y u do dis

[Poorlaggedman]

An unfortunate phenomena of a small community is that players will generally always go to the usable server with the most players. So several times it's came to be that sub-max-pop servers filled and a spillover to other servers is unlikely to occur naturally without a heavy volume of players. In this case a server crashed with ~80 players and the remaining players went to a server with ~25% the max capacity available thus killing the potential gameplay for the night.

So why would you do that?


11059

40/40

[Lucky Lad]

Can you please translate your post into English please?

[Dman979]

Him say, "No good for people to separate." Him say, "Very, very bad. Need to stick together. More fun."

I say, "He right."

I say, "You right, too."

[Saris]

grug must go to big cave first not small cave, small cave has no room

[LaBelle]

he brain 2 big, words he use must b always real big or else he overload

he rite tho

[Poorlaggedman]

I say why you have server open with 40 slots on skirmishes

not fun very. hard squeeze for plus sizes

[Poorlaggedman]

11597
1st US, y u do dis

[A. P. Hill]

You should probably refrain from posting while drinking.

[Saris]

You should probably refrain from posting while drinking.

PLM was sitting on the thread and waiting and today he got his chance

[Poorlaggedman]

They can do whatever they want but I can also bitch and moan that they effectively capped player activity at <100 players tonight by opening a 100 slot server to skirmishes and luring players into it by being the more populated server for a time, which is the main consideration any player takes when entering a server. If you have 20/100 players in a 100 slot server and another server has 10/150 on a 150 slot server then people will still go to the 100 slot server and thus folks will be locked out and the match will be less than 2/3rds the potential size.

They could have played on any other server and there'd be a hundred more players cycling through it tonight. Limiting your population by 33.3% is not much of a contribution to the community and it beggars explanation as to why you'd do that. It'd be better if that server did not exist is my only real point. 11598


You should probably refrain from posting while drinking.There's an equilibrium which I reach and some of my most beautiful posts come from it.

[LaBelle]

Y'all some weak-willed and biased little cretins if you think PLM is wrong this time. I'm fully in agreement: The top server was a 100 player cap, and the rest of the community sat in a server with 40 guys who could have helped pop a 150 server, therefor attracting more and more players throughout the night.

This community really loves shooting itself in the foot and blaming "those damn pubbies/other regiments"

[Oleander]

who cares?!!!!!!!!!!1111!!!!!!!!

[Poorlaggedman]

People who play on public servers care. AKA how the game doesn't die into an event-only community.

11603

[Oleander]

It's a Sunday night what do you expect? The only reason you're bringing it up is in the hope all of your fear mongering will be vendicated.

[Dane Karlsen]

People who play on public servers care. AKA how the game doesn't die into an event-only community.

11603

I care. Alot of us care for this game. I for one ( and I know many others) wonder how the repsonsibilty for the game quality for the public players allways ends up in our hands.

You have a server, and have allways been a champion for the public players. Why not organize some peak hours where public players know they can find a good packed server on old Pen.? Make a steam group or something like that. Cultivate the public play as much as you can, and still have it public - Just anything apart from us having this futile debate - over and over and over again. I would prefer a closed event server with 80 organised players any day over a public server with 150. Public play can be anything from awesome to a complete shitshow. That is simply not why I play WOR. I play this to get an endorfine rush from sublime disciplin, organisation and co-operation. That is what most organised players seek. Perhaps in a less Prussian fashion than me, but still.

I am not against public players, or frown upon them. I just have other interrests. And it is my firm believe that the majority of organised players feel the same way. It is merely a matter of different approaches to the game. So why not cultivate gameplay for both, rather than making it into a question of two absolutes.?

[Poorlaggedman]

I like events too, that's my main repertoire, but I like having gameplay that can stand by itself and this game is nowhere close to that and artillery / cavalry will only exacerbate unresolved issues. The public gameplay is way more important to the lifespan of a community than just allowing a platform for some people to lock themselves away three days a week.

I'm not saying it's terrible in of itself to have locked events (I'd sure like to see your 99/100 locked right now so a real server can fill up) or that this should change now but the attitude of scheduled events as the main/only course heavily influencing development is an absolute freaking cancer to games and the effects are already apparent. Me hosting events for the public isn't going to help, it's going to do the opposite. Reliance on the event fuels empty servers. Empty servers destroys growth. Not to mention, as said many times, better infantry gameplay would help literally every aspect of the community from the bottom up.

The gameplay isn't awful but it isn't often that good unless you're living it through a highlight reel.

[TrustyJam]

As Karlsen noted, we've had this discussion many times before.

I still think increasing the player cap per server is the best way to resolve this issue and to perpetuate the game's longevity. A 200 to 300 slot server would allow for the entire WoR community (including public players) to join together on a single server every weekend. It would revitalize the community. The core leadership of units would naturally gravitate towards the existing regiments and pubbers could tag along to fill out the ranks. The regiments would benefit by recruiting the public players who followed orders and showed the most potential.

Revamping the net code and raising the player cap would help the game survive far more than artillery or cavalry.

We had a peak of 748 players on sunday (an all time high since the EA launch). So the we’re not going to be able to support the entire community on a single server.

- Trusty

[RhettVito]

STEAMCHARTS
War of Rights


https://steamcharts.com/app/424030

[Poorlaggedman]

It's not about peak hours, this is exactly the problem. This Sunday if you were a new player coming into the game you had one choice for a server.


I realize it's beyond the imagination of some for a community like this, but it is possible to have multiple full servers nearly around the clock. What steam's activity tracking shows is a relatively predictable pattern of high weekend activity and lower weekday peaks, keep in mind these high numbers are peaks and are nothing organic either, as they all revolve around events.


You don't need a chart to tell you it's Monday at 6PM EST and there's one server open with 117/150. This is the typical environment a new players comes into. This isn't the end of the world but it isn't ideal. Many have complained because they get autobanned and have no other options of servers to go to. You almost never do. You have one server and two teams and one or two options for an officer who'm you have no say in. Peak times half the time involve one or two locked servers with 50-100+ in them. Hence the screenshot of Sunday in my above post: 594 players on about 8:45pm when I took the screenshot. Only 122 in unlocked servers though. It's that public gameplay that's gonna be an albatross on everyone if it doesn't get focus. Obviously a lot of people are content with the way things are and the reason I'm such a dick about it is I know resistance to logical change is only going to grow the longer the status quo is established.


It's not even the numbers that make the biggest difference, that's just part of the experience. When you go in a server and idiots are running the show and you lose both flags three times a map and your team only becomes a greater clusterfrack because of it, that isn't very fun. People want this stuff to be fun and work out. You don't see people highlighting the honest reality of your average experience. People will come into a game to chase an experience but if they don't find it after several tries they're going to bail. That's just the way things are.


I'm just saying, among other things, why can't leadership roles mean something? Why can't an NCO actually be accountable and connected to an officer? Why's a flag (that should be flying proudly and defiantly) have to hide in the rear because it's the sole basis for the team's lifeblood of reinforcements? You know what I think when I see these German volunteers on the battlefield in double ranks? I think man, they're really screwing themselves over. They're going to get destroyed. We had a very basic platform erected for formation statuses and it hasn't been updated or revisited in 2+ years. That's no fun