Jump to content

Why removing one or two Asylum Servers could possibly make Asylum seem like it once was


Recommended Posts

  • 4 years later...

Okay, who is this post for? Who is this post supposed to convince? Anyone who is against the idea of deleting one or two servers from Asylum

Let's begin by getting the idea that Asylum is the best out of your head, get the idea that Asylum is winning out of your head, numbers are low, numbers don't lie.

Here take a quick look at the average players of Olympus compared to Asylum

Information was taken on 9/16/2017 (Saturday, at 1:05 PM Eastern Time)

Olympus #1 Average (past month): 62 Players                  | Asylum #1 Average (past month): 45 Players                 | Asylum #4 Average (past month): 30 Players
Olympus #2 Average (past month): 40 Players                  | Asylum #2 Average (past month): 25 Players
Olympus #3 Average (past month): 38 Players                  | Asylum #3 Average (past month): 26 Players

Total average players that play Olympus: 140 Players
Total average players that play Asylum: 126 Players

If we take a look at these numbers, honestly there's not such a huge difference besides individual servers... The reason in my opinion Olympus is doing better on individual servers is if we look at them it's because they have less servers at the moment if I wanted to do a meth run, why would I go on a server with like 90 people when I see another one with 20? Olympus knew that Altis Life was/is dying so they're likely trying to keep their server count low to keep more people packed into less servers meaning you're more likely to see people doing shit (Fighting, doing drugs, and etc.)

 

What led to Olympus taking the crown (Getting more players)?

In my opinion, this happened due to two main reasons. (listed below)
- Insane BattleEye Kicks at a certain time in Asylum's Life
- Lack of content updates

Moving from Olympus to Asylum or vice versa is a difficult task, since one has defibs and whitelisted medics and the other does not. It's a big fundamental change in the way you play the game so when the BattleEye kicks began on Asylum and some people quit and moved to Olympus even if they wanted to come back now what would they get from it, basically nothing. This is why we need more content updates not for the current players but content patches to convince players to come back. I remember when I was banned I went to Olympus and tried it out but I just couldn't stand it was to annoying to play without having a defib and just the overall idea of it I hated.

I saw a Tweet from Arma 3 claiming they're going to fix the BattleEye kicks in the next update, if this is the case I suggest that Asylum has a huge batch of content updates in that time and even possibly remove one or two servers because it's more likely that we'll never fill them again Altis life is not where it was before, it's dying. People will just use them to make money on which will take away population from the other servers.

To sum it up, removing servers and having one less or two less servers will have more people be on the one or two servers left increasing our population will increase us on lists of servers which is likely to also increase our population and if we're doing good again maybe add a server back. The reason everyone is so spread out is because there's no reason for them to be on one server, they're spread out to make money without any conflict.

Edited by Google™
Link to comment
Just now, frantic said:

As much as I would love for a server to be removed, what are you going to do about housing and police staff? @Gnashes @bamf Any plans to remove servers?

Police staff would likely just be spread out the servers, fuck the Sergeant spots on P1 aren't completely filled. Wonder about the other servers.

They would also just comp people for their housing like they did with Tanoa.

Bamf likely thinks they can fill up all 4 servers again now that is a big dream that'll probably never happen.

Brendon Smith and Bherky like this
Link to comment
Just now, ben flint said:

+1 quit bc servers are dying, not enough people ever on to have fun. I think moving from 4 to 2 servers would make asylum great again. 75 people average? I'd come back. 

I don't even log on sometimes because there's no point, with such a low population.

Think about how many others think the same...

Link to comment
Just now, frantic said:

We got comp for the price it sells to the bank. I had a houses worth over 1 mill and I only got like 70k for them. So all the people who bought good sheds/houses that paid alot are only getting little back.

Spreading them out wouldn't be a good idea IMO. You come to be good friends with eachother in the precinct just to have them all thrown around and split up is like a kick in the gut. 

1) Yeah it'll suck, but at least Asylum Population will go up? Ty for your contribution

2) People can make new friends and they can still be friends with the people who were spread to a different area... 

Link to comment

Even if they did reduce it to 2 or 3 servers, as of right now Asylum can't handle anything more then 75ish people on the server before it gets super laggy, mass kicks, or just fuckin crashes. The biggest reason that Asylum is dead comparatively speaking to its past is mostly because of the extremely poor server performance.

Furthermore, decreasing the server count is a great way to get a shit load of people on 2 servers, have it take a shit on everyone then we have 2 dead servers instead of 4.

Edited by Steve
JAY1HP, Space, Google™ and 3 others like this
Link to comment
Just now, Steve said:

Even if they did reduce it to 2 or 3 servers, as of right now Asylum can't handle anything more then 75ish people on the server before it gets super laggy, mass kicks, or just fuckin crashes. The biggest reason that Asylum is dead comparatively speaking to its past is mostly because of the extremely poor server performance.

+1

Link to comment

If you close two servers the population isn't going to transfer they are simply going to quit. The only way this works is by wiping all 4 servers of houses and over compensating everyone for their home. Then slowly reintroducing people to the housing market over the course of a month on the remaining two ((IE Have a cap of one home the first week, then 2 after the second and so on))

 

And this system assumes a flawless server BE kicks or downtime during the transition will effectively end asylum. Ive seen it happen to other communities.

 

But in reality much like 64bit, this isn't going to be the golden bullet to save asylum

Edited by Patato
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Sheriff Rick Grimes said:

No because that will only kill the server faster.  Whoever loses their houses is gonna be pissed.  If I lost mine i'd be done.

You make a good point with that, but I think that if the Bamf do it correctly they might not be that pissed. For example, if a shit load of new content comes out along with removing Server 4 and BattleEye kicks are completely fixed. I personally would be pissed, but not to the point where I would quit. I'm going to want to try out the new content and if it's good it's likely that pissed player will stay because shit Asylum is fixed and we have 3 servers now should be more active meaning more fun and not just continuous grinding.

Link to comment
Just now, Google™ said:

You make a good point with that, but I think that if the Bamf do it correctly they might not be that pissed. For example, if a shit load of new content comes out along with removing Server 4 and BattleEye kicks are completely fixed. I personally would be pissed, but not to the point where I would quit. I'm going to want to try out the new content and if it's good it's likely that pissed player will stay because shit Asylum is fixed and we have 3 servers now should be more active meaning more fun and not just continuous grinding.

 

Those are in the wrong order though.  We should be content/changes first and see if that ups the player count ( Very likely will ) then if all is lost start removing servers.  But even at that, it doesn't mean those players will go onto other servers, there's a good possibility they just quit entirely. 

Google™ and Steve like this
Link to comment
Just now, Sheriff Rick Grimes said:

 

Those are in the wrong order though.  We should be content/changes first and see if that ups the player count ( Very likely will ) then if all is lost start removing servers.  But even at that, it doesn't mean those players will go onto other servers, there's a good possibility they just quit entirely. 

Good point, I can see why it's in the wrong order. I can agree with the order that you just said.

Link to comment
Just now, Google™ said:

You make a good point with that, but I think that if the Bamf do it correctly they might not be that pissed. For example, if a shit load of new content comes out along with removing Server 4 and BattleEye kicks are completely fixed. I personally would be pissed, but not to the point where I would quit. I'm going to want to try out the new content and if it's good it's likely that pissed player will stay because shit Asylum is fixed and we have 3 servers now should be more active meaning more fun and not just continuous grinding.

Or the kicks could get fixed, the community gets what they ask, they don't remove any servers and asylum prospers again.

Google™ likes this
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...