So to sum this up, due to crashes, (twice a day average) my server performance gets fucked, which means it is a BAD server, which means it gets blacklisted by the newly implemented server browser,
A) Getting Crashes means that Crashes should be fixed... not that you should forgo accurate reporting to server owners? Have you ever submitted any dumps for these crashes so that they can be fixed by devs?
C) There is no blacklist currently planned and even if there was... your server is exempt from it, as matso and lwf have already said.
So, I turned on perfmon and with my server idling it went from ~95 to ~70. I've got a 4770 running it on a pretty fat pipe (albeit in the middle of the pacific).
KanehJoin Date: 2012-12-11Member: 174783Members, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow
also if you increase mr, sr, and bwlimit, even tho the actual client side experience is better, you'll get a lower rating because it taxes the server more right?
Have you ever submitted any dumps for these crashes so that they can be fixed by devs?
Isn't that a modded server? You don't do those. And it's 24+ aswell, heavens forbid.
Getting one of those stable would automatically have the rest good and set, an infernal proposal.
(It's a joke, Ironhorse, a joke ! Or is it? :-? )
On the topic of the suggested performance ranking:
I understand, now that the official servers are gone for good, you're trying to
crack down on the community servers and sort them out so new players are guaranteed a lag free
experience. (Although, to be perfectly honest, 1/4th of them have crappy pcs and just warp
about. When I see that, I don't know what to do. It's really sad.).
It works, the servers that are unplayable already have a bad rating.
Your server rating will lose impact if you force sorting by performance on people.
It breaks the ability to sort servers as random Joe would expect.
Allow people to pick for themselves how they like their server browser sorted.
Here's an idea: Just like you did with the performance warning, make the sorting by performance
a default for first installs while allowing to change the sorting to peoples liking.
also if you increase mr, sr, and bwlimit, even tho the actual client side experience is better, you'll get a lower rating because it taxes the server more right?
Like they said, it should be based on the performance, why would anything like client experience matter? rofl
On a note about the removal of the UWE servers they had to take them off before this b/c the would likely all have sub par ratings and that would be a bit embarrassing that even the servers operated by UWE can not even run its own game very well.
On the statement about client side performance that is a good point maybe we should have something to tell users that are getting bad performance on their side that they need to change their settings ect with big warnings b/c they might not be able to tell if the server is causing them to lag or if it is just their geforce 3.
On more serious note:
The one thing that I absolutely do not agree with in the new browser is rearranging the list order when we can just have it load as it does now.
Also does anyone know if high ping clients or low performance clients will create issues for our servers under this ranking system?
also if you increase mr, sr, and bwlimit, even tho the actual client side experience is better, you'll get a lower rating because it taxes the server more right?
Like they said, it should be based on the performance, why would anything like client experience matter? rofl
On a note about the removal of the UWE servers they had to take them off before this b/c the would likely all have sub par ratings and that would be a bit embarrassing that even the servers operated by UWE can not even run its own game very well.
On the statement about client side performance that is a good point maybe we should have something to tell users that are getting bad performance on their side that they need to change their settings ect with big warnings b/c they might not be able to tell if the server is causing them to lag or if it is just their geforce 3.
On more serious note:
The one thing that I absolutely do not agree with in the new browser is rearranging the list order when we can just have it load as it does now.
Also does anyone know if high ping clients or low performance clients will create issues for our servers under this ranking system?
First of all changing the mr (producing more cpu load ), sr ( more cpu load + higher bandwidth usage, but possible smaller update times ) and bwlimit (allowing to use more badwidth if avaible which avoids choking which will lower your rating) does change your rating depending on if the used params really improve your servers situation or not.
About if the client connection matters for the server rating: Nope the server rating is purely based on server performance stats. So the users should still take the ping into account before joining a server.
Have you ever submitted any dumps for these crashes so that they can be fixed by devs?
Isn't that a modded server? You don't do those. And it's 24+ aswell, heavens forbid.
Getting one of those stable would automatically have the rest good and set, an infernal proposal.
(It's a joke, Ironhorse, a joke ! Or is it? :-? )
On the topic of the suggested performance ranking:
I understand, now that the official servers are gone for good, you're trying to
crack down on the community servers and sort them out so new players are guaranteed a lag free
experience. (Although, to be perfectly honest, 1/4th of them have crappy pcs and just warp
about. When I see that, I don't know what to do. It's really sad.).
It works, the servers that are unplayable already have a bad rating.
Your server rating will lose impact if you force sorting by performance on people.
It breaks the ability to sort servers as random Joe would expect.
Allow people to pick for themselves how they like their server browser sorted.
Here's an idea: Just like you did with the performance warning, make the sorting by performance
a default for first installs while allowing to change the sorting to peoples liking.
My idea as solution for this "issue" would be to sort servers after the rating but still have favs on the top of normal servers
Now that we have accurate server performance monitoring, can we get basic guidelines as to what a server needs to run well?
" 16 players fits inside a 10Mbit line... 32 players would be about 40Mbit "
Seems we can already make some assumptions on what a server needs.
So we could put it in basic easy to read format like 16 player servers should/will/could perform well with a 10Mbit line and a 2.5ghz sandy bridge or later cpu. 24 player servers should/will/could perform well with a 25Mbit line and a 4ghz sandy bridge or later cpu.
You could clean that up some more, make it easier to read, a better format all around etc but the point is easy to read guidelines that server operators can start from. From there they can fine tune it using the tools provided.
A second question, would those server operators who struggle to run 16p servers lower certain settings and get above the ok line?
My idea as solution for this "issue" would be to sort servers after the rating but still have favs on the top of normal servers
Can you elaborate on how this is a -solution- to a broken server browser where you cannot sort servers as you would expect from an non-policed sorting algorithm?
Try doing away with the last remaining servers where players can have fun playing NS2 and you'll cause yet another halving of the total playercount.
You're supposed to add elements that are fun, not take them away.
Even introducing hats would be a better idea than ranking servers by performance only.
My idea as solution for this "issue" would be to sort servers after the rating but still have favs on the top of normal servers
Can you elaborate on how this is a -solution- to a broken server browser where you cannot sort servers as you would expect from an non-policed sorting algorithm?
Try doing away with the last remaining servers where players can have fun playing NS2 and you'll cause yet another halving of the total playercount.
You're supposed to add elements that are fun, not take them away.
Even introducing hats would be a better idea than ranking servers by performance only.
If everything else remains the same except a performance label, I don't see why the players that play on these specific fun servers wont return to those servers regardless of label. If they enjoyed it before, wouldn't they still?
I also doubt they are playing ns2 just because one, or two specific servers. If for some reason they stopped going to those servers, wouldn't they go elsewhere and have fun with the mostly the same group of people?
If everything else remains the same except a performance label, I don't see why the players that play on these specific fun servers wont return to those servers regardless of label. If they enjoyed it before, wouldn't they still?
Something beside the performance rating is proposed. Type perfbrowser in your console, open the serverbrowser and try sorting servers by various columns.
If everything else remains the same except a performance label, I don't see why the players that play on these specific fun servers wont return to those servers regardless of label. If they enjoyed it before, wouldn't they still?
Something beside the performance rating is proposed. Type perfbrowser in your console, open the serverbrowser and try sorting servers by various columns.
That is a bit odd. I can not sort by what seems to by what the columns are. Honeslty it does not seem to sort anything by good or bad performing servers or by the column. It does move the servers into two different sorts though neither of which is useful.
@matso, is this how it is supposed to be? I can't even sort by ping at all. This has to be a bug.
I've tried the new browser a few times, a few diff days, etc etc. It seems sorting is fubar as well, when looking at a server, any server it will not show who is in the server. The current browser sorts fine and shows the server info (players) fine.
It would be nice if the tools to adjust our servers were made available at least 1 build before any changes to the server list takes place so that everyone has time to try out different settings and make adjustments in advanced. Also this would give time for users to report any issues before those issues then start to effect their server showing up in the server list.
