Jump to content

Recommended Posts

If you're going to screw over life on this by making it so you have to have two sets of gangs and houses on other servers, just stick to only 2 servers then. The fact that we don't have 5 servers full to the brim during summer is pathetic enough, it's sad that those of us here now are getting our experience screwed over by having a server that comes and goes as it pleases with population on top of all servers crashing constantly.

Defragments likes this
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Silver-Spy said:

So you want 3 servers with population about 10/20/30?.

Or would you rather have two servers with 30/30 approx

It is better as it is no need to change anything.Go play S1 and S2 if S3 is down.

Well like I'm sure I'm not the only player that just waits for 3 to go back up to play Asylum. I know most, if not all of my gang only get on when 3 is up.

Link to comment
Just now, Defragments said:

Well like I'm sure I'm not the only player that just waits for 3 to go back up to play Asylum. I know most, if not all of my gang only get on when 3 is up.

Every morning I'm talking to people on other servers and we're all checking and asking to see if 3 is up yet

Defragments likes this
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Silver-Spy said:

So you want 3 servers with population about 10/20/30?.

Or would you rather have two servers with 30/30 approx

It is better as it is no need to change anything.Go play S1 and S2 if S3 is down.

The servers currently lag out with 50 or 60 people on sometimes. Server 1 usually isn't an opton to switch to because it usually has more people meaning it is even more so likely to lag out and crash.In simple terms choosing between 2 servers sucks a lot more then choosing between 3 when there's a damn good chance 2 of those 3 are lagging or will lag soon enough.

Edited by Steve
Sliick likes this
Link to comment

Your argument is fair. I can see how the lack of server permanence can be frustrating - especially for your home server. 

If we think about this from a design perspective:

  • The other two servers get a player count increase.
    • This benefits:
      • Server 1 & 2 native users.
      • Server 3 users that value population over the idea of a permanent, home server. 
    • This causes pain to:
      • Server 3 natives that care about always playing on their home server.

It could appear here that the benefits outweigh the pain caused. Especially since a proportion of the server 3 users value higher population experiences over the idea of a home server. 

If you can disprove this interpretation, or find flaws in it, it is an easy fix.

Silver-Spy likes this
Link to comment
1 hour ago, LaGrange said:

Your argument is fair. I can see how the lack of server permanence can be frustrating - especially for your home server. 

If we think about this from a design perspective:

  • The other two servers get a player count increase.
    • This benefits:
      • Server 1 & 2 native users.
      • Server 3 users that value population over the idea of a permanent, home server. 
    • This causes pain to:
      • Server 3 natives that care about always playing on their home server.

It could appear here that the benefits outweigh the pain caused. Especially since a proportion of the server 3 users value higher population experiences over the idea of a home server. 

If you can disprove this interpretation, or find flaws in it, it is an easy fix.

2 Servers with 60 people on it that crash is worse then 3 servers with 40 people on each that don't crash. I think the low population ins unhealthy for Asylum but not being able to play is even more so unhealthy for the community.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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