Archived The Player Cap... Yes, Again!

This suggestion has been archived / closed and can no longer be voted on.
Status
Not open for further replies.
LumosJared

LumosJared

Around
Joined
Jul 16, 2012
Messages
1,070
Reaction score
5,647
Points
0
Age
28
Location
Florida
Website
twitter.com
Faction
MartyLand
Kingdom
Viva La Republic!
Hello Massive :|

So, when the player cap was first bumped up to 175, I made a post on this forums voicing my opinion (and complaining) about how I thought it was... not the best idea. The reaction seemed to be that Premium players agreed with me, while non-prems and staff members disagreed ( that's a broad generalization, I know). I decided to give it some time, perhaps 10 TPS was not THAT bad. After near 2 weeks of this new player cap, I can conclude one thing.

Boosting the player cap to 175 doesn't do anything beneficial to the server.

When there is 150+ people on the server, it is only during "rush hour" ie when Americans usually play. Otherwise, it's somewhere between 90-130. And when it is "rush hour" the server is always full, 175, just like it was full when there was 150 on. So we're going through 5ish (not 10, it's gone down) TPS just so non-prems have a slightly better chance of logging onto the server.

So what do you think. Is it really worth it?

We could either have a 150 player cap, with 17-20 TPS even in "rush hour".

Or we could have a 175 player cap, and 5 TPS during "rush hour".

I feel this is a very important issue, one that EVERYONE needs to have a voice on. To the mods, if you feel like I'm complaining, I'd like to think I'm not. This is some constructive criticism about something I pay for, and something I want to see grow, and have a hand in it, too.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
The logging on for non-premium normal players is still the same, even with the 175 player cap boost. I think that we should keep it at 150, because 175 doesn't give us much benefit at all.
 
Eh, my blocks have been glitching a lot more often, but overall it isn't that much worse.[DOUBLEPOST=1357966333][/DOUBLEPOST]I must say, it has seemed a little harder to get on 0-0
 
I know I paid for premium pretty much solely to log on whenever I wanted, regardless of how full the server was. And with low TPSs I usually don't even bother logging on unless it's to check something and log back off, thus wasting the reason I bought it in the first place. I have no problems wearing iron armor (I do it everywhere else I play) or carrying my own crafting bench, or making more trips when carrying things. And unless I'm in PVP, I don't die much anyway, so while nice, I can live perfectly fine without the other premium perks. The one I paid for, is being ripped off in a way.
So... I'd suggest either having a second Premium option to only buy login access at like half price (so I felt less ripped off if that's all I bought) or lower the cap and raise quality for the people who pay to be here. Plus the non-premiums that do log in will probably appreciate the performance as well. With 5000 logins a day, allowing an extra 25 people on at once probably isn't 'that' big of a boost compared to the performance loss it causes.
I realize that premiums complaining about anything can pretty much be countered with "but look at all your perks, be happy anyway", but if you really think about it, who keeps the server afloat, premiums, or non-premiums. I would think their opinions should weigh slightly more than a non-premium's. (If they don't already).
 
I've had premium for about a year now, when I first played as a non premium, it was never a problem. All I can say is that I hope server sharding is done soon, and all this is behind us.
 
Draco918 said:
I payed for premium => The server is laggy => Because the server is laggy, the only perk in premium I use is useless => I didn't get what I payed for
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Jared4242 said:
I'd like to think I'm not. This is some constructive criticism about something I pay for
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


I don't understand why it's so hard for people to understand the difference between a donation and a payment. As quoted from the website:

You don't actually buy anything from MassiveCraft by donating. Being a premium member is a Privilige and not a Right. You must still follow our rules and can be banned if you don't (just like regular players). Server moderators have no obligation to help youor answer your questions (/helpop). Just like you, we do this for fun. That being said, server moderators are friendly and we help out as often we can.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For all intents and purposes we could cancel the whole premium system tomorrow and issue no refunds, and nobody would have any right to complain or issue a refund because of the nature of donations. That obviously won't happen, but it continues to boggle me how a portion of the premiums go around feeling entitled or being generally insatiable.

Lag is an ongoing concern, but players waiting hours to actually get onto the server is also a growing concern. If we lower the player cap, threads about the player cap will start being posted quite soon after this one would be closed.

Premiums are valued due to their donations, but not to the point that we can afford screwing over the non premium population. After all, the premium population counts less then 300 of the 5000 daily logins.
 
Okay, well, as a soon to be non premium, I agree with them. The player cap being at 17 has only served to worsen overall gameplay for everyone who wants to: build, PVP, Mob-Hunt, Enchant, Mine, Log, Swim/Use Boats, Walk. In essence, the only thing it HAS done is annoy people and increase the number of noobs in global saying 'gimmi money!'. JMO.
 
So, in your world the Server would be best if it was 40 old premium players just sitting around, comparing there silver piles?
 
What it's called has no effect on why it happens. And I at least never said I was 'entitled' to anything nor that non-premiums should be screwed.
'a portion' of premiums have given the server money solely to make use of the perks of 'donating'. While you're completely right that no one would have grounds to complain about the system being canceled, less people would then donate, because they wouldn't benefit (beyond playing the game itself) from doing so. Is it selfish? Yea kinda. But it's also a matter of money. I for one don't get paid enough irl to spend money on a free game if I don't get anything out of it, and I don't play games that aren't free because of it.

I realize I can't say "I demand the perks I gave you money to use are actually useful", because it was a 'donation', but I can say "I'd really appreciate it and continue giving you money if the perks I get for doing so are actually useful." I also couldn't say "I payed for you to do as I say" but I could say, "Since I helped pay for the server, I'd appreciate it and continue to help pay for the server if you listened to me a little more closely than usual."

As for the non premium population, they suffer from lag too, it's not like the lag only happens to the premium members. And allowing more online at once only increases the number of them that would have to deal with said lag. How many players are there? There's a little less than 180* registered forum members, so I'll assume about 200 players. I (and others) simply feel that raising the maximum logged in limit to 87% over 75% (a 12% increase) while having an upwards of 75% performance loss is a bad idea. Now increasing the maximum logged in limit by enough to only cause say, a 15-20% performance loss might be more acceptable. And if my assumption is wrong and there's more than 200 players, the trade off only gets worse as the maximum logged on % increase shrinks while the performance loss % stays the same.

*Taken from the registered members list, 20 members per page x 59 pages (last page may not be full). If staff isn't listed there the number may be higher. If it includes banned members it may be lower. But the used 200 takes into account a possible portion of players that don't bother with the forums and just play the server, as most games have. All numbers shown are effectively speculation.
 
igel_son said:
So, in your world the Server would be best if it was 40 old premium players just sitting around, comparing there silver piles?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And right there, people who posted that they support this, is why it won't happen. The Admins think that it would reduce the server to premiums only... after stating that Premiums DO NOT make more then 300 out of 5000 logins a day.

The server is just as full, and much more laggy, then when it was 150. Why did you break something that worked?
 
Actually upon rereading the OP, the last part of my post is exactly what this post is about, the thread itself has almost nothing to do with premium perks. Premium was mentioned in the OP, and I mentioned it as part of my reason for agreeing with the OP. But it actually has very little to do with the situation. So lets not try to bring it up as a mainstay as it would take us away from the real problem.[DOUBLEPOST=1357997238][/DOUBLEPOST]Is there an actual reason I keep seeing people measure the server by logins per day? What does it tell you about the server? It doesn't give you a proper idea of the lag generated on server because it doesn't tell you anything about the number of players online at any single point in time.

Mecharic said:
And right there, people who posted that they support this, is why it won't happen. The Admins think that it would reduce the server to premiums only... after stating that Premiums DO NOT make more then 300 out of 5000 logins a day.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think you have a point there... maybe not all admins have that opinion though.
 
Well Draco that damage has allready been done early in this thread. From "a main consern for the server" to a "I pay for premium and i dont get my money worth for it when it lags".[DOUBLEPOST=1357997478][/DOUBLEPOST]
Mecharic said:
And right there, people who posted that they support this, is why it won't happen. The Admins think that it would reduce the server to premiums only... after stating that Premiums DO NOT make more then 300 out of 5000 logins a day.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
English? Have no idea what you are saying.
 
