Separate servers for US and UK.

Status
Not open for further replies.

AstraLoaf

Well-known Member
Aug 31, 2023
6
0
41
I'd like to suggest having 2 servers each for the US and the UK.

The Pro's:


With smaller player limits on each server, gameplay can be tailored more effectively to ensure that players find companions with competitors of similar interests. This contributes to more enjoyable gameplay experiences for all players involved. Utilizing two smaller server limits offers more flexibility in responding to fluctuations in player numbers at different times of day or during promotional events. Developers can actively manage their server resources and adjust them according to current demand, improving overall resource utilization and potentially saving costs.

One of the main advantages of opting for two 64-player servers over one 128-player server is enhanced server stability. The idea of Smaller servers with this idea in mind are less likely to suffer from lag, crashes, and other performance issues caused by an excessive number of gamers on a single server. This results in an much smoother gaming experience, which is highly desired by gamers and essential for the game's reputation.

Two 64-player limit servers may appear to hold the greater financial burden initially, but in the long run, they are a more cost-effective approach. When considering the maintenance costs related to fixing performance issues associated with larger servers, it is clear that the price difference is negligible in comparison with stability benefits.

The Con's:

Loss of Social Interaction and Community Building:

you might not consider this option with you worrying about the price you may spend on having 2 separate servers for each major location region, and I have listed a reason on why it may not be a good idea as well, so I may remain an unbiased side in this.
Loss of Social Interaction and Community Building:
By splitting the player base into two , the places for social interaction and friendships are inherently limited. In a 128-player server, players can engage with various playstyles and experience camaraderie through shared challenges with larger groups. On the other hand, two smaller servers limit these interactions and create smaller, separated communities that may struggle to retain a consistently enjoyable atmosphere.

Increased time spent waiting in line:

Having two separate smaller servers can result in uneven distribution of players across both servers. Players might congregate on one popular server, leaving the other underpopulated. Consequently, this could cause waiting times to increase as more players attempt to join the favored server while others remain underutilized.

Technical Challenges:

Managing multiple servers demands increased technical resources and monitoring compared to maintaining a single-server system. By dividing resources across two separate 64-player servers, each individual server becomes more vulnerable to downtime or technical hiccups that might arise from issues such as overloaded networks or hardware malfunctions. As a result, overall performance could suffer.


As we reach the end of this admittedly unnecessarily long suggestion, I hope you can understand where many of us are coming from with this idea, be it players with low end computers, or others with unstable connections (I myself am both unfortunately) I hope you all can come to an agreement on whether to use this suggestion or not, and to that.

I bid you good day.

--Astral.
 

HarrisonCourt

Member
Aug 27, 2023
5
1
11
-Support
As you stated, it forces users into one of two of the same servers, making interactions very hit and miss. It would also be a balancing act that would cause players to retreat into a more popular server. If I was prompted between Server #1 with 24/64 players, and Server #2 with 64/64, I'd rather wait out the queue .On top of that, we would need even more staff, which we would ALSO have to balance out.

The other issue is managing and synchronising data. You'd be surprised how many issues occur if you have two servers and try to share data between them. It wouldn't be worth the time and effort to create an optimal solution.

On top of that, the servers reach well into 128 players. I'd say we would need even more player slots to accomodate it, but the issue seems to rest not on the (HOPEFULLY) linux servers, but rather on the GMod server itself. This is something that can't be fixed on CN's side.

A good suggestion, but it simply wouldn't work on CN's scale, especially with so much going on.

Note to O5 Council: 256 players when? ?
 
- Support

Overall I understand why this might look good, but the regiments and factions only work due to the amount of players at once. As really on 128 players, you can have sometimes around 20 CI on, and if this number went over to a smaller server it would then mean nearly a third of the server would raiding and killing the other 2 thirds. Even if you don't take into account players on SCPs, D class etc..

Both the servers having 128 players, allows for a lot of random RP which isn't planned and really what makes these servers have something special as you could just be walking through the site and see a lot of stuff happening just due to the amount of players.

I think server stability can be iffy sometimes, as we are on an old game but I don't think it's worth cutting down the players by half, just for it to be slightly better.
 

Lord_Fr3ze

Senior Developer
Senior Developer
Mapping Team
Content Team
Jan 3, 2022
80
44
91
Doing this will just result in the map becoming a wasteland, some zones never being visited anymore. The map would need to be downsized to make it decently sized for 64 player specifically. There is just no real benefit from this besides the somewhat improvement of FPS and general performance on the client and server. But I'd rather play on a 128 player server with a bit of a performance drop than the otherway around.

Not to mention, some servers run even worse when there not even full and don't even have half of the content that we have. So I think it's fair to say that despite the occasional performance issues, the content you are provided as a player outweighs the small performance problems. Some may see that different, but you can't please everyone.
 

StrifeVencheznof

Active member
Nov 30, 2022
37
10
21
-Support

No. This would kill the server in it's entirety for all of the reasons that Red/Lord_Fr3ze put.

The server would always be dead no matter what RP/events you create.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.