+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Server Events (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=411)
+---- Forum: Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=28)
+---- Thread: My $0.02 on Improving Event Quality (/showthread.php?tid=166227)
My $0.02 on Improving Event Quality - TLI-Inferno - 12-01-2018
This event was a good idea, and if everything went well, it would have been extremely fun. The concept was good.
There are a few things that could be done to improve this event.
First, raise the player cap. The server used to accommodate 255 players years ago, and 160 was considered a light amount of players. Why, now, years later, with technology being cheaper and more available, does the server support a cap of 110? I understand that less people play, but why limit it so that when people actually want to log in, they can't? Why not leave the cap high, so if the server was ever to increase in activity, it would have room to do so? Have you cheaped out and downgraded your server, despite still receiving donations to improve it? It should be able to handle more than it used to; not less. During this event, there was not enough room for people to log on and we actually did hit the 110 cap.
Second, have a roster for the event. If it seems like more than 12 people will be present, then split the event into multiple systems so that there will be less lag. You could have had 1 cruiser in New london, 1 cruiser in Cambridge, and 1 cruiser in Manchester, splitting the players up so that there would be less lag.
In case you wonder: "What is this lag you speak of?" Players' torpedoes were not moving. They were sitting in space. The frame rate was reduced, and ships were just teleporting around.
All-in-all, good job preparing the last event, but there were a couple of problems that you didn't anticipate, that I think you should have by now.
RE: My $0.02 on Improving Event Quality - Sombs - 12-01-2018
We didn't hit the player cap even remotely in the last two years.
RE: My $0.02 on Improving Event Quality - SnakeLancerHaven - 12-03-2018
I mean, I wouldn't say no to the 255 player capacity thing :v (those extra 5 were Admin slots I think).
RE: My $0.02 on Improving Event Quality - Kazinsal - 12-03-2018
I want to point out that this was the first time we've hit the player cap in the entire time that we've been recording the player count, and our average peak is still down by about 20% from the last time we got close to it.
The player cap is where it is not out of a technical requirement but really more out of making it look less dead around here.
e: We've been recording player count data since February 2017, for clarity.
RE: My $0.02 on Improving Event Quality - Emperor Tekagi - 12-03-2018
The fact we hit the player cap and still had people wanting to log in shows just one thing: We are still more than a hundred people playing the game. And when we really want to, we can still fill the server. But we were forced to leave out like 30 people due to the player cap being reached.
Maybe we could open it up to 130-150 players max.? We all know the place is "empty" and we have on average around 40 players. But we can certainly get over 110 people online with similar events.. so yeah. Why not adjust it slightly? Won't make it appear emptier if you ask me.
RE: My $0.02 on Improving Event Quality - diamond1 - 12-03-2018
(12-03-2018, 06:22 AM)NieRdackel Wrote: The fact we hit the player cap and still had people wanting to log in shows just one thing: We are still more than a hundred people playing the game. And when we really want to, we can still fill the server. But we were forced to leave out like 30 people due to the player cap being reached.
Maybe we could open it up to 130-150 players max.? We all know the place is "empty" and we have on average around 40 players. But we can certainly get over 110 people online with similar events.. so yeah. Why not adjust it slightly? Won't make it appear emptier if you ask me.
My only concern is how much stress the server can take. While yes, it would be a great idea. But the servers also have a tough time handling all the data being sent through. I'm all for massive fights.
RE: My $0.02 on Improving Event Quality - Antonio - 12-03-2018
Last time the server was full was during the first Freeport 11 NEMP in May of 2016 (a month before the heavy decision) with 135/135 slots.
RE: My $0.02 on Improving Event Quality - Corile - 12-03-2018
(12-01-2018, 08:51 PM)TLI-Inferno Wrote: Why, now, years later, with technology being cheaper and more availableThis doesn't work like that.
RE: My $0.02 on Improving Event Quality - Minh - 12-03-2018
...was there any lag? I haven't noticed any to be honest, except for a slight ping raise. And I have what is considered 'below average' internet.
RE: My $0.02 on Improving Event Quality - Nightowl - 12-03-2018
I don't know much about the Freelancer-Software and it' using of resources, but i know a litte bit about modern Windows-System and serverhardware (or virtual maschines).
The big question is, can Discouvery Freelancer use more than one processor-core?
If yes, there is just one problem for more server-power: the monthly costs. If you pay it, yu can get more than hundred cores and terrabyte of RAM with an I/O-Speed on the drive, that we all are dreaming of.
If not, the thing is getting interesting. I know no Virtual-Server-hoster and nearly no physical Server-hoster, who post the exact processor-type so you can see the maximum speed from one core of the system.
And even when the processors do have much more combinated power on all cores, the Speed when all pwer just requests one core didn't Groth really in the last 10-15 years.
The first 4-Ghz-Prozessors was there when? 2005? 2008?
And today there are just a few processors, that have more than 4Ghz per Core. And all of them are not used by Virtual-Server-hoster, becouse most of them have only 4 cores.
The most processors used by Virtual-Server-hoster have between 2-3Ghz, becouse they are cheaper per core, so you can sell more cores...
So yes, the single core in most virtual Servers you can get today have less power than 10 years ago. And remember the operating system are using the same ore more power for them self.
So if you want a maximum power on a single core you have to build your own server. But that brings costs for administration, backup, firewall, hardwarefaltures and so on.
And we don't talk About it won't be easy to migrate the Server from one to an other hardware (includes VM-"hardware" to real hardware)...