Perhaps a better utilisation of servers?

no0ne

so have been thinking.. we've got london #1 ~ ZP and london #2 _NewNet.
and more then 18 Active players at peak times throughout the day/night.
however they all seem to flock to the more popular server L1.

I don't believe this is because L1 is ZP (which is horrendous) BUT...
because it shows a great number of players.

many of which huddle around maps like AndAction! or Joust. Which is a natural disaster in it self.
while L2 sits there idle without a poodle with a paddle. And would be the Better playable server for all players then L1 imo.

What I propose to get L2 enjoying a bit of Traffic and becoming more popular is this.
Reduce the MaxPlayers on L1 from 18 down to a more respectable 12 players and use an Affiliates mod
to offer redirection of the excess players to L2.
therefore you will have 1 Full L1 and 6 players minimum on L2.. which will climb to 12 in no time at all.
bringing the total number of players upto 24 😉
just an idea , my 2 cents.

Unknownman

Sounds like an idea! I've been wanting to try Newnet but nobody plays it.
and often people do vote for a small spawnkilling map and many people just leave the server
and also, i know a few players that suffer from Packet loss on London#1

no0ne

Unknownman indeed!.. there needs to be an antilamer modification introduced into the mapvote
whereby it can pickup the maxplayer count for the map being voted for and hide those maps from mapvote depending on the number of players present. but tricky but if we could assign our own values for player counts to maps via .ini then filter the maps based on those values and actual players then it could be a great feature to introduce into the mapvote system.

no0ne

Screenshot of NexgenPlus100N for use of Redirection if server is full. ~ Could not edit previous post for some reason.

no0ne

iam currently working with the coder of a fantastic new mapvote system called Votesys.
and we are currently considering a new approach to displaying only maps that fall within a range of
Min/Max Players.
Admins will have to List Maps in an VoteSysMapInfo.ini file and put in there a MinPlayers= and MaxPlayers=
for example : Info=(MapName="CTF-AndAction",MinPlayers=0,MaxPlayers=6)
Info=(MapName="CTF-SomeBigMap",MinPlayers=6,MaxPlayers=18)
now what happens is , If there are 6 players or less then CTF-AndAction shows up in Mapvote and is Votable.
however the second the PlayerCount goes over 6 it is Filtered out of the MapVote.
same thing for CTF-SomeBigMap , If Player count is <6 then that map is filtered out of the MapVote.
now what happens is only maps within range of the current Playercount are displayed.
NO MORE 18 player AndAction/Joust (unless of course the admin allows it).

This is VoteSys;

Schizazoid

Pff, ppl gonna leave server and rejoin when there will be their favorite smallbox-type map.
Limiting slots for players - that's the right idea.

BULBAFLEX

if one day the vote is filtered in this way, it will be the beginning of the end.

it's a fact, small maps are the most played. And people don't want to play small maps with few players.

PepsiCola

Ooper Maybe the retard that owns that server might upgrade the server to 469D with the improvements to the CPU usage for servers compared to 469C(significant reduction)

Patch 469D will come out soon, if it turns out to be better cpu efficient, then it would be good to incerase max players limit of LONDON server to 20, because sometimes server is full.

Schizazoid

WDYM increase? Just 12 ppl already is a crowd... And 18 ppl - is unplayable nightmare most of the time, especially when bunch of, for the lack of better word, apes vote joust-crates-andaction-stalwartlite-egypt on a loop when server is full.

PepsiCola

Schizazoid

The more players, the more fun, spam is often a good fun too, as a break from normal maps.

player_0

In the place of Mr. snowguy (which I also suggested to him once) I would try "return to the past" (from ten years) and on the L2 server switch to SA mode only with grapple.

Schizazoid

PepsiCola The more players, the more fun

Nope. Everything good only in moderation.

PepsiCola spam is often a good fun too

It's really not. Every once in a while some chaotic spammy match is allright, but for 4-5 maps straight? No thanks.

PepsiCola as a break from normal maps

There like 2-3 "normal" maps in the play (simple map like "liandry docks", or sterile, but actually fitting ctf-mode "bleak"), at least from what I've experienced while playing on london.

PepsiCola

Schizazoid

There is more normal CTF maps than you mentioned, there are also: OPEL, DUKU and I guess few more.

Schizazoid

All these maps become less playable and enjoyable when there's more than 12_ish ppl on server.

PepsiCola

Schizazoid

Then go and play on Fast Download SMoKiNG 4 Everyone >GRAPPLE< server, it's population is a half of population of LONDON server, you will be happy then. 😃

Schizazoid

Funny thing is, I found myself preferring that laggy joke of a server over london - it tells quite a lot about situation on london tbh.

jerc

London is fine stop listening to the mob put down your pitchfork and torch and just play the game.

Schizazoid

Look, I'm not talking about cheaters, real or imaginary. Even though just this evening I played and ppl called out one guy for cheating (funny thing is: there were no deranged_newb or gonzales in sight).
It's not about the witch hunt with pitchforks and torches. I'm talking about general experience: maps ppl tend to vote and how matches tend to flow.

no0ne

not likely to ever happen.. but yes cap it at 12 players and let the overflow migrate over to London2.

jerc

Finally a good idea.🤯