Servers and NS2
Argathor
Join Date: 2011-07-18 Member: 110942Members, Squad Five Blue
Join Date: 2011-07-18 Member: 110942Members, Squad Five Blue
<b>Summary</b> - (short version)
I think that server performance is having a significant negative impact on the active community and that UWE should make optimising the NS2 server software a priority. Which will then encourage a much larger portion of the current testers to play actively, in turn increasing the number of people buying the game (due to friends/sites/etc talking about it).
<b>Main Arguement</b> - (long version)
I believe that the current server ecosystem is seriously damaging the active testing community, most specifically when new patches are released.
We all see that as a new patch is released there is a large increase in activity as people come back to see what state the game is in. This lasts a day or two, then significantly drops off...until the next patch. I feel most people are waiting for a performance sweet spot, where they feel comfortable playing the game and can focus on the gameplay instead of being frustrated with client/server issues. The last patch made a huge step towards solving the client side issues and I am expecting the next patch to continue that.
<b>What does this have to do with Servers?</b>
Most active players know there is a shortage of 'good' servers, which can run the game to an acceptable standard. Taking the EU as an example, there is only one server (HBZ1). So when a new patch is released the influx of players joins the servers they see on the list (quite frequently not HBZ1, or its full so most have to join other servers). The other servers are terrible causing several major gameplay issues, once player numbers reach 8-10, including but not limited to: plain rubber banding, no hit registration and constant stuttering.
Not only do these in no way reflect the current potential for NS2 gameplay, but they actively put people off the game time and time again. The last few patches I have seen hoards of people all complaining that the game clearly isn't in a state they can play, due to these issues.
<b>What can be done about it?</b>
Other than asking people to take their servers down until the hardware requirements drop there is only one way to resolve this. That is for UWE to make optimising the NS2 server software a priority. I think the benefits are worth while for everyone involved. The players get a more active community, people to play with at any time of the day, tournaments, more casts, etc. While UWE gets a larger testing pool generating more feedback/balance statistics, it also generates far more excitement for NS2 which will encourage more publicity and more people to buy the game (to play in the beta). Games like Minecraft benefited hugely from pre-release sales and while there is a lot behind their 4 million sales it would not have been possible unless the state of the game encouraged people to play. It sometimes feels like we play inspite of the game, not because of it.
I think that server performance is having a significant negative impact on the active community and that UWE should make optimising the NS2 server software a priority. Which will then encourage a much larger portion of the current testers to play actively, in turn increasing the number of people buying the game (due to friends/sites/etc talking about it).
<b>Main Arguement</b> - (long version)
I believe that the current server ecosystem is seriously damaging the active testing community, most specifically when new patches are released.
We all see that as a new patch is released there is a large increase in activity as people come back to see what state the game is in. This lasts a day or two, then significantly drops off...until the next patch. I feel most people are waiting for a performance sweet spot, where they feel comfortable playing the game and can focus on the gameplay instead of being frustrated with client/server issues. The last patch made a huge step towards solving the client side issues and I am expecting the next patch to continue that.
<b>What does this have to do with Servers?</b>
Most active players know there is a shortage of 'good' servers, which can run the game to an acceptable standard. Taking the EU as an example, there is only one server (HBZ1). So when a new patch is released the influx of players joins the servers they see on the list (quite frequently not HBZ1, or its full so most have to join other servers). The other servers are terrible causing several major gameplay issues, once player numbers reach 8-10, including but not limited to: plain rubber banding, no hit registration and constant stuttering.
Not only do these in no way reflect the current potential for NS2 gameplay, but they actively put people off the game time and time again. The last few patches I have seen hoards of people all complaining that the game clearly isn't in a state they can play, due to these issues.
<b>What can be done about it?</b>
Other than asking people to take their servers down until the hardware requirements drop there is only one way to resolve this. That is for UWE to make optimising the NS2 server software a priority. I think the benefits are worth while for everyone involved. The players get a more active community, people to play with at any time of the day, tournaments, more casts, etc. While UWE gets a larger testing pool generating more feedback/balance statistics, it also generates far more excitement for NS2 which will encourage more publicity and more people to buy the game (to play in the beta). Games like Minecraft benefited hugely from pre-release sales and while there is a lot behind their 4 million sales it would not have been possible unless the state of the game encouraged people to play. It sometimes feels like we play inspite of the game, not because of it.
Comments
And that's with the box running 3 full TF2 servers also.
Oh and a linux server would be really good.
However, this have been improved alot during the beta. And I can't imagine that they will stop here.
I have played every single build, and there is a <b>huge</b> difference in server performance from the first builds, to the current.
Also the other problem, is that people mostly don't know the performance of the servers, adding the tickrate to the server list could help solve that.
Other than that; "lol green armor" -> OP.
That is a fantastic idea, swalk! Is this possible? It would be a much more effective for gameplay than ping at the moment.
<!--quoteo(post=1885716:date=Nov 19 2011, 05:32 PM:name=swalk)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (swalk @ Nov 19 2011, 05:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1885716"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Other than that; "lol green armor" -> OP.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
haha!
As you've seen, they have put server performance as a high priority from the beginning. But one man (Max) can only do so much. Now that they have another engine programmer (Dushan), I think we'll start seeing much faster progress on this end.
Another issue is that everytime the server performance is increased, server owners simply increase the player limit until it is as laggy as it was before. For example, in the alpha/early beta, servers used to start tanking with 6-10 players. Now some can handle 12-16 without significant lag. However, I'd expect once server performance is improved, server owners will simply increase the player limit into the 18-22 player range, making matches potentially as laggy as they were before.
About to improve!
<img src="http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3559/45242079.png" border="0" class="linked-image" />
<img src="http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3559/45242079.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
o.0 Might need to increase the server tick cap just for aus pure lol..
<img src="http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/3559/45242079.png" border="0" class="linked-image" /><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Holy ######! Did you OC a 2600k with LN2 there? Now you have to post the full specs for that box!
I remember reading an update saying footsteps were just recently removed from the the server processing side of things, which i think is great. I believe they only need to update the animation sequence now to sync footsteps perfectly (of any enemies now within audio range).
2500K on air, they are amazing chips. Temps are reasonable, 71/78/81/73 max and currently 21 hours into a prime95 blend test. This isn't running yet, will probably be in a couple weeks time.
The players. When I play NS2 most of the time I play vs the same players.
F.e. If Swalk is on the Server i know we will have an early Lerk. It's sometimes just getting boring knowing all the players and theyr playstyle. It gets too predictable atleast in pub.
I've got a 2500K OC to 4.3 right now. While I don't doubt you can get up to 5.0 on a 2500K, I'm a bit skeptical that it'll be safe to run 24/7. I'd say 4.5 is more reasonable for a 2500K and 4.7-4.8 for a 2600K.
It is safe if you only run 1 core at those speeds and most chips won't get over x51.
I run my system at 4,8 ghz with no capped volt (mainboard does it) and it is prime stable 24/7 at 76-82 degrees (H7p with silenx extreme pro fans). But those are way to high specs for a "normal" server today. Without the guys from Inversion/HBZ/Aus ns NS2 would be no fun at all!
So thx at those server admin moving whole high end system to a ISP and letting us play for free on those servers.
Maybe it would be a great idea that UWE runs his own High end Servers in EU/US/AUS and Asia so they see how much performance and work is needed and they may get direct logs (maybe even more derailed ones than we can get) and there would also be a offical place to play with at 99,999% on time.
I'm actually always pushing the limits of CPU's with overclocks, I've always heard that the life is shortened from about 10 years down to 3-4 or whatever (not actual numbers), but ive never had a cpu die. If it did happen, I would be amazed (and not too hurt, after all its only $218AUD).
As far as I'm concerned, if it's stable, and its not too hot, I don't care how many volts are going through it. (I think its 1.46 though). Using a prime95 custom blend with about 85% RAM usage, i let it run 23h42minutes untill I stopped it. Max temp was 81c.
