I don’t know if this is at all possible, it is out of my area of familiarity with gave development, so I present this idea from a point of ignorance.
Would it be possible to have an placeable object in game that would measure server performance within the local area? It could be given some kind of lore-friendly name and ostensible reason for existing.
I expect server performance is never consistent, so it might have to take samples and then average them out, maybe sample performance every ten seconds, then update with the average every minute (or whatever intervals would make sense).
Such an object could be used to get a reading on how badly our builds might be impacting the performance.
The measurements could be translated into some sort of meaningful number to players, like 0% being what server performance would be expected if nobody was online, and 100% being about the limit of what Funcom would expect.
Because performance may not be static, I am in no way suggesting the game should prevent further construction if the meter hits 100%, rather it would only serve as a warning that we can personally see that our builds may be getting too big and we should consider pulling back. And if someone ignores their meter registering 400% and gets banned, they have nothing to complain about.
I worked for a high end retail company for five years in their IT division, right in the NOC ( network operations center ). I actually sat with my back to rows and rows of server banks, just in another room. We had dozens of Analysts, Network Security people and Network Specialists in that NOC.
We ran internal VPNs across our company spectrum and external websites for retail.
Not once did I ever hear anyone inside that NOC or in that company complain that the customers were crashing our websites, or that our employees were overloading the internal network.
When it broke, we fixed it, if it meant upgrading hardware, we did it. Nobody complained about the customers because they are the bread and butter that keeps the company running.
We did not ask them to minimize usage, We improved OUR infrastructure so they could have a problem free experience.
With gaming maybe it is different, but the same basic principle is there. Without your customers you are nothing and have nothing, yet we the customers of Funcom are constantly blamed for their poor servers and weak netcode, and keep getting limited to what we can do.
The real question is, why are we, the customers being blamed for Funcom’s decision to rent the cheapest servers available on the market?
Those all may be good points on their own, but they aren’t really relevant to the reality of the situation or the purpose of this topic.
Servers do not have unlimited capacity, while we do (and should) have unlimited building options. Rather than beg for Funcom to oppress us like others are keen to do, I would prefer to be given the ability to see how my actions are affecting the server.
Then get a job with GForce as a systems analyst, because that is the only way you will achieve what you seek.
The short answer to your post is no.
Also the reality of the situation is MONEY, plain and simple. Funcom went into this project with their shirt tails on fire on the verge of bankruptcy and came out fat and happy with a mega corporation buying them out.
Now they just want to minimize expenses and move on.
The biggest assumption in this thread is that the game runs poorly in every environment. Guess what? This is false. The game and is dedicated server tools run absolutely fine, even stressed out. So why are there rules based on performance on some servers?
Because those servers are being run in instanced environments where the resources are spread out. The fix here is to reduce the number of servers being ran on such machines.
But this thread is also forgetting something. Much of this was already fixed in the past already. They did come out with a whole patch cycle that DID involve fixing a ton of the lag and making for a better performance. We have been able to experience this. And this is why ultimately, most of the action taken against players hasn’t been because of performance inducing issues (outside some really really blatant stuff).
To put it shortly, this thread is a bit late in that regard.
I didn’t know that. I’ve only been playing Conan for about a year, so I had no idea that there was a performance-focused update. Thanks for bringing this up!
And yet the servers all run the same poor FPS and get awesome graphics lag. I can say this since I actually PLAY on them everyday.
Our server has a rotating group of around 40 who play, usually in increments of 10 to 15 at a time.
Whenever the head count goes above 10, the FPS goes into the yellow and bounces, and the stuttering begins.
This is AFTER all of the huge bases were destroyed or decayed. This is AFTER the thrall head counts were cut by 2/3rds.
The problem sir, is NOT the game itself, but the fact that the current public servers cannot handle the stress of the game in an instanced environment, that we agree on. We also agree one of the fixes, since it is obvious FC will never upgrade to a better company that offers better core servers, is to reduce that number.