I assume/hope that they plan to give us the tools to easily modify our server settings first and report back with issues while being able to see the results in the test version of the proposed server list first.
At which point will we be able to adjust and tune our server rates in order to optimize performance without being punished for it? Recently I tried to tune some of the rates on my server to see how they would effect performance and hit reg in order to obtain optimal settings as this thread is encouraging. However, it then causes a big warning message to users when they go to join the server which especially in the case of a server trying to be rookie friendly is bad.
matsoMaster of PatchesJoin Date: 2002-11-05Member: 7000Members, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver, Squad Five Gold, Reinforced - Shadow, NS2 Community Developer
Gotten a bit sidetracked, but it will get there ... in a much simplified form.
Comments
C) There is no blacklist currently planned and even if there was... your server is exempt from it, as matso and lwf have already said.
hallelujah
Getting one of those stable would automatically have the rest good and set, an infernal proposal.
(It's a joke, Ironhorse, a joke ! Or is it? :-? )
On the topic of the suggested performance ranking:
I understand, now that the official servers are gone for good, you're trying to
crack down on the community servers and sort them out so new players are guaranteed a lag free
experience. (Although, to be perfectly honest, 1/4th of them have crappy pcs and just warp
about. When I see that, I don't know what to do. It's really sad.).
It works, the servers that are unplayable already have a bad rating.
Your server rating will lose impact if you force sorting by performance on people.
It breaks the ability to sort servers as random Joe would expect.
Allow people to pick for themselves how they like their server browser sorted.
Here's an idea: Just like you did with the performance warning, make the sorting by performance
a default for first installs while allowing to change the sorting to peoples liking.
Like they said, it should be based on the performance, why would anything like client experience matter? rofl
On a note about the removal of the UWE servers they had to take them off before this b/c the would likely all have sub par ratings and that would be a bit embarrassing that even the servers operated by UWE can not even run its own game very well.
On the statement about client side performance that is a good point maybe we should have something to tell users that are getting bad performance on their side that they need to change their settings ect with big warnings b/c they might not be able to tell if the server is causing them to lag or if it is just their geforce 3.
On more serious note:
The one thing that I absolutely do not agree with in the new browser is rearranging the list order when we can just have it load as it does now.
Also does anyone know if high ping clients or low performance clients will create issues for our servers under this ranking system?
First of all changing the mr (producing more cpu load ), sr ( more cpu load + higher bandwidth usage, but possible smaller update times ) and bwlimit (allowing to use more badwidth if avaible which avoids choking which will lower your rating) does change your rating depending on if the used params really improve your servers situation or not.
About if the client connection matters for the server rating: Nope the server rating is purely based on server performance stats. So the users should still take the ping into account before joining a server.
My idea as solution for this "issue" would be to sort servers after the rating but still have favs on the top of normal servers
" 16 players fits inside a 10Mbit line... 32 players would be about 40Mbit "
Seems we can already make some assumptions on what a server needs.
So we could put it in basic easy to read format like 16 player servers should/will/could perform well with a 10Mbit line and a 2.5ghz sandy bridge or later cpu. 24 player servers should/will/could perform well with a 25Mbit line and a 4ghz sandy bridge or later cpu.
You could clean that up some more, make it easier to read, a better format all around etc but the point is easy to read guidelines that server operators can start from. From there they can fine tune it using the tools provided.
A second question, would those server operators who struggle to run 16p servers lower certain settings and get above the ok line?
Try doing away with the last remaining servers where players can have fun playing NS2 and you'll cause yet another halving of the total playercount.
You're supposed to add elements that are fun, not take them away.
Even introducing hats would be a better idea than ranking servers by performance only.
I also doubt they are playing ns2 just because one, or two specific servers. If for some reason they stopped going to those servers, wouldn't they go elsewhere and have fun with the mostly the same group of people?
Something beside the performance rating is proposed. Type perfbrowser in your console, open the serverbrowser and try sorting servers by various columns.
@matso, is this how it is supposed to be? I can't even sort by ping at all. This has to be a bug.