If only people weren't so spread out amongst servers would we would have more populated racing servers at this time of night:
One of the more annoying parts of LFS...
People play where they want to play. I personally play at populated servers only, but well. U cant really complain about that in my opinion ... 
No one HAS to play LFS only in a race server... That's why cruise,drift,drag and layout servers are out there. And ofcourse,race servers!
youve got a point when it comes to drift servers (coming from a fellow drifter)
I personally have not touched LFS in some time due to the distribution of LFS racers. Since I am not a fan of Drift, Cruise, Drag, or open wheel I am often left with few to race with.
Same, waiting for the S3 inital content release and new physics before I pic it up again. Until then L4D2 and TF2
You know what's most annoying thing of LFS, most of the servers are running Blackwood.
why are you not showing the top 1/3 of the list ?
there are more people online then the 21 you are showing....
i think that on the end of the day there are (still) many people online.
there are more people online then the 21 you are showing....
i think that on the end of the day there are (still) many people online.
Yup. XFG/XRG@BL. Yawn.
Too many demo servers IMO. How about some of the teams which run them, which seems to be every second one, change it to a decent and underplayed combo?
Do we really need 230861 (numpad mash yay) demo servers which all run exactly the same combo?
his point was to show the servers with 3 or less drivers in it. the would be 2/3 of the servers.
The more popular servers should reduce their grid sizes to no more than 30, that way, the quality of racing can improve and perhaps the racing will be more evenly distributed as there will be a need for more servers to take the same number of people.
Also I hate it when servers rotate tracks too often, it should be once every few hours/days, not every half hour/hour, perhaps there would be less crashing if people got the chance to get in more practise at one combo before the track changes again.
Also I hate it when servers rotate tracks too often, it should be once every few hours/days, not every half hour/hour, perhaps there would be less crashing if people got the chance to get in more practise at one combo before the track changes again.
IHR at one point was limited to 28 for that purpose....then the players waiting to get a spot complained the extra slots weren't being used, instead of collectively going somewhere else.....
There´s no problem with limited grids to say max 28.
But please set those servers to maxguests = gridsize+6 (without adminslots) or something.
But please set those servers to maxguests = gridsize+6 (without adminslots) or something.
Yeah, and this would create demand for more places to race, hopefully spreading the drivers out across more servers. The hard part would be finding those who have the time, money and motivation to set up and run more good quality servers. And the sense to run decent combos on that people actually want to race on.
If given a wider choice of good servers with cleaner racing, then theres no reason why people should hang around on one popular server complaning about a lack of grid places (and if they get a place on a really big grid then its pretty inevitable they're going to get crashed into/ cause a crash anyway).
Plus one.
Server economics
(refer to graph for visual representation)
From the start we know we have a surplus of servers (represented as (X3,Y2) in the graph). As stated in earlier posts, server surplus is problematic because the already relatively small community of LFS is scattered throughout the surplus. The effect of the surplus is dissatisfaction in the racing community because the number of densely populated servers is limited.
There are two solutions to this problem. (1) Increase the population of the LFS community at every time zone. (2) Decrease the number of servers by imposing a "server ceiling". Obviously, we all would like the first solution; however that is not feasible at the current time. So we are left with decreasing the number of servers with a server ceiling.
If the number of servers are limited too much there will be a shortage of server space. Too little servers will cause dissatisfaction to the racers who are unable to join any server at any given time (X4,Y3 : X3,Y3). By manipulating the maximum P:S ratio to equal one, we will find the equilibrium of racers per server space (X1,Y1).
However, by achieving the P:S equilibrium, all LFS racers will not be satisfied. Judging by the fact that about one third of the LFS servers are populated by one to 3 people (at that time), some people want to race alone or race combos that are not populated. This would mean that those combos are not favorable to the majority of LFS racers.
In respect to all LFS racers' wants, limiting the number of servers would not be a favorable solution.
