Creating 50 players official servers



  • Hello, I came up with an Idea - How about creating 50 players official servers? I know it will be laggy and not very stable, But with the strong servers that Torn Banner have - I think it will run decent, almost as the same performance of 32 players server.



  • NO, there is already a 70 player server up on the west coast and it is a super laggy pos and just plain silly that it even get busy with that lag. Worse off is there is not high ping kicker. If official servers implemented a 70 max ping limit on it, maybe but they dont even put ping limits on any official servers and is one of the main reasons they suck so bad.



  • But the none-official 50 players servers on this game are the most played ones (at least in europe) correct me if im wrong…



  • @Metal:

    But the none-official 50 players servers on this game are the most played ones (at least in europe) correct me if im wrong…

    Yeah because people are retarded sheep. Just because a lot of people play on them doesn’t make it good game play in any way shape or form. Far too many people, specially noobs are willing to put up with the lag and team killing/wounding in a server so full of idiots 90% of the time. They simply dont know any better thinking more players = better and it doesn’t. Many have no idea what ping even is and how it effects a server or others game play that they are lagging the shit out of. But hey, as long as it looks ok to me…. ugh.


  • Developer

    We didn’t target 50 player servers when we were designing the game. In my opinion most of our levels work ideally at a max of 24 players.

    @Retsnom:

    Many have no idea what ping even is and how it effects a server or others game play that they are lagging the shit out of.

    Off topic, but here’s a pet peeve of mine: you can’t “lag other players” by having a high ping. You yourself will look to be jumping around quite a bit on other clients, but that’s the extent of it. This is the case with almost any game with a client-server architecture.



  • I play on the Los Angeles 64-player server despite the lag. I’m willing to put up with it because it’s something different from the past 1,000 hours and I no longer find the high-level combat very enjoyable as it mainly revolves around animation exploiting and feints.

    I’d even argue that the larger number of players takes Chivalry back to its roots as a wild and crazy slash 'em up. The original reason many of us fell in love with the game.

    Obviously the maps weren’t designed for that many people, but that just makes it all the more hectic. A plus in my opinion.



  • @CrustaceanSoup:

    We didn’t target 50 player servers when we were designing the game. In my opinion most of our levels work ideally at a max of 24 players.

    Indeed, there should be less 32 palyer servers, they should be turned into 16 player servers instead.



  • 64 player LTS. That doesn’t have insane lag. It’s partially due to the game mode.

    And then you get somehing like 64 player LTS-Bridge.



  • @CrustaceanSoup:

    We didn’t target 50 player servers when we were designing the game. In my opinion most of our levels work ideally at a max of 24 players.

    Totally and completely agree

    Off topic, but here’s a pet peeve of mine: you can’t “lag other players” by having a high ping. You yourself will look to be jumping around quite a bit on other clients, but that’s the extent of it. This is the case with almost any game with a client-server architecture.

    Actually players with high ping lag the server which in turn has lag effects for other players. You can almost instantly tell when a high ping player/s join a server, the effects are obvious as many Chiv servers are not all that stable to begin with but the hitching starts as soon as they join. I understand what you are trying to say as the lagger is the one morphing around, stuttering, hits register while yours ghosts through them. Another side effect is that when someone joins with high ping it effects other’s ping if they are in the same network paths. You can easily see this when a lagger joins then others that were semi high, increase their ping rates.

    You also have to admit that the more players there are on a server the higher the pings increase for everyone. This game incredibly sensitive to ping and the game is completely different every 20+ points of ping increases. When you get to a 60+point ping differential between players, the game is not reliable and barely playable. So if you can figure that out and or start putting ping caps/kickers on servers Anything beyond 24 players is just gonna suck.



  • 34 player is more than enough. 50 Would be overkill.

    With the sudden influx of low level players it feels more like Dynasty Warrior than CMW. What we need is an “Official 100% TeamDamage 1st Person only 24 player” server.



  • Or just more 1st person only servers without the 100% team damage.



  • @lemonater47:

    Or just more 1st person only servers without the 100% team damage.

    I’d like to see more of these tbh.

    50 player servers encourage too much lag, too much spam, too much tking, and too many crashing servers. The game starts to struggle past 24 players, I’m not even too fond of the 32 player servers. A lot of maps become far too difficult past 24P. Shore for instance.



  • I’ve only played the new shore once with 32 people and the attackers risned through it. Loving the change to the last objective.



  • @Terje:

    What we need is an “Official 100% TeamDamage 1st Person only 24 player” server.

    Isn’t that what the comp club is for?



  • @KevLar:

    …I’d even argue that the larger number of players takes Chivalry back to its roots as a wild and crazy slash 'em up. The original reason many of us fell in love with the game…

    I love your sentiment Kevlar and yeah it’s not too hard to have fun on a 50 slot, I’ve been doing it successfully for quite some time.

    However, I think SneakyMonkeys are doing a great job of satisfying the players who value mayhem over quality of game play. Maybe there is now room for another 50 slot TO but there’s no point lobbying for an official server because they are supplied by Multiplay and it’s a sad fact that official servers aren’t as good as Simrai.

    We would bring back our 54 slot, which was rarely populated, if we were convinced that this is what people want.



  • I’ve had the most fun on 50p servers. I’d love to see more 36-50 player servers. I know it tends to be laggy at 50+ but 36-42 is fine imo



  • Dumb = preferring lag and retarded mayhem over quality game play.



  • Let’s not cross the ad hominem border xD



  • @Reginhard:

    I love your sentiment Kevlar and yeah it’s not too hard to have fun on a 50 slot, I’ve been doing it successfully for quite some time.

    However, I think SneakyMonkeys are doing a great job of satisfying the players who value mayhem over quality of game play. Maybe there is now room for another 50 slot TO but there’s no point lobbying for an official server because they are supplied by Multiplay and it’s a sad fact that official servers aren’t as good as Simrai.

    We would bring back our 54 slot, which was rarely populated, if we were convinced that this is what people want.

    I can’t join Sneaky Monkeys servers, I’m permanently banned since 3 months ago for shouting 2 more sentences about some case than I needed on their website’s shouting box.



  • @Metal:

    I can’t join Sneaky Monkeys servers, I’m permanently banned since 3 months ago for shouting 2 more sentences about some case than I needed on their website’s shouting box.

    I’ve also been threatened by mods of such servers with being kicked just for starting votes to change maps and similar stuff. Look at this chat stuff though.

    Pretty sure DoubleH wasn’t banned and neither did similar players


Log in to reply