There are no assumptions here, only truth based on experience in RL, and in this game.
The sad fact that Tephra is asking for more customer information to help FC do the job they should have done in the first place tells it all.
I would have passed this thread by, but when I read the OP, I was reminded of Oliver, asking, “Please sir, can I have more?” It really has come down to us begging Funcom to do their job.
For them to do their jobs at the current price points. To give the level of performance you are looking at without charging the players for it. You’re looking at the official servers on PC being trimmed to around 20-30 servers from 538(? I think it is now, that might be just Exiled Lands).
This would solve many issues beyond performance. It will create others though.
Personally, I would pay a monthly fee to get better service from Funcom if that is what it takes. I am about to just find a nice quiet vanilla private PVE-C server and say to hell with it all.
I like your idea don’t have a clue about how it would work. When I log into my Gportal account there is bars and numbers stating CPU and GPU of server hardware.
There is hardly a server side issue from my opinion. The issue is mainly on client side with limited hardware referring to console. When I upgraded from ps4 to ps5 didnt feel any lag what so ever at my huge base and obing is instant.
They can fix the performance by splicing the map into section to decrease render distance. They only have it applied to the game object. In addition they can have different texture for the object woth diffferent rendee distance texture. Also they could cache common items into memory.
.@Tephra you’re asking about a core precept/question in software development, one that deals with “breaking the blood-brain barrier.” Let’s call this thing an EKG, and pretend you want it to have real-time polling of server characteristics. In this scenario, the EKG would be able to access the server side, which would could and will open it up to vulnerabilities.
Rather, the server should need to log its state on the Gameserver side, and then record that to a resource or cache, which is then polled by the placeable EKG. Creating a flash polling “thread” is not complex in itself, but it is something more painful to manage, especially as the software gets handed down to other devs.
Yes, it’s possible. I don’t know if it’s feasible (or viable, if you prefer), but it’s certainly possible.
In fact, it’s something they should do if they intend to keep banning people or even wiping their builds – for performance reasons.
Here’s why. If they really are including performance impact in their criteria for admin action, that means that they have some way to reason about it. Now, there are two options:
either they have some kind of “objective yardstick” their admins use as part of their investigation into Zendesk reports,
or they don’t and it’s just the case of admins eyeballing the performance impact at their discretion
If it’s the former, then they can take the logic behind their “objective yardstick” and put it in the game. It might not be perfect, but it doesn’t have to be. It just has to give us players a way to reason about the same things that might get us wiped or banned.
If it’s the latter, then they need to stop doing that. Seriously, destroying your players’ work and preventing them from logging onto any official server just because some admin eyeballed something is an insanely bad idea. I cannot stress this enough. I’m personally still holding out hope that this is not the case and that they have something objective they’re using.
Nailed it.
First of all, does Funcom even monitor server performance on someone elses servers, or do they rely on GPortal system analysis for reporting stress?
Since FC historically takes the path of least resistance, I will assume they get a general monthly report from GPortal on overall server performance ( if even that ) and that is the extend of their involvement, other than fielding complaints from the customer base and forwarding them to GPortal for action.
A perfect example would be the many companies that use AWS and Apex. The companies rely on the AWS/Apex teams to keep the servers running and just report issues as they occur. It is part of the paid for service.
So much misinformation in this thread. This forum, i really didnt think it could be any worse, but apparently there was yet another level of unwelcoming toxic wasteland to achieve.
Good try being constructive Tephra, but any and every discussion here will quickly derail into rants, conspiracy theories, trolling, and personal attacks.
That’s what came to my mind exactly.
So much misinformation… what is(are) the misinformation(s)? How could a “performance-o-meter” be implemented into the game? Genuinely curious.
That would be more useful answer than a “this is bad, this is toxic, this can’t get any worse, but it got even worse”. Beacuse answers like that IS derailing the topic even further, oil to the fire.