So the lesson learned, by applying economics to the LFS community, is more simply put by Hazaky,
I was really bored
From the start we know we have a surplus of servers (represented as (X3,Y2) in the graph). As stated in earlier posts, server surplus is problematic because the already relatively small community of LFS is scattered throughout the surplus. The effect of the surplus is dissatisfaction in the racing community because the number of densely populated servers is limited.
There are two solutions to this problem. (1) Increase the population of the LFS community at every time zone. (2) Decrease the number of servers by imposing a "server ceiling". Obviously, we all would like the first solution; however that is not feasible at the current time. So we are left with decreasing the number of servers with a server ceiling.
If the number of servers are limited too much there will be a shortage of server space. Too little servers will cause dissatisfaction to the racers who are unable to join any server at any given time (X4,Y3 : X3,Y3). By manipulating the maximum P:S ratio to equal one, we will find the equilibrium of racers per server space (X1,Y1).
However, by achieving the P:S equilibrium, all LFS racers will not be satisfied. Judging by the fact that about one third of the LFS servers are populated by one to 3 people (at that time), some people want to race alone or race combos that are not populated. This would mean that those combos are not favorable to the majority of LFS racers.
In respect to all LFS racers' wants, limiting the number of servers would not be a favorable solution.
So the lesson learned, by applying economics to the LFS community, is more simply put by Hazaky,
I was really bored
I think that some kind of 'gateway server' would be very nice feature. A dummy server, which shows in server list, and redirects player to the actual server.
This way there can be for example two IHR servers, and only the gateway shows in server list. When player joins, it can check the current licence/PB time/other stuff and decide if it redirects player to server A or B. Can be used for automatic divisioning, a ladder like system like in iRacing or battle.net or so.
That would be very easy to implement... Maybe it could be done even without devs help, as 3rd party tool, but devs approvement is needed of course coz it has to connect to master server. What i mean is that we don't need the devs to upkeep/administrate the ladder, we just need the tools so teams can easily set up laddered multi-server systems.
This way the fast guys and slower guys drivers at different server, racing is more tight and fun. And when you get faster, you are automatically redirected to faster server. Hmm.. sounds good to me, have to check if it can be easily done.
EDIT:
Yes i know that it should be very easy for people to just join different server if one is full. But the thing is, they are not going to. Coz they don't want to join to empty server, and they just don't get it that if few of them join others will follow.
So dividing racers to multiple servers should really be automated procedure. And i believe doing it based on lap time/points/other factor, would hugely improve the online experience, which means more people will play, which means races keeps getting better.
One of the annoying parts of LFS is, that there is not any kind of laddering support. All we need is programmable or very very freely configurable gateway server, and i am sure the teams will do the rest. What i mean is that we don't need developers to set up and admin the global ladder, like in battle.net or iRacing. Instead just give the tools so teams can easily setup laddered multi-server systems.
I thought of that as well, but was too lazy to post it yesterday.
I see one big problem with this approach:
A lot of players (including me) want to race with their buddies. But with an automated distribution system it is pretty likely, that you end up on different servers.
Now you could argue, that buddies that like to race together might have similar PB's and stuff, thus getting connected to the same "Division", but that's not always the case.
So, you would need to also have a friends-list functionality (which in my opinion is missing in LFS anyways) to add preferences of players which you would want to be joined with.
If you plan to follow this idea, send me a pm, I might be able to help ya with implementing (but not before mid of March, I'm afraid).
Rofl
I can join over 600 but I show empty server ... it is may be that !
imo the annoying part of LFS was when CTRA stopped ...
I drove a little bit on LR and now i drive on IHR when I do not train for leagues ...
imo there is too much drift and cruise server (once upon a time, between CTRA and LR time, there was only this kind of servers... I was very annoying of LFS, but nowadays it's fine ^^)
I can join over 600 but I show empty server ... it is may be that !
imo the annoying part of LFS was when CTRA stopped ...
I drove a little bit on LR and now i drive on IHR when I do not train for leagues ...
imo there is too much drift and cruise server (once upon a time, between CTRA and LR time, there was only this kind of servers... I was very annoying of LFS, but nowadays it's fine ^^)
I got hight ranking [post=64726]on this thread[/post] but not rally high support
or maybe things will change 
I'm sorry, I can't seem to get what you are trying to say...
well, mdmx wrote about some laddering system
you opposed to that idea as automatic redirection would disallow racing with buddies - and as I see you would promote buddy list in meeting room
My proposition is: lets make buddy lists that are not in any way automatic - it is the way to gather people for some racing.
The problem is the people... simple as that!
Why would you want to make things even more complicated by destroying the best type of server system available? the traditional "click the server you want to join" system!
The things you are sugesting makes me think of "call of duty modern warfare 2" (shivers)... that is a prime example of how a extremely good game looses alot due to 2 issues where one doenst affect gameplay.
Explanation.
Their system is that you cant select server, you just click a button and (steam?) selects a server for you, and if you want to play with you buds you just add them to your party and you all join a server together!!! sounds fun doesnt it....
.... and on paper this system seems very easy to use and just awesome, however in reality it doesnt work that good at all... sometimes you just get thrown between servers and the party with your friends do tend to split up aswell, even though its not supposed to. And as if thats not enough you cant know what map your gonna play either, as its just randomly generated... if such a system would come to LFS im sure it would be the end of the game.
Why would you want to make things even more complicated by destroying the best type of server system available? the traditional "click the server you want to join" system!
The things you are sugesting makes me think of "call of duty modern warfare 2" (shivers)... that is a prime example of how a extremely good game looses alot due to 2 issues where one doenst affect gameplay.
Explanation.
Their system is that you cant select server, you just click a button and (steam?) selects a server for you, and if you want to play with you buds you just add them to your party and you all join a server together!!! sounds fun doesnt it....
.... and on paper this system seems very easy to use and just awesome, however in reality it doesnt work that good at all... sometimes you just get thrown between servers and the party with your friends do tend to split up aswell, even though its not supposed to. And as if thats not enough you cant know what map your gonna play either, as its just randomly generated... if such a system would come to LFS im sure it would be the end of the game.
I proposed just an extended "meeting room" - the place to chat and to decide on what server are ppl going to go... just that. For now Meeting room expands the window and the server list is all visible. If you want to go on some server you just clik...
AcesHigh, I agree with you, not knowing which server you join and even worse not knowing which combo you're gonna end up with would destroy the good online experience in LFS.
On the other hand, many of the popular servers have a track rotation in place, so you can't be sure which combo will come next when you join a server (unless you know the track-rotation, of course).
So, Instead of having one server running one car and having a track rotation, have two or three that do. But don't make them joinable just like that.
Instead have some kind of relay-server, to which you connect, which forwards you to one of the servers behind it. This way instead of having one server with 38 people on it and total mayhem happening, you would have two with roughly 19 people on them each, providing still a big grid, but maybe less mayhem. Considering the proposed Division-wise joining policy, you would even end up with two servers having drivers with closer driving abilities (e.g. measured in personal best time).
As I said before you would want to keep the ability to join the server with your buddies on, which could be an automated routine depending on an yet to be implemented buddy-list-feature.
Of course you would have to administer two servers instead of one, which will lead into the same situation why CTRA closed down. So that's one point you gotta find a solution for.
I also do see the problem, that it takes away the freedom of server-choice and it also will maybe even limit the amount of combos that are busy. On the other hand, having four independent servers running roughly the same combo (e.g. different car classes) with like 2 or 3 racers each is exactly the problem described in the original post. Getting those servers together on a relay server can direct all players to one server, thus having about 8 to 10 racers in it. And I think IHR proved that different car classes on one public server can work out pretty good.
Also you don't have to make it mandatory to use a relay server. You still can join any of the available servers out there (that are not connected to a relay server, that is).
I think the idea mdmx proposed is still far from being ready to be implemented, lot of factors have to be included in the design, but it is good to talk about it.
AndRand, I back you up on the extended "meeting-room". That thing definately could need some improvement. I almost never use it, since there is never someone in there (and I am on the FM-TS3-Server anyhow when I go racing).
One way to "improve" it, is by simply removing it. Instead have like a Contact List of buddies, where you can see where your buddies are racing and join them by simply clicking on their name.
I'm gonna go to bed now. Thanks for reading and I hope this constructive discussion continues.
Best Regards
On the other hand, many of the popular servers have a track rotation in place, so you can't be sure which combo will come next when you join a server (unless you know the track-rotation, of course).
So, Instead of having one server running one car and having a track rotation, have two or three that do. But don't make them joinable just like that.
Instead have some kind of relay-server, to which you connect, which forwards you to one of the servers behind it. This way instead of having one server with 38 people on it and total mayhem happening, you would have two with roughly 19 people on them each, providing still a big grid, but maybe less mayhem. Considering the proposed Division-wise joining policy, you would even end up with two servers having drivers with closer driving abilities (e.g. measured in personal best time).
As I said before you would want to keep the ability to join the server with your buddies on, which could be an automated routine depending on an yet to be implemented buddy-list-feature.
Of course you would have to administer two servers instead of one, which will lead into the same situation why CTRA closed down. So that's one point you gotta find a solution for.
I also do see the problem, that it takes away the freedom of server-choice and it also will maybe even limit the amount of combos that are busy. On the other hand, having four independent servers running roughly the same combo (e.g. different car classes) with like 2 or 3 racers each is exactly the problem described in the original post. Getting those servers together on a relay server can direct all players to one server, thus having about 8 to 10 racers in it. And I think IHR proved that different car classes on one public server can work out pretty good.
Also you don't have to make it mandatory to use a relay server. You still can join any of the available servers out there (that are not connected to a relay server, that is).
I think the idea mdmx proposed is still far from being ready to be implemented, lot of factors have to be included in the design, but it is good to talk about it.
AndRand, I back you up on the extended "meeting-room". That thing definately could need some improvement. I almost never use it, since there is never someone in there (and I am on the FM-TS3-Server anyhow when I go racing).
One way to "improve" it, is by simply removing it. Instead have like a Contact List of buddies, where you can see where your buddies are racing and join them by simply clicking on their name.
I'm gonna go to bed now. Thanks for reading and I hope this constructive discussion continues.
Best Regards
That's far from being best type of server system, as you can see in LFS. One server which is totally full and lot of people waiting to get in, and a tons of servers which are empty.
Yes i agree, if that's the only way to join, then it's very bad. I didn't mean that.
I personally often want to race with equal skilled people, i don't care who they are or where they come from. If i want to race with friends, then i don't have to join the server with laddering system but use regular one instead.
But friend list sounds good feature, if done properly. But imho it can not totally override the laddering mechanism. At least not with large packs of friends. Few joining together sounds fine, but not like 10. If large group of friends, who are not equally skilled, wants to race together, well, the laddered server is just not the right place for that, imho. That's why it definitely should NOT be the only type of server the game offers, like in MW2.
Anyway, that is small detail, and may be configured by server admin however he likes.
The point was to implement freely configurable laddering server and allow people/teams to host them, which i believe would be popular. What comes to car classes and tracks, i was thinking that all the sub servers uses exactly same cars and track rotation. That way the 'proxy' server can show correct track and cars to lfs lobby, and only drivers are divined to keep the grid getting too huge.. Of course server admin can also decide this, laddering server should allow both ways.
All careless semi-wreckers with low safety ratio goes to their own server, to learn how it feels. Sounds good to me.
So, there are bugs in implementation, or the friends are not equally skilled enough. That doesn't mean the concept is bad, it's just not properly implemented.
1
2
One of the more annoying parts of LFS...
(31 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG