Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I have to report basically the same... experimental 96 player version (65 actual players) on Altis gets laggy after 3 hours into the mission

Currently playing the default 32 player mission on a full official server on Altis... still smooth after 3 hours.

 

But that's no surprise, the "Warfare CTI" community figured out for/since years that the maxium player count for a smooth mission over long tiem is around 40 Player maximum.

ArmA III did not solve that old Armed Assault and ArmA II issue with AI and in general lots of User actions reducing MP client performance.

The biggest "lag weapon" is still an SPAA 😉

 

Addendum: the 32 Player Altis mission ended without anyone experiencing any lag spikes ( I did ask several times) or serious fps drop...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

user actions seem to polled constantly regardless of distance

so the more entities with such (vehicles, objects, buildings, etc), and player+AI numbers, the more strain on the engine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the fact that the developers have launched a test server for such a large number of players and increased count AIs for player from 3 to 4.

 

I hope this will help to optimize the mission and gather data and experience, so that for example, in Arma 4 there will be servers for a large number of people.

 

IMHO:

1) The player should be limited in the amount of vehicles that he can buy even more.

For example, 1-2 quadbikes, 1 tank, or bmp, or anti-aircraft, 1 air vehicle.

2) There should be fewer bots in Telos than there are now. 

3) Garbage collector should be more aggressive.

4) The duration of the game should be reduced.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the stall freeze is investigated

 

well the 'lag' is definitely not the server itself

the server fps stayed above 30 fps and memory usage is still small

 

but i agree that 96 is too much, i will drop it to 80 and move the 64 player servers to 48 

 

also will be deploying new profiling branch build sometime soon today

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

done plus all Warlord servers now run 1.92.145735 profiling branch build

https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/160288-arma-3-stable-server-192-performance-binary-feedback/?do=findComment&comment=3360678

 

note: the freeze @CaptainDawson is for sure related to some issue with SAM , someone managed to get exactly the same effect with Zeus scenario

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dwarden said:

done plus all Warlord servers now run 1.92.145735 profiling branch build

https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/160288-arma-3-stable-server-192-performance-binary-feedback/?do=findComment&comment=3360678

 

note: the freeze @CaptainDawson is for sure related to some issue with SAM , someone managed to get exactly the same effect with Zeus scenario

If the SAM Radar is the main issue, it might be removed. Now after increasing the view distance to 4000, the normal short range SAM Vehicles ad even MANPADS perform much better against air targets anyway particullary CAS aircraft and Helicopters. A simple solution might be give both To-201 and F/A-181 a pure AA loadaout and let them fight it out on their own at 5000m

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be remove penality for stamina after fast travel?

Wait 30 secs for recovery stamina is very bad 😞

 

+ please remove specific for side items

Players must take it from deadly enemy bodies like trophy

https://imgur.com/0RUh76K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, pr9inichek said:

May be remove penality for stamina after fast travel?

Wait 30 secs for recovery stamina is very bad 😞

 

+ please remove specific for side items

Players must take it from deadly enemy bodies like trophy

https://imgur.com/0RUh76K

Travel light and it takes less time... no the fast travel itself is already to convenient already. Making it so that you can fire perfectly fine when you spawn in, already aiming and ready to fire would be to much magic and defending would be an instant losing game. If you're using such an advanced magical spell like translocation, it is assumable it used up all you mana and stamina points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for now i made drastic step of anyone trying to deploy SAM gets battleye kicked ...

that's only until it gets fixed or @Jezuro comes with workaround

  • Haha 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dwarden said:

for now i made drastic step of anyone trying to deploy SAM gets battleye kicked ...

that's only until it gets fixed or @Jezuro comes with workaround

Maybe just increased cost, for example 150k CPs?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 2:45 PM, Dwarden said:

 

that CPU is even faster than the fast CPUs used for the 64 player ones

not many server CPUs faster than this one ...

I m surprised about an answer like this from a BI developper, you can use the fatest cpu from the unniverse on the server and get bad frame client side.

 

The bad perf client side result often by a bad server config or an unoptimized scenario.

 

You should start investigating other thing to fix client performance than just get a more powerfull hardware for the server... like a regular clean-up (weaponholder, deadbody, wreck, empty vehicle), reduce the viewdistance server side....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, damsous said:

I m surprised about an answer like this from a BI developper, you can use the fatest cpu from the unniverse on the server and get bad frame client side.

 

The bad perf client side result often by a bad server config or an unoptimized scenario.

 

You should start investigating other thing to fix client performance than just get a more powerfull hardware for the server... like a regular clean-up (weaponholder, deadbody, wreck, empty vehicle), reduce the viewdistance server side....

 

my  reaction was to  the comments which were leaning toward feel that the issue being the server performance

or client-server sync (FPS tie was decoupled ayears ago)

also i was trying to point out the server FPS wasn't below 20 which is the critical threshold too

server performance for majority of tests even with 80+ players was just fine

 

btw. if you not noticed the corpses and vehicles and wrecks (those to degree) are cleaned up ... 

