Are there going to be any non multiplay servers on release?



  • I’ve had a lot of fun in the past while of playing this beta, but there are a few things that really, really bother me. One of them is that so far, the only servers I can find are multiplay servers, that change the maps and modes based on votes. Simple, but the thing I hate about this is that my favorite mode, FFA, almost never gets brought up for votes. I’m forced to play TDM, which I still like, and LTS, which I despise.

    I just want to know if it’s been stated whether or not every server (official ones at least) will remain multiplay only, because I really hate this voting system. There’s nothing like when it brings up three LTS modes, and rather than voting for a map I want, I have to pick the one I hate the least. I’d go and play on a non official server, but almost all of them are laggy or underpopulated. Several are titled “FFA only” but consist of the same voting system of LTS and TDM gametypes. I just want a server that rotates FFA only, and I want to know if they’re planning on making these.

    And apologies if this has been answered somewhere else, I couldn’t find anything about it myself.



  • If you are in Europe, I am the guy from SimRai(Wow that rhymes). I can put up a few FFA servers on release.



  • So WHY does TB rent Multiplay if it just annoys players with lagspikes and disconnects?



  • Hi,

    there is a european server “Lets do this!”……only ffa 24/7.



  • @wasd:

    Hi,

    there is a european server “Lets do this!”……only ffa 24/7.

    That sounds like a familiar server…



  • @frontliner2:

    So WHY does TB rent Multiplay if it just annoys players with lagspikes and disconnects?

    Because it’s cheaper for them.



  • @rumpelstiltskin:

    @frontliner2:

    So WHY does TB rent Multiplay if it just annoys players with lagspikes and disconnects?

    Because it’s cheaper for them.

    It’ll probably be cheaper for them if they just had less servers with another better world wide server browser that hosts chivalry.

    And there is one other that fits those requirements.

    Gameservers.com.

    They actually boast good performance on their site. Multiplay doesn’t. At least multiplay are truthful.

    Also I’ve actually seen Gameservers.com around in many other games. Ive only ever seen multiplay in chivalry.

    They are also cheaper to the average person. Torn banner is probably getting a deal with multiplay. But like I said hey could probably half the amount of servers they run.



  • @lemonater47:

    @rumpelstiltskin:

    @frontliner2:

    So WHY does TB rent Multiplay if it just annoys players with lagspikes and disconnects?

    Because it’s cheaper for them.

    It’ll probably be cheaper for them if they just had less servers with another better world wide server browser that hosts chivalry.

    And there is one other that fits those requirements.

    Gameservers.com.

    They actually boast good performance on their site. Multiplay doesn’t. At least multiplay are truthful.

    Also I’ve actually seen Gameservers.com around in many other games. Ive only ever seen multiplay in chivalry.

    They are also cheaper to the average person. Torn banner is probably getting a deal with multiplay. But like I said hey could probably half the amount of servers they run.

    Quantity>quality for TB apparently.



  • @Raizio:

    @wasd:

    Hi,

    there is a european server “Lets do this!”……only ffa 24/7.

    That sounds like a familiar server…

    Happy to plug you…even if it´s not my server…:)



  • Though another thing we might be overlooking is the availability of over a hundred servers. Or even half that amount.



  • @lemonater47:

    Though another thing we might be overlooking is the availability of over a hundred servers. Or even half that amount.

    I told them I could provide, outside EU too. But we can’t know anything for sure because we have no clue what Multiplay has agreed to.



  • @Raizio:

    @lemonater47:

    Though another thing we might be overlooking is the availability of over a hundred servers. Or even half that amount.

    I told them I could provide, outside EU too. But we can’t know anything for sure because we have no clue what Multiplay has agreed to.

    100+ servers in most parts of the world?

    I’ve never seen a simrai server at all.



  • @lemonater47:

    @Raizio:

    @lemonater47:

    Though another thing we might be overlooking is the availability of over a hundred servers. Or even half that amount.

    I told them I could provide, outside EU too. But we can’t know anything for sure because we have no clue what Multiplay has agreed to.

    100+ servers in most parts of the world?

    I’ve never seen a simrai server at all.