This was already suggested less than 2 weeks ago, and it was rejected. So I'm not expecting this one to do much better. :P
 
igel_son said:
Well Draco that damage has allready been done early in this thread. From "a main consern for the server" to a "I pay for premium and i dont get my money worth for it when it lags".[DOUBLEPOST=1357997478][/DOUBLEPOST]
English? Have no idea what you are saying.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
By one admin that couldn't take my personal reason for agreeing with an opinion. I've learned I won't give reasons anymore when trying to improve things, I'm sorry.

Actually it's perfect english, the section in commas is an aside saying 'this sentence is being directed at "[the] people who posted..."'
 
Draco918 said:
By one admin that couldn't take my personal reason for agreeing with an opinion. I've learned I won't give reasons anymore when trying to improve things, I'm sorry.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Of course you can give reasons for arguments, but you are on thin ice when excpecting stuff from premium.[DOUBLEPOST=1357997791][/DOUBLEPOST]
Imboring56 said:
This was already suggested less than 2 weeks ago, and it was rejected. So I'm not expecting this one to do much better. :P
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ah, ok thank you :)
 
I think its rejection when simple math explains why it's still a problem is why it was brought up again, and probably will continue to be brought up either until the max is lowered, or server sharding fixes the lag entirely.
 
igel_son said:
Well Draco that damage has allready been done early in this thread. From "a main consern for the server" to a "I pay for premium and i dont get my money worth for it when it lags".[DOUBLEPOST=1357997478][/DOUBLEPOST]
English? Have no idea what you are saying.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

First part: So you are going to completely ignore the entire post because of one person? Me thinks you just don't want to lower the cap because that would be admitting you were wrong to raise it.

Second Part: Here is what monmarty said:

"The premium population counts less then 300 of the 5000 daily logins."

Here is what you said:

"So, in your world the Server would be best if it was 40 old premium players just sitting around, comparing there silver piles?"

My reply to this was to take Monmartys statistic and show you that there are plenty of non-prems logging in, taking 25 people off the total cap will not kill the nonprem population of the server. Sending the player cap back to 150 would reduce the total number of daily players by 15% (from 5000 to 4250 according to the math). Premiums account for, according to Mon, about 6% of the logins.

Since premium accounts would not be affected by a change in player cap, the 300 carries over, which would put the prem percent at 7%. That is a 1% increase in the premium/nonprem percent ratio. Not enough to significantly alter the server dynamics or reduce it to '40 old prems with silver'. Lowering the player cap would not significantly reduce non-prem traffic in relation to current traffic for all users or for non-prems only.

Math: 150/175 = 85% (percent of old player cap v/s current player cap), 100-85=15% (percent of lost logins). 5000*15% = 750(logins lost), 5000-750= 4250 (logins daily with 150 player cap). 300/5000=6% (percent of premium logins daily with 175 cap). 300/4250 = 7%(prem percent with 150 cap).
 
First part: So you are going to completely ignore the entire post because of one person? Me thinks you just don't want to lower the cap because that would be admitting you were wrong to raise it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
First Part: Lol, yes.
Second part: Lol no, i was not even around when the cap was changed. 2 weeks vacation.
 
igel_son said:
First Part: Lol, yes.
Second part: Lol no, i was not even around when the cap was changed. 2 weeks vacation.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

First part: lolbadadmin....
Second part: MY MATHZ IS SUPERIOZ! :D And wait... did you skip all of it? That was good math right there!

But seriously, do you even care that people who participate on this server as ordinary players (since premium means nothing, it's just a gift giving thing) are asking for a change? It's not even a big change, just a 15% change that has a 50% reaction in TPS.
 
We need an afk kicker so that we don't have tons of afk n00bs just taking up space on the server.
 
Mecharic said:
*rolls eyes*
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Your math is horribly flawed and broken. You are assuming all premiums want the player cap to go down, you cannot support this claim.
Now let's have some of my math.

We cannot make a decision based on 5 people complaining in a thread, we have to speculate about the feelings and impact of changes for alot of other people.

Here is my problem with this thread:

Player X: I want a less laggy server, so I'm willing to sacrifice the fun of 25 players so that I can have a better gameplay.


We are looking at the problem, do not assume we don't care about your opinions or the lag. I myself complained about the unacceptable TPS yesterday. Sadly for you, we are not int he position where we can just change things without having to think about the effects for other people. We will try to find ways around lowering the player cap to improve server TPS at rush hour, but will only lower the player cap as a last resort.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mecharic said:
-snip-
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And simple math has now proven that raising the cap is a poor statistical choice, AND that the cap has very little if anything to actually do with premiums.

We've now learned that:
Raising the cap caused 25 more people to be allowed online at once.
*That means 12% (or less) more of the total player base can be online at once.
*That means 15% (or less) more LPD (Logins Per Day) can occur (which I don't feel actually has any meaning, but apparently others do.)
*That means the ratio of Premium to Non-Premium LPD has dropped from 7% to 6%.
TPS has dropped from 20 to 5 during the time the cap increase effects.
*That means server performance has dropped by 75% during this time.

In summary:
A 75% decrease in performance is not worth the extra 12% of people, or 15% LPD.
Lowing the cap back to peak performance of 20TPS will not result in a server of Premiums.
There is no longer any ground to not roll back the cap other than "People will complain still." or "We just don't want to."

*The LPD related numbers are based on a current max of 5000, raising the max to 7000, as stated by igel, will lower the ratio of Prem to NP even further, showing the fear of a "boring Prem run server" to be even more baseless. It will also raise the actual number of LPD, but the percentage of LPD lost will not change.


Increasing the player cap was a nice experiment, but the numbers show that it's failed.
 
I don't see why people bring math into this anyway,

I don't really care about the statistical relativeness of the actual gained gameplay value, I care about having to screw over a large amount of people who could hypothetically be playing every day, who prefer being able to play slowly than being able to play not at all, because 5, a minute amount of the total players on the server request us to do so. We are working on the lag issue and will turn down the player cap if no other solution presents itself, but it takes time to find a solution that will please all parties instead of jumping to the immediate easy solution to please some premiums.
 
MonMarty said:
Your math is horribly flawed and broken. You are assuming all premiums want the player cap to go down, you cannot support this claim.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't see that claim anywhere...

But you have a point about the number of players not voicing their opinions. They would have to decided and post on whether they feel the loss in performance is worth it. We can't assume they say yes, but neither can you really speculate for them, or it's no different than us assuming they say yes.
The silent majority is exactly why we're explaining the problem in cold hard math. Math is not an opinion, it is a fact.
You're not comparing the opinion of 5 posters with the opinion of many silent people. You're instead comparing the irrefutable fact of math against absolutely nothing. Sorry, not nothing, x number of players who have voiced their complaints of not being able to log in. But their complaints aside, it still doesn't change the facts on the table.[DOUBLEPOST=1358001315][/DOUBLEPOST]
MonMarty said:
I don't see why people bring math into this anyway,

I don't really care about the statistical relativeness of the actual gained gameplay value, I care about having to screw over a large amount of people who could hypothetically be playing every day, who prefer being able to play slowly than being able to play not at all, because 5, a minute amount of the total players on the server request us to do so. We are working on the lag issue and will turn down the player cap if no other solution presents itself, but it takes time to find a solution that will please all parties instead of jumping to the immediate easy solution to please some premiums.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And I still don't see why you feel we're pleasing premiums. We've already shown that the lag effects EVERYONE and that the number of players who are premiums are minute. Only 6% of the logins are premium, that means 94% (a large amount of people, since you don't like math) are non-premium and still have to deal with the lag.

That's fine that you want to please everyone, I get that. That's fine that you're working on the lag issue, I'm thankful for that. But can't that be done while making the server run smoothly in the mean time? Or could the server just run smoothly, and instead of worrying about the cap, put the effort being used to raise the cap towards sharding and solve the problem for real.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom