40 replies to this topic

[Ion Cannon!]

On entering the TF2 server today to start I had high ping and a few lagspikes, these subsided within a minute or so though.

[Wizard]

We'll change the TF2 server soon. There seems no point in having it in the US without many US players. That said the average of about 100 ish that I saw earlier isn't terrible.

[Libains]

Wizard, on 30 Jun 2009, 23:41, said:

We'll change the TF2 server soon. There seems no point in having it in the US without many US players. That said the average of about 100 ish that I saw earlier isn't terrible.

100 is not awful by any means, and we are having far more luck with the TF2 server than the l4d one it appears atm. However, it could be optimised by a UK or Amsterdam server, for the majority of us. Oh, and if we could look into changing the text at the start of the server at some point it would probably do the world of good

[Ion Cannon!]

Did Blood Harvest with Rich. Me, Wiz today on the L4D server, it was completely fine. I wonder if the issues with the server are not server end.

[Amdrial]

Well, it could have had something to do with the fact you were playing campaign. When you're playing campaign, the server only has to handle four connections at the same time. Added to that the stress of the heavy amount of NPC's it has to spawn during horde rushes (Remember the server has to handle each single zombie running around), I think the server would be operating at it's maximum capacity. Now if we would have to add four more external connections to the server already operating at maximum capacity, the situation would only deteriorate. In this case we wouldn't be able to do anything unless we can raise enough donations to upgrade the L4D server to a server with a better processor, more RAM and possibly a higher bandwidth.
I suspect the problem is at the server's end because mostly when the survivors have a pause (No horde at all), the latencies are fine, but when the AI director spawns a new horde, the latencies spike and it usually gets a bit unplayable for the eight players connected to the game.

Now onto the subject of the Team Fortress 2 server,
Like many people have said before me, the latencies were around the hundred for the majority of the players, excluding a few people who live in the USA. Even though the latencies were around the hundred, the game was still playable for me.
If we're moving the server, I'd suggest moving the server to either somewhere in England or to somewhere in the Netherlands (Since either Dutch or English servers in general have better connections, as Chyros and Brad have proven in a few games of L4D).

Just my two cents,


Admiral

Edited by {LP}Admiral-(NL), 30 June 2009 - 23:21.

[Ion Cannon!]

{LP}Admiral-(NL), on 1 Jul 2009, 0:17, said:

Well, it could have had something to do with the fact you were playing campaign. When you're playing campaign, the server only has to handle four connections at the same time. Added to that the stress of the heavy amount of NPC's it has to spawn during horde rushes (Remember the server has to handle each single zombie running around), I think the server would be operating at it's maximum capacity. Now if we would have to add four more external connections to the server already operating at maximum capacity, the situation would only deteriorate. In this case we wouldn't be able to do anything unless we can raise enough donations to upgrade the L4D server to a server with a better processor, more RAM and possibly a higher bandwidth.
I suspect the problem is at the server's end because mostly when the survivors have a pause (No horde at all), the latencies are fine, but when the AI director spawns a new horde, the latencies spike and it usually gets a bit unplayable for the eight players connected to the game.

Just my two cents,


Admiral

Yes but I have no lag or high pings in campaign or versus on our server and neither did some others. So it cannot be the server, it must be to do with the quality of the connections of the players. Plus a dedicated server is $200+ a month. We can't afford that.

If everyone had issues with the L4D servers when playing versus then yes, it probably would be the server, but this was not the case.

Edited by Ion Cannon!, 30 June 2009 - 23:24.

[Libains]

Ion Cannon!, on 1 Jul 2009, 0:20, said:

{LP}Admiral-(NL), on 1 Jul 2009, 0:17, said:

Well, it could have had something to do with the fact you were playing campaign. When you're playing campaign, the server only has to handle four connections at the same time. Added to that the stress of the heavy amount of NPC's it has to spawn during horde rushes (Remember the server has to handle each single zombie running around), I think the server would be operating at it's maximum capacity. Now if we would have to add four more external connections to the server already operating at maximum capacity, the situation would only deteriorate. In this case we wouldn't be able to do anything unless we can raise enough donations to upgrade the L4D server to a server with a better processor, more RAM and possibly a higher bandwidth.
I suspect the problem is at the server's end because mostly when the survivors have a pause (No horde at all), the latencies are fine, but when the AI director spawns a new horde, the latencies spike and it usually gets a bit unplayable for the eight players connected to the game.

Just my two cents,


Admiral

Yes but I have no lag or high pings in campaign or versus on our server and neither did some others. So it cannot be the server, it must be to do with the quality of the connections of the players. Plus a dedicated server is $200+ a month. We can't afford that.

I don't quite know the reasoning of the lagspikes - some got it, some didn't... I honestly think that the people with the high-end connections are being served better than those of us with dodgier lines at times of high-intensity. Not seen it with the move yet tho, and it may well be better. And dedicated is way too much for us to even consider paying for, so the server we get is just that server.

That all said, I know for a fact that my PC can handle 8-player versus matches onboard with no problem, and it has never lagged out on any other line aside from the FS one...

[Wizard]

I don't think it's the server end, it's more likely to be individual users connections. I have rarely had a spike above 100 thus far on any of the servers.

Dedicated is not even an option even if everyone gave very generously so let's not talk nonsense such as that.

It'll take a while to sort out the perfect (or next best) location, this is beta phase for the servers, but we'll find the right one soon enough.

[̀̀̀̀█]

So, are either of these VAC secured? Are we just trusted to not cheat? Not asking to let me cheat, but rather play without REpaying for the games. STEAM can be a bitch.

[Wizard]

Both servers are VAC Secured

[Wizard]

Updated the main post with the BFBC2 details.

[Warbz]

Anyone figured out how to connect to ip in BC2?

[Wizard]

No. Like I've said, server browser is being fixed. R6 patch is going live almost now, maybe later, supposed to be PB orientated but may have some other changes. Best bet is to keep changing the search criteria but keep using the Falloutstudios.net BFBC2 as the string. I found it that way.

[Dauth]

Someone needs to update the wiki with this info too

[Wizard]

Broken your hand or something

[Dauth]

Can't faff about on the wiki, I have a planet to save.