|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
778
   |
Posted - 2013.10.20 19:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
Welll...
Design a better system. |
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
795
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 16:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Even though I totally see the same problem in PC match server decision logic,
I think it is the best there can be.
The biggest design question is:
Do you want to have the maximum number of players having the least server lag as possible?
Most people would say 'Yes, that makes sense'.
The alternatives being:
- First player in gets the server (rush and possibly only 1 player has good connection, 31 others don't)
- Defender/Attacker always has the server, that being set by the most players on the same region. (again, it may be 9/32 have the good connection while others don't. This may actually be acceptable.)
- Server set at random (fair but... omg...)
- Server to who pays the most isk/AUR (no no, too much favor on rich corps and AUR would be terrible P2W)
- The loser of last game in series gets the server (this is more complicated and brings some balance, but the initial server decision for the first match is still mystery)
- Certain districts having a certain server (this might be interesting - but might have some balance issues.)
- Certain secondary surface infrastructures having a certain server
Even though there are interesting choices, not a single one minimized the amount of players who have to suffer from server lag. |
KEROSIINI-TERO
The Rainbow Effect
796
|
Posted - 2013.11.08 22:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alaika Arbosa wrote:KEROSIINI-TERO wrote:Even though I totally see the same problem in PC match server decision logic,
I think it is the best there can be.
The biggest design question is:
Do you want to have the maximum number of players having the least server lag as possible?
Most people would say 'Yes, that makes sense'.
The alternatives being:
- First player in gets the server (rush and possibly only 1 player has good connection, 31 others don't)
- Defender/Attacker always has the server, that being set by the most players on the same region. (again, it may be 9/32 have the good connection while others don't. This may actually be acceptable.)
- Server set at random (fair but... omg...)
- Server to who pays the most isk/AUR (no no, too much favor on rich corps and AUR would be terrible P2W)
- The loser of last game in series gets the server (this is more complicated and brings some balance, but the initial server decision for the first match is still mystery)
- Certain districts having a certain server (this might be interesting - but might have some balance issues.)
- Certain secondary surface infrastructures having a certain server
Even though there are interesting choices, not a single one minimized the amount of players who have to suffer from server lag. Since the defenders would technically have the "home field" advantage, why not just give them the server advantage too? That would make sense to me....
That would be my favourite as well, but it has issues as well:
- powerblocks holding on positions would be so much more difficult to drive out
- New corps opening for PC would be even more disadvantage
- Again, on many cases there would be more players suffering from big latency than those enjoying good server
|
|
|
| |
|