Why do servers have more playerslots than they can handle?



  • This question is running through my head every time I join a 32players server.

    I played on 50p servers without lag (just some FPS drop).
    But I played on many 32p servers that LAGGED AS HELL! They started lagging as soon as there were more than 24 players.

    What the F***?
    Why don’t they just remove some playerslots so it never lags? So quantity over quality?? Better more players than no lag?
    I agree that the game gets more epic the more players there are, but the epic feeling is totally gone when everybody is getting teleported, and you get killed/teamkilled or kill/teamkill during a big lag.

    People tell me: Why do you add more playerslots to your servers than they can obviously handle?Same goes for official servers… ESPECIALLY for official servers. In my experience they are the biggest lagservers ever.

    This is not a hate-thread. I just can’t understand what’s going on, but I’d like to understand.



  • How the server copes is partially down to the pings of players joining but also on the server resources itself as well as how many servers are sharing a physical box (since you never have one server running on a physical machine in a datacentre)

    Some providers may have better hardware than others, some lpayers want to rent high slot server but then also want the cheapest possible price and that’s where problem occur

    For myself I run several 50 slot servers and we used to run 64 slots (but scaled it back due to stability issues) however if we could get 64 working with stability I’d return to that (hell, I’d even try a crack at 128 slots if I could) as for me the bigger battles are the best.



  • @MonkeyFiend:

    How the server copes is partially down to the pings of players joining but also on the server resources itself as well as how many servers are sharing a physical box (since you never have one server running on a physical machine in a datacentre)

    Some providers may have better hardware than others, some lpayers want to rent high slot server but then also want the cheapest possible price and that’s where problem occur

    For myself I run several 50 slot servers and we used to run 64 slots (but scaled it back due to stability issues) however if we could get 64 working with stability I’d return to that (hell, I’d even try a crack at 128 slots if I could) as for me the bigger battles are the best.

    In agree that bigger battles are the best. But only if it doesn’t teleport and lag as hell.



  • If you ever make a 128 player server, add a FFA Arena match somewhere in the map rotation.



  • @Event:

    If you ever make a 128 player server, add a FFA Arena match somewhere in the map rotation.

    Zweihänder-LMB spam ftw :P



  • @Event:

    If you ever make a 128 player server, add a FFA Arena match somewhere in the map rotation.

    It’s be like a mosh pit with swords :O



  • i don’t like TO games with any more than 24p. The game doesn’t seem to handle over 24 too well.

    And besides, it’s mostly pretty impossible trying to push objectives on a 32 man server, unless the defending team is completely incompetent. Turns into a TDM match, but with a time limit rather than death limit.



  • This is my biggest problem with the game that stops me enjoying it and forces me to disconnect. Personally I’ve never had a good ping on a server with more than 24 players. A ping of 50-60 is acceptable (I guess). Once it goes higher than this (it sits around 80-100 on 32 man servers) the game gets considerably less fun and faster weapons become even more difficult to parry.

    I also second the opinion that the official servers are the worst. When I play on the Aus - NSW servers here in Australia they have 24 man limit but my ping always sky rockets combined with teleporting.

    I day dream of a Chivalry 2 some time in the future where they use an engine that has way better networking. Oh to play this game with a ping of 20-30 like every other game I play online…



  • It doesn’t have anything to do with the server being able to handle 32 players or not, it has to do with Chivalry’s netcode just behaving utterly bizarrely. You can increase the upload limit of the server as much as you like and Chivalry will still only utilise about as much upload bandwidth as a 6-man TF2 server.



  • @Crysack:

    It doesn’t have anything to do with the server being able to handle 32 players or not, it has to do with Chivalry’s netcode just behaving utterly bizarrely. You can increase the upload limit of the server as much as you like and Chivalry will still only utilise about as much upload bandwidth as a 6-man TF2 server.

    it’s horrid



  • The unreal engine is horrible for multiplayer games. In comparison to other smal company unreal games chivalry is actually quite good.



  • @clayton-bigsby:

    i don’t like TO games with any more than 24p. The game doesn’t seem to handle over 24 too well.

    And besides, it’s mostly pretty impossible trying to push objectives on a 32 man server, unless the defending team is completely incompetent. Turns into a TDM match, but with a time limit rather than death limit.

    Same here.



  • I agree it gets worse with more people, but 32 players is officially supported. Sometimes people will just stop spawning in and pings go nuts when they were fine a second or two earlier.

    Look at this thread (my experience with it is at the very bottom, with images):

    viewtopic.php?f=87&t=19754

    I don’t think this is lag, I think servers are just tanking. It also seems to be specific to the map itself, though it can happen on any map. Once the map is changed the problem is fixed for a while and doesn’t require a server restart. I have no idea what the hell it could be, but I’m not one of those guys who would.

    While we were playing (I was playing with 2-3 guys) we saw steady frame rate lag issues, but our FPS was showing as normal. When it went on long enough it turned into that.



  • well it’s not always that the pings go nuts, i mean that sucks… but it’s more that i like to stick to 24 since 32 man servers are just a clusterfuck… and actually attempting an objective can seem impossible with constant waves of defenders spawning and a long way to push through them all.

    Plus archers… usually like 8+ of them.



  • Deadliest warrior 64 player.

    Good luck.

    Well actually it good be fine. The thing is its their second game in unreal. Now they know what’s the best most efficient ways of doing things. Like networking and graphics stuff. Also they have a studio to work in this time.

    Its way more difficult to make an already completed game or any program more efficient at handling things. It usually requires a massive change to the whole thing. As changing one thing will probably break a bunch of things.

    So deadliest warrior could be far better at supporting large amounts of players.



  • if they know the most efficient way of doing things, how come it’s not implemented in the current game? lol



  • @clayton-bigsby:

    if they know the most efficient way of doing things, how come it’s not implemented in the current game? lol

    Its way more difficult to make an already completed game or any program more efficient at handling things.

    Just like when doing a painting, and when you think your’e done with it, you notice a lot of flaws that would have been easy to fix when the painting was in its earlier stages.



  • @SavageBeatings:

    @clayton-bigsby:

    if they know the most efficient way of doing things, how come it’s not implemented in the current game? lol

    Its way more difficult to make an already completed game or any program more efficient at handling things.

    Just like when doing a painting, and when you think your’e done with it, you notice a lot of flaws that would have been easy to fix when the painting was in its earlier stages.

    All of this talk is really going against the “if we make it work in DW it’s likely it’ll help out CMW talk” the devs and others have been saying.



  • @quigleyer:

    @SavageBeatings:

    @clayton-bigsby:

    if they know the most efficient way of doing things, how come it’s not implemented in the current game? lol

    Its way more difficult to make an already completed game or any program more efficient at handling things.

    Just like when doing a painting, and when you think your’e done with it, you notice a lot of flaws that would have been easy to fix when the painting was in its earlier stages.

    All of this talk is really going against the “if we make it work in DW it’s likely it’ll help out CMW talk” the devs and others have been saying.

    Difficult but not impossible. It will probably be the end of the year before we might see any networking or performance improvements for servers.

    I was generalising. I don’t know how hard it will be for chivalry. But in my experiences and what I have been taught its always harder to make core changes.



  • @lemonater47:

    Difficult but not impossible. It will probably be the end of the year before we might see any networking or performance improvements for servers.

    I was generalising. I don’t know how hard it will be for chivalry. But in my experiences and what I have been taught its always harder to make core changes.

    And we do continue to see more bugs spring up out of fixes, I definitely see it could be an issue. Must be frustrating as hell.


Log in to reply