Jump to content

Opinions on the new update?


Recommended Posts

Just noticed today that they implemented the new idea of the servers going on / off based off of the server population.

For those of you that don't know as long as servers 1 and 4 don't have at least 80 players on each server then servers 2 and 3 will remain offline.

In my own personal opinion this is an awful feature to have implemented. Why in the world would you waste your time adding something like this rather than working on something that's more important? I'm really trying to find a way to look at this as a positive change but I just cant. I hate to say it but as we all know this community is already dying and from my experience the only time that 2 servers have at least 80+ people on them is on the weekends. So does this mean that servers 2 and 3 will be pretty much perma shut off during the week and only up during the day on weekends? 

For a player like me who mainly plays on s3 I'm curious as to how the hell I'm supposed to let my scotch age if the server is only up for a couple hours during the day on the weekends. If you want to implement something where the servers have a specific timer on them such as olympus does for one of their servers then I'm all for it. But implementing something that's all dependent on the amount of players on 2 of the servers is complete dogshit in my opinion especially when it's on a server that is struggling to maintain those kinds of numbers and only really shows that kind of player count on a weekend.

Would love some of your opinions on it and possibly what some pros of this new feature could be because I'm really struggling to find any. I know this doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the people that mainly play on s1 and s4 but for those of you that spend most of your time playing on s2 and s3 what do you think about it?

Xehons, Space, Treeontyn and 6 others like this
Link to comment

Last week 3 would have been up every night during peak. 2 would of been up 4 nights. The goal is to bring in more players. Fuller servers put us higher on the list and increase the  chances of a new player picking our servers. From what I've been told the reason we don't reduce to 80 is mostly from the size of Altis itself. We want players to come across each other and create experiences together (good or bad). There are already times you can drive from one side of the map to the other and only see 1 or 2 other players.

 

On the stability side, we are still seeing BE kicks and Bohemia has acknowledged the change they implemented to stop BE kicks was done poorly and has no effect. There are also things that are tough to prevent against such as DDos and script kiddies that activity attempt to ruin your experience. 

 

TL:DR : Give the change a chance, Bamf has already said this is a test to see how well it works and he will be making tweaks as it goes a long. Also Bohemian Incompetence is a thing.

Silver-Spy, BlackShot and drex like this
Link to comment
Just now, Leady said:

Last week 3 would have been up every night during peak. 2 would of been up 4 nights. The goal is to bring in more players. Fuller servers put us higher on the list and increase the  chances of a new player picking our servers. From what I've been told the reason we don't reduce to 80 is mostly from the size of Altis itself. We want players to come across each other and create experiences together (good or bad). There are already times you can drive from one side of the map to the other and only see 1 or 2 other players.

 

On the stability side, we are still seeing BE kicks and Bohemia has acknowledged the change they implemented to stop BE kicks was done poorly and has no effect. There are also things that are tough to prevent against such as DDos and script kiddies that activity attempt to ruin your experience. 

 

TL:DR : Give the change a chance, Bamf has already said this is a test to see how well it works and he will be making tweaks as it goes a long. Also Bohemian Incompetence is a thing.

I'm all for giving it a chance. This is why I want opinions of other people just to see what others think about it. Just kind of annoyed atm that without warning they just shut down the servers. If this is going to be a permanent thing I would rather just sell everything I own and move to s1 or s4 at that point. It does seem like when the servers are completely full they seem to run into more issues compared to when there's 70-80 players on. That's just what I've experienced.

Also, all of a sudden asylum's population seemed to jump up over the past week or 2. From what I heard it's because steam had some sale for Arma so a bunch of new players started joining. I guess that's why I'm confused if the reason they're doing this is to attract new players since it seems like the new players that bought Arma during that sale have had no problems with finding asylum as one of the more "popular" altis servers.

Edited by CRH
Link to comment
Just now, CRH said:

Just noticed today that they implemented the new idea of the servers going on / off based off of the server population.

For those of you that don't know as long as servers 1 and 4 don't have at least 80 players on each server then servers 2 and 3 will remain offline.

In my own personal opinion this is an awful feature to have implemented. Why in the world would you waste your time adding something like this rather than working on something that's more important? I'm really trying to find a way to look at this as a positive change but I just cant. I hate to say it but as we all know this community is already dying and from my experience the only time that 2 servers have at least 80+ people on them is on the weekends. So does this mean that servers 2 and 3 will be pretty much perma shut off during the week and only up during the day on weekends? 

For a player like me who mainly plays on s3 I'm curious as to how the hell I'm supposed to let my scotch age if the server is only up for a couple hours during the day on the weekends. If you want to implement something where the servers have a specific timer on them such as olympus does for one of their servers then I'm all for it. But implementing something that's all dependent on the amount of players on 2 of the servers is complete dogshit in my opinion especially when it's on a server that is struggling to maintain those kinds of numbers and only really shows that kind of player count on a weekend.

Would love some of your opinions on it and possibly what some pros of this new feature could be because I'm really struggling to find any. I know this doesn't have any effect whatsoever on the people that mainly play on s1 and s4 but for those of you that spend most of your time playing on s2 and s3 what do you think about it?

From what I was told a while ago, you will be able to use your house(s) crates from the Asylum  Exchange and that paratus is working on this update.

That being said, I think it's truly sad to see the player count dropping to the point where they had to do this. I remember having to spam join all of the servers.

Link to comment

I mean as someone who used to play, and played for years, I have all my shit mostly on one server (S4). With that being said I would rather play on a server without my stuff as long as its packed full of people. I can always grab a few things I need from the asylum mail exchange or go work something out with the admins for comp if I feltthat I was really being screwed

Edited by Sugarfoot
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Leady said:

Last week 3 would have been up every night during peak. 2 would of been up 4 nights. The goal is to bring in more players. Fuller servers put us higher on the list and increase the  chances of a new player picking our servers. From what I've been told the reason we don't reduce to 80 is mostly from the size of Altis itself. We want players to come across each other and create experiences together (good or bad). There are already times you can drive from one side of the map to the other and only see 1 or 2 other players.

 

On the stability side, we are still seeing BE kicks and Bohemia has acknowledged the change they implemented to stop BE kicks was done poorly and has no effect. There are also things that are tough to prevent against such as DDos and script kiddies that activity attempt to ruin your experience. 

 

TL:DR : Give the change a chance, Bamf has already said this is a test to see how well it works and he will be making tweaks as it goes a long. Also Bohemian Incompetence is a thing.

Asylum is just gonna lose players from this.

Link to comment
Just now, casperskate said:

Asylum is just gonna lose players from this.

It also may retain players. I don't really play anymore since Im into a few other games but if I had come back to play I would be ALOT more likely

to stay if there was 80 players or more in the server compared to 40 and have access to my house. It aint really that big of a deal

Link to comment
Just now, ImJustMaikey said:

Haha yep, Yesterday i killed a random civ by closing a gate with a 2 min delay time

Yeah saturday we had an advantage on Nv 2 v 1 but i guess it just started lagging and both of us died without hearing gunshots or being in viable position to actually be killed by them. They are unstoppable and too good to beat. the video gives proof of there godly skill. 

Edited by drex
Link to comment
Just now, Rodrigo said:

Don't tell em our secret :kappa:

And btw everyone watch out for Nemesis, the most delusional guys on our servers.

I just wanna know how you and sheep had such an advantage during the “random lag” that occurred right after sheep died during a 2 v 2. Shortly after you and sheep started glitching all over the place and killed us without a single gunshot sound or an actually position that would make logical sense to hit us. 

Link to comment
Just now, drex said:

I just wanna know how you and sheep had such an advantage during the “random lag” that occurred right after sheep died during a 2 v 2. Shortly after you and sheep started glitching all over the place and killed us without a single gunshot sound or an actually position that would make logical sense to hit us. 

No idea which one of you guys shot at me during that scenario, but one of you hit me to 77 HP. It always sucks to be on the losing end during a lag, trust me I have lost so many times due to lag on the servers. And it's understandable people get annoyed when they lose when it laggin. But being so salty and just throwing any accusation possible is more funny than anything tbf with you.

