C
.Cask
Guest
- Thread starter
- #31
I played on a 48 player and the frame lag was painful.
What's the secret?
What's the secret?
M
MrChumble
Guest
- Thread starter
- #32
Perhaps a setup such as,
Server1, Box1: Small maps, 24 player limit, high tickets, FF off
Server2, Box1: Large maps, 36 player limit, low tickets, FF off
Server3, Box2: Small maps, 24 player limit, high tickets, FF on
Server4, Box2: Large maps, 36 player limit, low tickets, FF on
The way the servers are at the moment is really quite silly; the small maps have high player counts and not enough tickets so they end too rapidly, the big maps have ok player counts but too many tickets so last forever and a day.
3 Rounds isn't the problem I don't think; it's the time it takes to play them. Half the tickets on Bulge etc and 3 rounds will be fine. Reducing the player count on the small maps server would also free up resources for the bigger server on the same box (I assume; they probably have a cpu each but I guess memory and the like is shared).
Server1, Box1: Small maps, 24 player limit, high tickets, FF off
Server2, Box1: Large maps, 36 player limit, low tickets, FF off
Server3, Box2: Small maps, 24 player limit, high tickets, FF on
Server4, Box2: Large maps, 36 player limit, low tickets, FF on
The way the servers are at the moment is really quite silly; the small maps have high player counts and not enough tickets so they end too rapidly, the big maps have ok player counts but too many tickets so last forever and a day.
3 Rounds isn't the problem I don't think; it's the time it takes to play them. Half the tickets on Bulge etc and 3 rounds will be fine. Reducing the player count on the small maps server would also free up resources for the bigger server on the same box (I assume; they probably have a cpu each but I guess memory and the like is shared).
S
Summo
Guest
- Thread starter
- #33
No way. I don't want to just play on small maps in the same way I don't just want to play on large maps.
D
Deady
Guest
- Thread starter
- #34
To be honest i dont think we need 4 BF servers.
We cant even fill one.
Two, 32 player servers would be fine. One server instance on each machine.
By running 4 instances over 2 boxes, where for the majority of time 3 instances are unused, is a waste of resources. Especially considering how even an idle bf1942 server instance eats up a lot of resources.
EDIT: Wait i was only looking at the conquest servers. It appears were running 4 instances per box, due to the CTF and TEAMDM servers.
We really could do with cutting down on all the idle empty servers. Get rid of the TeamDM ones right away - or at least cut it down to one CTF and one TeamDM.
We cant even fill one.
Two, 32 player servers would be fine. One server instance on each machine.
By running 4 instances over 2 boxes, where for the majority of time 3 instances are unused, is a waste of resources. Especially considering how even an idle bf1942 server instance eats up a lot of resources.
EDIT: Wait i was only looking at the conquest servers. It appears were running 4 instances per box, due to the CTF and TEAMDM servers.
We really could do with cutting down on all the idle empty servers. Get rid of the TeamDM ones right away - or at least cut it down to one CTF and one TeamDM.
M
MrChumble
Guest
- Thread starter
- #35
Summo suggest a better way then. Unless there are per-map settings mixing the two is always going to suck ass.
Of course if there are per-map settings then we're sorted, most just need a minor tweak to reduce/increase length.
Course you can't really have the player count fluctuating all over the place that might not work either. 24 is too low for a lot of the maps and 36 is too high for the others. Catch 22 if you want to mix both sizes.
Of course if there are per-map settings then we're sorted, most just need a minor tweak to reduce/increase length.
Course you can't really have the player count fluctuating all over the place that might not work either. 24 is too low for a lot of the maps and 36 is too high for the others. Catch 22 if you want to mix both sizes.
S
Scooba Da Bass
Guest
- Thread starter
- #36
What about a time limit? It'll stop the long maps being on for 20+ minutes when there's not enough players, and it won't interfere with the smaller maps.
G
Gumbo
Guest
- Thread starter
- #37
Very sensible idea Scoob, I believe the EA servers run a time limit.
Deady, when do you play?
Last few nights the 32 man servers have been full for a good few hours, with an overspill of a few people onto other ones. I do agree that maybe we don't need quite so many 32 man servers though, hence my request for a couple of 24 man ones for an experiment.
As CS is meant to be the most played online game, and I've not seen more than a few people playing that on ASE when I refresh... Is BF1942 currently the most played game on BarrysWorld? I think we should be told.
Oh
here's a link to that 24 man server request, in case you're interested [/pimpage]
Deady, when do you play?
Last few nights the 32 man servers have been full for a good few hours, with an overspill of a few people onto other ones. I do agree that maybe we don't need quite so many 32 man servers though, hence my request for a couple of 24 man ones for an experiment.
As CS is meant to be the most played online game, and I've not seen more than a few people playing that on ASE when I refresh... Is BF1942 currently the most played game on BarrysWorld? I think we should be told.
Oh
here's a link to that 24 man server request, in case you're interested [/pimpage]
C
CliffyG
Guest
- Thread starter
- #38
There's no need for 4 instances at the mo so why not have a dedicated 32 man server and 2 x 24's on the other server. Then if the amount of players picks up you can split it so that there is a 24 and a 32 on each server which should still be better performance than the current setup. 