On release of SB, I read on <a href="http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1578110" target="_blank">hardforum.com</a> from an ASUS rep that they had 100 CPU's, and their average results were:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Results are representative of 100 D2 CPUs that were binned and tested for stability under load; these results will most likely represent retail CPUs.
1. Approximately 50% of CPUs can go up to 4.4~4.5 GHz
2. Approximately 40% of CPUs can go up to 4.6~4.7 GHz
3. Approximately 10% of CPUs can go up to 4.8~5 GHz (50+ multipliers are about 2% of this group)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't doubt that I got lucky, I didn't mean all chips will reach it, but the fact that some do is why I made that comment.
As far as I'm concerned, if it's stable, and its not too hot, I don't care how many volts are going through it. (I think its 1.46 though). Using a prime95 custom blend with about 85% RAM usage, i let it run 23h42minutes untill I stopped it. Max temp was 81c.
On release of SB, I read on <a href="http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1578110" target="_blank">hardforum.com</a> from an ASUS rep that they had 100 CPU's, and their average results were:
I don't doubt that I got lucky, I didn't mean all chips will reach it, but the fact that some do is why I made that comment.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Fair point. I'm a bit paranoid about OCing, so I don't generally push my CPU to its limit. If its 24/7 stable, then more power to ya :) We can always use more high-powered servers in the beta.
On another note, are you going to co-locate the server in a data center or run it off a home connection?
<a href="http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16541" target="_blank">http://hwbot.org/forum/showthread.php?t=16541</a>
The NS2 website states as a perk (to pre-ordering the game) "Immediate beta access on Steam (updates weekly)". This suggests that the game is in a state where we can play it. However our ability to play is reliant on something, community members going to unreasonable lengths to host servers capable of hosting the game.
Quite frankly, the only reason those of us that pre-purchased the game have the ability to play, currently, is because of those few community members hosting decent servers.
This causes considerable damage to the NS2 community, as the hoards of people coming back when a patch is released end up on any random server (that cannot acceptably host the game, due to the NS2 server software having terrible performance) and think that the game is still in a bad state and unplayable.
I realise this is just an early beta, but the situation seems unacceptably unreasonable to me. If there was even a single UWE server (correct me if I am wrong, I have never seen one- although im sure they have one for the playtesters?), it would show some understanding of the problem but at the moment it seems like the developers are simply turning a blind eye to the problem.
(edit: Infact, after thinking about it, surely some of the money from selling pre-orders of NS2 should have gone straight into supplying (1 or more) servers for said people to play on?)
On a side note we have played some 6v6 on Turtle lately and it lags significantly less than Summit on the very same servers. Intresting?
I play a lot and rarely, if ever, see anyone on an EU server that isn't HBZ. The one time I did this week, I joined and it was rubberbanding, ruining the game, so I got people to move back to HBZ. I am sure well over 90% of EU games are played on HBZ, but only UWE would know that for certain.
<!--quoteo(post=1886333:date=Nov 23 2011, 07:00 PM:name=Grizzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grizzy @ Nov 23 2011, 07:00 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1886333"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->On a side note we have played some 6v6 on Turtle lately and it lags significantly less than Summit on the very same servers. Intresting?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is very interesting. Turtle's performance improvements are significant and I assume graphical, although I am not sure how it is made differently to Summit, perhaps bOb has some insight? The outcome is a lack of the 'stuttering' that (from what I can gather) comes from occasionally loading (and seeing a flash of) the entire map, most frequently around the rocky areas (vent and xroads).
Server performance is almost directly proportional to playercount (and map size, but playercount is the biggest factor that I've seen). Its not that the latest beta build can't be played on anything but an uber OCd i7 2600k, its just that they can't do it with a 16-20 max playercount. If you have lesser hardware, you have to cap your server at 8-12 max playercount. The problem is that people don't want to play a 4v4 or 6v6 when they can get an 8v8 or 10v10, so everyone plays on the larger servers.
What game are you playing Scardy? The EUs only decent server has a player limit of 14 (enough for 6v6 and spectators/casters, or 7v7 pub play). There are only two EU servers with a lower player limit and they both rubberband at 10+ players. The rest have equal or higher player limits than HBZ and obviously suffer if anyone plays on them. I think most people would be content with 6v6 if the server performance was reliable, im yet to see any other EU servers with acceptable performance with 10+ players though. Some are close, but as soon as you attack a hive, or use arcs, they rubberband.
Even 30 server fps that most servers are limited to aren't that much if you think about it as up to 33ms added lag.
So I spent some time trying to gather some NS2 server data (that I posted in <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=115473" target="_blank">this thread</a>), so that we're not just trading conflicting anecdotes. I think it explains our differing experiences, though. In the US, we have roughly 2 servers (Inversion 1/2 and Darkside are run off of the same box iirc + Team 156) with good performance and a 16 max playercount. In the EU, you guys only really have 1 server (HBZ) with good performance and a 14 max playercount. While I don't know the exact US vs EU playerbases I'd suspect they'd either be pretty similar (or EU would have more), such that you guys are getting a bit screwed on the availability of high performing servers as compared to us in the states.
Ultimately, NS2 will get to the point where you don't need a super OCd i5/i7 to have good performance in the 14-16 max playercount range, but in the meantime there is definitely a need for a 2nd (and possibly 3rd) such server in the EU. I'm not too familiar with EU NS2 clan scene, but this might be a good place for one of the EU clans to host such a server (Duplex or maybe Pub.EU?) Otherwise, you guys are going to be out-of-luck for the near future.
Thanks for the link, as your data shows there are two servers with over 14 slots in the EU. At the time of my reply, both were showing over 100ms (consistently, I refreshed a lot until I was sure I had got all the EU servers) so I discounted them.
Either way I think we both agree on several points:
1) It takes an i5/i7 with a monster OC to host an NS2 server, with an acceptable player count (13-14, so you can have a match + caster/spectator).
2) There are not enough servers capable of hosting the game to a standard that doesn't ruin gameplay.
When a patch hits, we usually have 3-4 servers full, the problem is that 2-3 of them are rubbish and put people off the game. These servers also have a high turnover rate (players quitting quickly) due to the performance issues. If all those people played on good servers instead, far more would realise that NS2 is actually very fun at the moment, despite the problems. Then we would need more than just 1 extra server in the EU.
It would be wonderful if another EU individual/clan setup server(s). But realistically can anyone expect that? Should they? Lets look at what they would have to do:
1) Buy at least £500 worth of CPU/Mobo/PSU/RAM/etc.
2) Build it and overclock it to an extreme level.
3) Vigorously test said overclock to ensure it is stable.
4) Install server software/configure the server properly.
5) Have it colocated to a datacenter (however much that costs, choosing the right host, etc.
6) Maintain the server properly, to ensure it continues working, troubleshoot any problems, etc. (If it doesn't have plesk on it, I dont even know where to start!)
Now I will admit, that is my best guess at what it would take, perhaps a current (good) server hoster like dePARA or endar could give more accurate details and their feedback on this thread?
The <b>time</b> and <b>money</b> required is quite frankly <b>ridiculous</b>. All I am really looking for is UWE to let us know they realise the current situation is unacceptable and that they plan on doing something about it in the not too distant future. That is not much to ask.
Atleast we in pub.eu and i think guys in Duplex too would love to have their own server. But investing this kind of money to a server hardware that might be redundant after a patch or two is just not a thing many people are ready to do. Also having a desktop server in a datacenter is very expensive, i have asked the price in couple of places and it has ranged from 80€ to 150€ month. It is expensive because datacenters are designed for rack servers rather than desktop servers and desktop servers take a lot of space and cause costs when they need to be moved in and out etc.
I will actually have my server that is equipped with Q6600 and 8Gb RAM in a datacenter next week. I wish I could run ns2 servers on this computer someday but I highly doubt it. I think i would be ready to buy a new server hardware if I knew that the server specs are not coming down enough for us to see good servers in a 3 months or so.