Link to comment
Just now, drex said:

I just wanna know how you and sheep had such an advantage during the “random lag” that occurred right after sheep died during a 2 v 2. Shortly after you and sheep started glitching all over the place and killed us without a single gunshot sound or an actually position that would make logical sense to hit us. 

servers have been laggy as fuck recently.

also rodrigo doesn't need to lag the servers in order to kill somebody, the guy can 1 tap you while you're sitting at meth tower all the way from og arms. its ridiculous to say rod *lags* the server for an advantage

Link to comment
Just now, Reapered said:

servers have been laggy as fuck recently.

also rodrigo doesn't need to lag the servers in order to kill somebody, the guy can 1 tap you while you're sitting at meth tower all the way from og arms. its ridiculous to say rod *lags* the server for an advantage

It is ridiculous. but its crazy how it’s a fair fight... and then all of a sudden server starts lagging and they wipe us with out any fucking gun sounds and the they are glitching all over the place. Then they proceed to talk shit about it. The server started lagging as soon as sheep was killed. it hadn’t been lagging what so ever until he died. it’s just suspicious that’s all i’m saying. Maybe the weird shit will stop happening now that i have let them make a joke out of it. 

Link to comment
Just now, Rodrigo said:

No idea which one of you guys shot at me during that scenario, but one of you hit me to 77 HP. It always sucks to be on the losing end during a lag, trust me I have lost so many times due to lag on the servers. And it's understandable people get annoyed when they lose when it laggin. But being so salty and just throwing any accusation possible is more funny than anything tbf with you.

Yeah maybe you could have had the respect to not blow up my heli right after you wiped us. Which btw was kinda weird being that took place during the server lag. Usually it takes a while to get into a car or vehicle and do anything when the server is lagging haha

Link to comment
Just now, drex said:

Yeah maybe you could have had the respect to not blow up my heli right after you wiped us. Which btw was kinda weird being that took place during the server lag. Usually it takes a while to get into a car or vehicle and do anything when the server is lagging haha

Blew it up? We flew it to the chopshop and got the money from it. So no idea where you got that from.

Azeh likes this
Link to comment
Just now, Rodrigo said:

Blew it up? We flew it to the chopshop and got the money from it. So no idea where you got that from.

I guess what I was trying to say was that it was very weird how sheep was lagging all over the place from the bad “server lag” while i heard the heli starting up. didn’t add up how you were able to get in the heli and fly while sheep was lagging everywhere. It just made me think that sheep was lag switching

Edited by drex
Link to comment
Just now, drex said:

I guess what I was trying to say was that it was very weird how sheep was lagging all over the place from the bad “server lag” while i heard the heli starting up. didn’t add up how you were able to get in the heli and fly while sheep was lagging everywhere. It just made me think that sheep was lag switching

You are so stupid its incredible. Less arma more school kid.

zane1 and Azeh like this
Link to comment

UPDATE: They just did the complete opposite of what they should be doing...they really upped the player count to 110 players on the servers? These servers can barely handle around 80 people. Not sure what it's going to do having the extra 10 slots on there but i'd imagine it's not gonna be good. Also, both of the servers have 80+ players and the other servers have yet to turn on. Not sure if the dev's are just full of shit and didn't really implement this new feature or if it's just broken..

Link to comment
Just now, Azeh said:

Where did they say it was implemented?

That's the thing is they didn't. They just added it without saying anything. And now when the servers do get 80+ players it seems they don't turn on automatically and they have to do it manually. They've been off all morning and now suddenly s3 is up. So they either fixed it or they actually have to manually bring the servers up. 

Link to comment
Just now, Azeh said:

They haven't added it. They manually bring servers up/down because Paratus still hasn't finished his part.

Even more retarded then tbh. Why not just wait until they finish it then...now it's even worse we have to actually depend on them to be on to bring the servers up when they're already inactive not only inside of the game but also outside of the game.

Link to comment
20 hours ago, Reapered said:

servers have been laggy as fuck recently.

also rodrigo doesn't need to lag the servers in order to kill somebody, the guy can 1 tap you while you're sitting at meth tower all the way from og arms. its ridiculous to say rod *lags* the server for an advantage

Hahaha  :wub:

How did you else think was possible? Exposed by Nemesis :o STHrRJF.jpg?1

Azeh 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...