    That’s because we are currently only in EU and I see no point yet to grow too fast.
    But for all the other aspects that come looking into worldwide we’re pretty much ready.
    My love for Chivalry would help a lot too.



  • I was just in a 64 slot server and as suspected, no ping below 120.

    I have no idea what they were thinking.



  • @KONGEN:

    I was just in a 64 slot server and as suspected, no ping below 120.

    I have no idea what they were thinking.

    They never promised stable ping :)



  • @rumpelstiltskin:

    They never promised stable ping :)

    Or stable servers apparently. All available multiplay servers in EU just crashed.



  • @KONGEN:

    I was just in a 64 slot server and as suspected, no ping below 120.

    I have no idea what they were thinking.

    I really tried hosting a 64p server, with the best hardware I could get my hands on, and I have to tell you it’s impossible to offer a lagless experience. The server software must be optimized, there is nothing else you can do about it. It starts going downhill very fast at 40+ players. The maximum ever that I would recommend sits between 40 and 48. The server has a 1GBps up/down line, and pinging it is stable at 20ms. So it simply cannot be true what is displayed ingame as network latency, it must be network latency added to server’s CPU latency or some shit, because apparently whoever coded the server thought that not adding support for multi-threading was a good idea. Monitoring, I also found out that the CPU is never stable, it permanently spikes around to 100% and goes back to whatever is supposed to be stable (60% or so at high player count). Just so you know, the same hardware on a different server is part of a cluster, each hosting an average of 1000 players for an MMO

    Xeon E3 1245v2 at 3.8GHz
    32GB DDR3
    SSD raid, 2x120 GB



  • @OmmNomNom:

    @KONGEN:

    I was just in a 64 slot server and as suspected, no ping below 120.

    I have no idea what they were thinking.

    I really tried hosting a 64p server, with the best hardware I could get my hands on, and I have to tell you it’s impossible to offer a lagless experience. The server software must be optimized, there is nothing else you can do about it. It starts going downhill very fast at 40+ players. The maximum ever that I would recommend sits between 40 and 48. The server has a 1GBps up/down line, and pinging it is stable at 20ms. So it simply cannot be true what is displayed ingame as network latency, it must be network latency added to server’s CPU latency or some shit, because apparently whoever coded the server thought that not adding support for multi-threading was a good idea. Monitoring, I also found out that the CPU is never stable, it permanently spikes around to 100% and goes back to whatever is supposed to be stable (60% or so at high player count). Just so you know, the same hardware on a different server is part of a cluster, each hosting an average of 1000 players for an MMO

    Xeon E3 1245v2 at 3.8GHz
    32GB DDR3
    SSD raid, 2x120 GB

    The problem is the core speed mate, it needs over 4Ghz to run smoothly @ 64 players.
    Chivalry, and a lot of other gameserver software, are not multithreaded. Hence clockspeed is what they adore. SSD isn’t much of a needed thing for gameservers, you might gain 0.5 seconds for a mapchange and that is about it. And funnily the ram usage for chivalry is brilliantly low!



  • In the beta we got 64 players on a server. Couldn’t really tell how the server was doing because the server was located on the other side of Australia so most people had over 100 ping to begin with.

    But on the other servers with about 50 players it was fine once you kicked everyone with high ping over 200.

    The lack of a ping kick really holds back 64 player servers as you get about 15 people on with 200+ ping.

    With a 24 core CPU at 2.93GHz on C:MW with 32 players it sits around 10% usage.

    Main problem in Australia seems to be location. Victoria servers are just bad for some reason. WA servers are 4000KM away from the majority of Australians population and 7000KM away from NZ so many people over 100 ping there unless you are in WA. NSW servers seem to be the best for everyone including New Zealanders even though Victoria servers are closer to many including me.

    Australians shoddy Internet. No better in NZ either really. Both in the middle of upgrading most of it and still in dispute about who pays who and what gets done first.



  • @lemonater47:

    Australians shoddy Internet. No better in NZ either really. Both in the middle of upgrading most of it and still in dispute about who pays who and what gets done first.

    That is so typical and classic that it’s really nothing but sad.


Log in to reply