Server Wipe

[DeningWei]

24 minutes ago, BobRoss said:

Thats the goal isnt it? If you dont aim to fix everything you might aswell never optimise. 

There is a big difference between player reviews on steam and professional reviews in magazines, shows. If you dont get over 8.5/10 your game will be dead in 3 months. There is no way WC can justify keeping 'cheated' or overpowered items in the game. 

People don't care about paid reviews in magazines, they care more about word of mouth, steam reviews, metacritic etc... And anyway, once release comes out and there is no wipe, WC could just as easily take a few journalists out for dinner like most other well reviewed games have done.  Magazine reviews mean little to anyone that has been around games for a while.

[Volcano637]

1 minute ago, DeningWei said:

People don't care about paid reviews in magazines, they care more about word of mouth, steam reviews, metacritic etc... And anyway, once release comes out and there is no wipe, WC could just as easily take a few journalists out for dinner like most other well reviewed games have done.  Magazine reviews mean little to anyone that has been around games for a while.

Definitely gotta disagree with you on that one. I still to this day don't bother going and looking for player reviews. That's what I have my game informer subscription for.

and most people don't either. If most of the people don't even bother to come to the forums, what makes you think they will take the time to look up reviews. Gaming magazines paper or digital is how almost everyone looks for games.

for the most part the only people that look at player reviews and the ones that do it for every game. Either that or to go there and write a bad review

[Krampus132]

On 2/5/2017 at 8:43 PM, Volcano637 said:

Should be any server lower than 40 average 

If only servers with more than 40 people on were actually playable... 

[Volcano637]

Ok so jat just gave the game plan for the next two weeks, which is cool. But even better than that, it means that after those two weeks they will only have two more weeks to give the definite answer to the wipe or no wipe question.

i have always stated that I understand why they want to wait till right before release but the time is running out ??

either way the answer goes it will be good to get an answer. Plus to be honest I am a little excited about destiny 2 so if they don't wipe I will get the chance to get addicted to that one like I did the original destiny. God bungee makes awesome games. Always been a fan

[Volcano637]

Just now, Krampus132 said:

If only servers with more than 40 people on were actually playable... 

That's because of all the big bases and way too many tames. Player count has never and will never be the problem.

[Krampus132]

Just now, Volcano637 said:

That's because of all the big bases and way too many tames. Player count has never and will never be the problem.

Not sure I agree there. Our official server is completely unplayable with 45+ people connected. We've tested it and submitted tickets etc. Alpha tribes are resorting to killing all new players off as soon as we hit over 40 people. The bases are not that big and blue screens happen much more (even nowhere near any bases or structures)

[Volcano637]

3 minutes ago, Krampus132 said:

Not sure I agree there. Our official server is completely unplayable with 45+ people connected. We've tested it and submitted tickets etc. Alpha tribes are resorting to killing all new players off as soon as we hit over 40 people. The bases are not that big and blue screens happen much more (even nowhere near any bases or structures)

Yes and that proves my point. It is the alphas that bring in all of the big bases and ungodly amount of tames.

every time they put up a new server that server was flooded with the max cap of 100/100 and people were mashing A just to try to sneak in. I never crashed out when that happened. Never. Even after people starting building, there still wasn't lag.

now the server I am on and the big tribe I am in usually there are only about 12 of us on there and I get kicked and lag out constantly.

it blows my mind how people think that player count has anything to do with lag. How the heck do people see that as logical? It has nothing to do with it at all

[Krampus132]

1 minute ago, Volcano637 said:

Yes and that proves my point. It is the alphas that bring in all of the big bases and ungodly amount of tames.

every time they put up a new server that server was flooded with the max cap of 100/100 and people were mashing A just to try to sneak in. I never crashed out when that happened. Never. Even after people starting building, there still wasn't lag.

now the server I am on and the big tribe I am in usually there are only about 12 of us on there and I get kicked and lag out constantly.

it blows my mind how people think that player count has anything to do with lag. How the heck do people see that as logical? It has nothing to do with it at all

Dude.. chill. Higher active player count = more server network activity, more memory usage, more resource allocation. If the server is configured incorrectly or some piece of code is causing memory leaks, then this might indeed cause latency issues (along with many other factors). 

[GP]

6 minutes ago, Volcano637 said:

it blows my mind how people think that player count has anything to do with lag. How the heck do people see that as logical? It has nothing to do with it at all

Of course it does. Even in SOTF if you had 50 players it runs fine but if you have 200 players in the big tournaments it struggled and lagged loads, and SOTF doesn't even have the big bases. So yes, player count does impact the server performance. It's not a sole impact, but it certainly contributes towards it. Otherwise if it did not then there would not be a player cap!

