[Suggesion] Player Cap Changes #2

Discussion in 'Suggestion Box Archives' started by irlylikeicedtea, Feb 16, 2015.


Good idea or bad idea?

Good idea definitely. 3 vote(s) 33.3%
It could use a few corrections. 5 vote(s) 55.6%
  1. A while back I had requested for the player caps to be raised a little to fix the growing problem (for free players) of full servers. That got shot down pretty quick as the server would not be able to keep up with 100 more players and it would lag et cetera. Now I have a new idea. I don't know how practical it is since I don't host any large servers for anything, but I'll give it a try.

    Here is the suggestion: instead of having a player cap for each SMP server... How about you COMBINE the player caps... So just have a total of 400 (or however many there are currently allowed with all servers full) players online at once. You say you have multiple actual computers running to host the servers? Combine their power. That is not a hard task and I am sure Aikar could work around that one.

    So there it is, simple and outright.

  2. Perhaps this needs a rethink. +1 on creativity though.

    This does not help the population or the lag problem I am afraid. What you are suggesting is like a 10-way see-saw and we all have nooses around our neck which represent lag. The person's weight is the play count. If one person (or server) gains more weight (player count), the server gets very laggy with the noose tightening around the guy's neck. Sure, the other servers have less weight and therefore less lag, but it puts a lot of stress on that one person who could eventually choke and die (crash)

    Not a perfect simile. This idea will not work for lag reasons mainly :/
  3. <confusedlook.jpg>
    Your simile is like an unemployed counterfeiter. It makes no cents.

    I didn't vote because the No option seemed ind of mean. I don't think resources can be allocated dynamically like you are suggesting. I still would like to see the actual number of players on each individual server when I log in rather than the whole server so I can make an intelligent decision on where to try and join when a server is full rather than playing a guessing game figuring out where there is room for me.
    boozle628 and SkyDragonv8 like this.
  4. I was kind of thinking that when one server has more than the others, that the resources dedicated to the less stressed servers could go towards more stressed servers. Sorry if that was what you said is not possible, I could not exactly comprehend you post entirely... :eek:
    SkyDragonv8 likes this.
  5. Even I couldn't comprehend it. It looked so good in my head ;-;
    Pab10S and boozle628 like this.
  6. I have never had a issue with lag except for the other day at the scavenger hunt event, with the possibility of winning money or a Krysyyjane head people went nuts and flooded in. They flooded smp1, and started spamming the chat, asking questions, complaining about lag. Events are great and all but that must have affected the people just trying to play in smp1 which isn't fair. There needs to be something to help with server lag if they plan on hosting events like that, i do firefloor however and thats well managed and done, lag usually isn't caused.
    ShelLuser and boozle628 like this.
  7. The reduction of player caps was to ENSURE (for best attempt) at keeping it lag free :)

    But ultimately this won't work. If Minecraft was designed better that you could distribute the load across multiple servers, yes, but they did not design it that way.

    We pretty much had to find a good base line on "whats the max a single CPU core can support"

    It really boils down to the power of a single CPU core. Extra servers won't solve the problem because they would still have the same CPU power. We're not maximizing the output of any single server, its always down to a single core.

    This is purely due to how Minecraft is programmed and its something the community has been pushing Mojang to fix. They worked on it for 1.8 but failed to get it out with 1.8... so maybe in 2 years with 1.9 we will have proper multithreading, but at the same time Microsoft will make the game perform another 30% worse then too :/
  8. I did try to enable that but something blew up in code. The Ping events are not running in a safe manner, so I had to immediately revert it.

    I will add ticket to track as a reminder about that issue though, as I had forgotten about it.
    Pab10S likes this.
  9. Oh ok, but yeah as i said its nice to have events and all but i hope it just doesn't lag the other people in the server. I play firefloor usually now, its really well done and managed. I guess its because its done often so its handle better. But the sudden event was a tad out of hand, if not for the lag being caused it was the spam. My eyes were actually starting to hurt with all the words *~*
    And before i stop saying stuff ima throw a pokeball at this rare pokemon that just appeared called Aikar