Make server bigger

[GOOMB]

i pretty sure I'm not the only one who gets really frustrated when TC server one is full and keep refreshing.

[[TC]►Ash◄]

Unfortunately we have reached the maximum capacity LFS allows. Even if we opened up more slots (to a maximum of 48 I beleive), it would still be pointless as we will have people struggling to get onto the track due to the limitation of 40 cars maximum on track at one time.

Ash

[[TC]►Nick◄]

There's no point making it bigger as there are no additional spots on the track for cars to join. It's an LFS limit rather than a TC limit. This has been discussed many times before and it's incredibly unlikely to be implemented unless the max car slots increase.

Try using the search function next time.

[GOOMB]

but at least there will also be a higher chance of people exiting the game and make us wait less

[[TC]►Ash◄]

(2016-10-18 17:29)GeneralMcBadass Wrote:  but at least there will also be a higher chance of people exiting the game and make us wait less

How could we fairly prioritize players access to the tracks? Simple answer is we cannot. We will have people moaning and fighting about who should be allowed access first, which unfortunately is something we are not prepared to babysit.

---

(2016-10-18 17:29)GeneralMcBadass Wrote:  but at least there will also be a higher chance of people exiting the game and make us wait less

And statistically there will be no change to the "chance" of people leaving.

[Ph4nToM]

I've said it before but...if people joined Server Two during prime time we might have two populated servers. Instead people rather spam join on Server One or use TS to ask if someone is leaving.

[[TC]»Pete«]

TL;DR: We're not increasing the amount of server slots. Use server 2 if server 1 is full.

As Ash has already mentioned the maximum amount of cars that are allowed on track is currently 40 and this is a limit set by LFS itself.

We trialed a 47 connection server a while ago and it was a terrible idea. The 7 people who were stuck in spectate would be competing for space on the track and people on track would have to be careful not to leave the track because their place would be taken.

To alleviate these problems, we simply do not allow these extra 7 people to connect such that a space in the server guarantees you a space on track.

We also have 2 servers, more people need to get into the habit of joining server two when server one is full. When you hit ~10 people in server two, it will fill up. It just will.

This is a classic case of, 'bigger isn't necessarily better'.

[Tingle]

(2016-10-18 18:02)Pete Wrote:  TL;DR: We're not increasing the amount of server slots. Use server 2 if server 1 is full.

As Ash has already mentioned the maximum amount of cars that are allowed on track is currently 40 and this is a limit set by LFS itself.

We trialed a 47 connection server a while ago and it was a terrible idea. The 7 people who were stuck in spectate would be competing for space on the track and people on track would have to be careful not to leave the track because their place would be taken.

To alleviate these problems, we simply do not allow these extra 7 people to connect such that a space in the server guarantees you a space on track.

We also have 2 servers, more people need to get into the habit of joining server two when server one is full. When you hit ~10 people in server two, it will fill up. It just will.

This is a classic case of, 'bigger isn't necessarily better'.

It would be cool to see a sort of incentive system in place to encourage people to join server 2. For example, a very basic system might consist of offering X% more money to those in server 2 (given server 1 is at or near to capacity) and have this bonus decrease as the two servers become balanced.

In a way, it'd be working similarly to how Uber operates by giving their drivers more money* to encourage them to enter certain areas at certain times, depending on demand. Some sort of natural load balancing between the servers might be observed as a result... It would be very interesting to see the effects of it at least.

*At the expense of customers, however, this is irrelevant in the context of [TC].

[[TC] Blacktop]

(2016-10-18 17:29)GeneralMcBadass Wrote:  but at least there will also be a higher chance of people exiting the game and make us wait less

I've spent plenty time on servers back in my demo days to know that if there are people stuck waiting to get on track, the "Shift+S=NOS" spam and its variants tend to get very old, very quickly.

[Ph4nToM]

I wish tingle's suggestion was a thing.

[Tris]

Tingle's suggestion sounds like a good idea, would like to see it at least tried (if it is even possible to be pulled off properly).
+1 for that.

[[TC]»Pete«]

(2016-10-19 01:14)Tingle Wrote:  It would be cool to see a sort of incentive system in place to encourage people to join server 2. For example, a very basic system might consist of offering X% more money to those in server 2 (given server 1 is at or near to capacity) and have this bonus decrease as the two servers become balanced.

In a way, it'd be working similarly to how Uber operates by giving their drivers more money* to encourage them to enter certain areas at certain times, depending on demand. Some sort of natural load balancing between the servers might be observed as a result... It would be very interesting to see the effects of it at least.

*At the expense of customers, however, this is irrelevant in the context of [TC].

You say that this would balance the servers but in actual fact the converse is true. By incentivising the use of server two, there is inherent imbalance here, at least until the servers become balanced whether that be by people leaving server one to make good of the increased income or by 'natural load balancing'.

The fact remains that people will go where people are and the only way to change that is to change peoples mindsets or to increase interest in CityDriving so that servers fill without issue.

[Dino]

I get Tingle's point tho, there are like a lot people at the evening who try to join Server 1 and after trying for a minute and it keeps being full they might go play another game instead of joining Server 2. If we would somehow make the people join server 2 we could get more players on the servers.

[[TC] Shino]

I think the best solution is a full stats reset, because like gumball, most aim to come first, therefore people would play more trying to achieve rank 1 on robber/cop xp leaderboards etc etc i just think it will populate the servers a bit more


i have no idea what im on about.

[Tingle]

(2016-10-20 14:36)Pete Wrote:  

(2016-10-19 01:14)Tingle Wrote:  It would be cool to see a sort of incentive system in place to encourage people to join server 2. For example, a very basic system might consist of offering X% more money to those in server 2 (given server 1 is at or near to capacity) and have this bonus decrease as the two servers become balanced.

In a way, it'd be working similarly to how Uber operates by giving their drivers more money* to encourage them to enter certain areas at certain times, depending on demand. Some sort of natural load balancing between the servers might be observed as a result... It would be very interesting to see the effects of it at least.

*At the expense of customers, however, this is irrelevant in the context of [TC].

You say that this would balance the servers but in actual fact the converse is true. By incentivising the use of server two, there is inherent imbalance here, at least until the servers become balanced whether that be by people leaving server one to make good of the increased income or by 'natural load balancing'.

The fact remains that people will go where people are and the only way to change that is to change peoples mindsets or to increase interest in CityDriving so that servers fill without issue.

Although the cause of the imbalance won't necessarily be solved, the imbalance of players itself would be remedied, which is more than can be said for the current situation.

[Adorable]

Is it possible to have some sort of auto redirection from TC1 => TC2?

[[TC]►Ash◄]

Not sure if thats possible. Even if it was possible with insim, you would have to be physically "in" the server to let the insim redirect you. Full up server = no entry = no Insim to redirect.

[[TC]»Pete«]

No, it's not possible and it's also a bad idea. Could be open for abuse by other hosts.

[Owl]

(2016-10-20 19:00)Pete Wrote:  No, it's not possible and it's also a bad idea. Could be open for abuse by other hosts.

Unless it was secure i.e like having a verification process. Or some sort of security process to close any holes.
It would actually be a good idea as well, then people would actually use server 2.

[Tingle]

(2016-10-21 09:26)Skoda Wrote:  Unless it was secure i.e like having a verification process. Or some sort of security process to close any holes.
It would actually be a good idea as well, then people would actually use server 2.

(2016-10-20 19:00)Pete Wrote:  No, it's not possible