[powerstuck]

19 hours ago, Volcano637 said:

That must be nice because we are still experiencing tons of lag and rubberbanding. Granted the server is congested with poop which I am sure is contributing to it, but yeah I am sure it is also probably them trying to make it better. 

 

They fixed lag a few months ago but in the last two weeks it made a super big comeback. I just hope their fixes will do the intended job. 

I also hope they launch new Rag servers on PC. 

[Volcano637]

10 minutes ago, GP said:

Of course it does. Even in SOTF if you had 50 players it runs fine but if you have 200 players in the big tournaments it struggled and lagged loads, and SOTF doesn't even have the big bases. So yes, player count does impact the server performance. It's not a sole impact, but it certainly contributes towards it. Otherwise if it did not then there would not be a player cap!

Lol you are talking about a totally different thing. I am saying that the servers can run at capacity just fine while people have been saying that 40 players is too much for the server. That's stupid. And no player count does not matter. If there are 100 slots available and they all fill up then it doesn't make one bit of difference. The server is made for so many and as long as that many are on that it is just fine. Now when people contest the servers with tame and structures, that is the real problem. 

But if you want to stick with the whole players don matter a little thing then fine.bottom line is that structures and tames do way more damage than players

[powerstuck]

5 minutes ago, Volcano637 said:

Lol you are talking about a totally different thing. I am saying that the servers can run at capacity just fine while people have been saying that 40 players is too much for the server. That's stupid. And no player count does not matter. If there are 100 slots available and they all fill up then it doesn't make one bit of difference. The server is made for so many and as long as that many are on that it is just fine. Now when people contest the servers with tame and structures, that is the real problem. 

But if you want to stick with the whole players don matter a little thing then fine.bottom line is that structures and tames do way more damage than players

I agree. 

A player is one set of pixels to be generated by the server.

A player on a dino is two sets of pixels to be generated by the server.

A player on a dino in a 10 foundations long by 10 foundations large by 10 walls high base is 1000+ sets of pixels to be generated by the server. 

[Volcano637]

3 minutes ago, powerstuck said:

I agree. 

A player is one set of pixels to be generated by the server.

A player on a dino is two sets of pixels to be generated by the server.

A player on a dino in a 10 foundations long by 10 foundations large by 10 walls high base is 1000+ sets of pixels to be generated by the server. 

Yeah he is just doing that thing that he does.

[GP]

9 minutes ago, Volcano637 said:

Lol you are talking about a totally different thing. I am saying that the servers can run at capacity just fine while people have been saying that 40 players is too much for the server. That's stupid. And no player count does not matter. If there are 100 slots available and they all fill up then it doesn't make one bit of difference. The server is made for so many and as long as that many are on that it is just fine. Now when people contest the servers with tame and structures, that is the real problem. 

But if you want to stick with the whole players don matter a little thing then fine.bottom line is that structures and tames do way more damage than players

I'm not talking about a totally different thing.

How do you explain the big SOTF tournament having performance issues when it had 200 players yet doesn't suffer the same issue as when they have 60 players? Do SOTF servers have mega alpha tribes and bases and tames? No.

SOTF is pretty much the same game as ARK, just different Mode of play. So how do you explain this server performance issue when it has 200 players and not 60 players?

[r3pshow]

please don't wipe the server. I can't handle that much rage

[Volcano637]

23 minutes ago, GP said:

I'm not talking about a totally different thing.

How do you explain the big SOTF tournament having performance issues when it had 200 players yet doesn't suffer the same issue as when they have 60 players? Do SOTF servers have mega alpha tribes and bases and tames? No.

SOTF is pretty much the same game as ARK, just different Mode of play. So how do you explain this server performance issue when it has 200 players and not 60 players?

Because it isn't meant for that many people. 

The center has 100 does fine at 100

the island has 70 does fine at 70

and so on. Yep you are still talking about a totally different thing. Let me know when they try to stuff 200 people on a 100 center and I will be right there with you saying there is too many people. 

[GP]

Just now, Volcano637 said:

Because it isn't meant for that many people. 

The center has 100 does fine at 100

the island has 70 does fine at 70

and so on. Yep you are still talking about a totally different thing. Let me know when they try to stuff 200 people on a 100 center and I will be right there with you saying there is too many people. 

Why restrict a server to 60, 70, 100 people if number of players doesn't impact server performance?

