
Two Words...........
Majority Rules.
Two Words...........
Majority Rules.
Last edited:
Two Words...........
Majority Rules.
Yes, and the majority share the opinion that 64 should be reduced to 50. Please try and understand before one of us dies
Yes, and the majority share the opinion that 64 should be reduced to 50. Please try and understand before one of us dies
The category;
- Leave the player counts alone, we'll deal with it - has the most votes.
Two Words...........
Majority Rules.
What is so hard to understand about majority rules?
In any case - once again I voted for leave the player counts alone.
Last edited:
I wish that rather than a blanket player limit, there could be some kind of runtime benchmark that tests the server's CPU capability, and sets the max players based on its abilities.
There would have to be some validation activities to correlate benchmark results to server playercount activities, but I don't think it should be difficult. Once the validated tests are performed, it's just a matter of a simple lookup table...
This way, if a server truly is capable, let it run 64 players. (I don't believe there is such a server today, but maybe once Intel's Haswell based Xeons are released we'll see one), but if a server is slow enough that that high of a player count would add significant latencies to the gameplay, then automatically reduce it.
There would have to be some validation activities to correlate benchmark results to server playercount activities, but I don't think it should be difficult. Once the validated tests are performed, it's just a matter of a simple lookup table...
This way, if a server truly is capable, let it run 64 players. (I don't believe there is such a server today, but maybe once Intel's Haswell based Xeons are released we'll see one), but if a server is slow enough that that high of a player count would add significant latencies to the gameplay, then automatically reduce it.