[Volcano637]

19 minutes ago, GP said:

Why restrict a server to 60, 70, 100 people if number of players doesn't impact server performance?

Because that is how many it is meant for. I am not talking about going over the server limit or putting too many players on a map.  

I was talking to that guy about being well below 100 as in 40/100 not affecting anything. And it does not. Being 100/100 doesn't affect anything. What people build and tame is what affects the servers.

you are turning mine and his conversation into something completely different. As long as the player count stays within the limits it won't make a difference.

people complaining about 40 people being too many players on a server are the problem so in that aspect I guess you are right some players do affect the servers

[GP]

Just now, Volcano637 said:

Because that is how many it is meant for. I am not talking about going over the server limit or putting too many players on a map.  

I was talking to that guy about being well below 100 as in 40/100 not affecting anything. And it does not. Being 100/100 doesn't affect anything. What people build and tame is what affects the servers.

you are turning mine and his conversation into something completely different. As long as the player count stays within the limits it won't make a difference.

people complaining about 40 people being too many players on a server are the problem so in that aspect I guess you are right some players do affect the servers

I'm not turning it into anything different though. The SOTF servers were built for 200/200 but they still struggled with 200 on. If you think 100 connections to a server, even one built for 100 connections will not impact playing performance at all then you're wrong.

[Volcano637]

31 minutes ago, GP said:

I'm not turning it into anything different though. The SOTF servers were built for 200/200 but they still struggled with 200 on. If you think 100 connections to a server, even one built for 100 connections will not impact playing performance at all then you're wrong.

No I am not wrong. I have physical experience playing on servers that were always 100/100 and didn't get kicked once and lag wasn't that bad.

i currently have physical experience playing on a server with 12 people and getting get kicked constantly and have enormous amounts of lag.

i don't care about SoTF. I have my proof of what I have been playing. You have a theory and you are wrong.

[BobRoss]

17 hours ago, DeningWei said:

People don't care about paid reviews in magazines, they care more about word of mouth, steam reviews, metacritic etc... And anyway, once release comes out and there is no wipe, WC could just as easily take a few journalists out for dinner like most other well reviewed games have done.  Magazine reviews mean little to anyone that has been around games for a while.

Are you serious? Shows and big reviews are THE most important thing for up and coming gaming companies.

[BobRoss]

14 hours ago, Volcano637 said:

No I am not wrong. I have physical experience playing on servers that were always 100/100 and didn't get kicked once and lag wasn't that bad.

i currently have physical experience playing on a server with 12 people and getting get kicked constantly and have enormous amounts of lag.

i don't care about SoTF. I have my proof of what I have been playing. You have a theory and you are wrong.

I think you are both right. Normally the server wouldnt lagg when its 100/100. It only starts to lagg after x ammount of time when everyone gets big bases or multiple bases with loads of dinos. Then it begins to lagg because it needs to load all that stuff in (this is where Vulcano is right). But if more people are online, more areas need to render in at a time and this causes more strain on the server (this is where GP is right).

this is what I believe. What they should do is limit structures and dinos more. Make it so we are not required to building so big and taming so much.

[thedogowl]

^ Bob knows!

[DeningWei]

18 hours ago, Volcano637 said:

Definitely gotta disagree with you on that one. I still to this day don't bother going and looking for player reviews. That's what I have my game informer subscription for.

and most people don't either. If most of the people don't even bother to come to the forums, what makes you think they will take the time to look up reviews. Gaming magazines paper or digital is how almost everyone looks for games.

for the most part the only people that look at player reviews and the ones that do it for every game. Either that or to go there and write a bad review

Because the most visible review to any game is the user reviews.  And don't worry, I'm sure the review Game Informer provides will have a minimal amount to do with the game and more to do with how much advertising WC purchases.

[DeningWei]

17 hours ago, Volcano637 said:

Lol you are talking about a totally different thing. I am saying that the servers can run at capacity just fine while people have been saying that 40 players is too much for the server. That's stupid. And no player count does not matter. If there are 100 slots available and they all fill up then it doesn't make one bit of difference. The server is made for so many and as long as that many are on that it is just fine. Now when people contest the servers with tame and structures, that is the real problem. 

But if you want to stick with the whole players don matter a little thing then fine.bottom line is that structures and tames do way more damage than players

I doubt it, our regular server with huge bases and average 25 players runs smooth, the new ragnarok maps and se on launch day one with 70/70 players constantly were lagfests from the moment it opened. 

Edit: unless what you are talking about is specific to Xbox