 

but i discussed with @Jezuro some optimizing and will look into that in future ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I got "create vehicle count" kicked for rippling 3 medium range AA missiles from a fighter on #us1w. That does not seem right.

 

current MP nickname in use: y³

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Beagle said:

Right now I got "create vehicle count" kicked for rippling 3 medium range AA missiles from a fighter on #us1w. That does not seem right.

 

current MP nickname in use: y³

 

that's fixed already

 

and btw. endless teamkilling is history (after finishing update cycle of all servers)

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, when  @Dwarden locked the primary servers for update, it forced all the noobs to join EU00 which was very good for me. Since noob's reaction to dying in a tank is to just spawn another one for me to destroy.

 

https://imgur.com/FFRXEED

 

Noobs never seem to learn that spawning endless T-140s will not solve their Rhino problem. But it wasn't too unbalanced of course, since Blufor noobs have the problem of spawning endless Pawnees and Wipeouts to be massacred by a cloud of swarming Shikras. IMO the Rhino was a fair counter to the fact that almost the entire game Opfor swept the map clean of Blufor vehicles with their overwhelming air superiority. Without the Rhino, those poor noobs in Anthrakia would be steamrolled by the constant flow of Opfor tanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to know if there is a way to spawn vehicles from blue and opfor defences in the cities , I know how to do it for the resistance but I have no idea about blues and reds.

 

Is there a code in CfgWLFactionAssets that i can add? and if so can i get an example?

 

I managed to add CUP content in my missions and with vcom to add automatic artillery support , works fine so far.

 

I also found a strange bug If I use warlords and I also add sector control with sector ai spawn module , warlords gets buggy and I can't enter vehicles that I buy from warlords menu (it's like they aren't mine anymore). By the way if you're woundering why I'm using sector control plus ai module well you probably didn't read my first paragraph.

 

I know it's the spawn ai module because as soon as I delete the module everything else works. Some sort of conflict I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, today there was another hacker on US01e, 99% sure it is player "Schellshock710". Killed everyone and spawned naked in the sky continuously. The issue was resolved this time, because now we can actually successfully VOTE KICK! We found 4 or 5 players that had recently joined, everyone spammed vote kick on all of them for 5 minutes and the hacker was kicked. He tried to rejoin several times, but he was kicked with "Cannot reconnect until server restart". Thank you to the devs for the recent server updates, while it appears there are still teamkillers and hackers, we at least now have the power to kick them. Slowly but surely we are reclaiming Warlords from the griefers...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Dunno if anyone actually uses this thread anymore, but in case anyone does, here is more proof of the failure of the "Team Balance Parameter". In this game on US server, Blufor steamrolled Opfor due to lack of coordination on Opfor's part. We were already at Nidasos Base, TWO points from their base. Then a bunch of players join Opfor, and 4 players leave Blufor, leaving us with HALF the amount of players. With the low player numbers that were left, this leaves such a massive imbalance that Opfor was able to cap 3 points in literally a few minutes. Despite Blufor's advantage in sectors, you can see that after I had to leave the match, Blufor's 3 remaining players will have no chance against Opfor. Why were this server's numbers already so low? Because the team balance parameter prevented new players from joining the team they wanted to play, while NOT preventing players from leaving the team with less players.

 

20190617172744-1.jpg

 

Each time I play I find it harder to find a stable well populated server. If the issues are not addressed soon, there won't be a whole lot of players interested anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CaptainDawson said:

Hi,

Dunno if anyone actually uses this thread anymore, but in case anyone does, here is more proof of the failure of the "Team Balance Parameter". In this game on US server, Blufor steamrolled Opfor due to lack of coordination on Opfor's part. We were already at Nidasos Base, TWO points from their base. Then a bunch of players join Opfor, and 4 players leave Blufor, leaving us with HALF the amount of players. With the low player numbers that were left, this leaves such a massive imbalance that Opfor was able to cap 3 points in literally a few minutes. Despite Blufor's advantage in sectors, you can see that after I had to leave the match, Blufor's 3 remaining players will have no chance against Opfor. Why were this server's numbers already so low? Because the team balance parameter prevented new players from joining the team they wanted to play, while NOT preventing players from leaving the team with less players.

Each time I play I find it harder to find a stable well populated server. If the issues are not addressed soon, there won't be a whole lot of players interested anymore.

You not not simply kick players of one side just because the other side loses players, for what reason ever. That was never meant to the the purpose of the anti stack script. The teamstack parameter works on joining or rejoining only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If some players didn't join a server with less players on BLUFOR side because they wanted to play OPFOR, with team balance off, what would you end up with would be even more players on OPFOR side. I fail to see what would improve with this feature disabled to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Jezuro said:

If some players didn't join a server with less players on BLUFOR side because they wanted to play OPFOR, with team balance off, what would you end up with would be even more players on OPFOR side. I fail to see what would improve with this feature disabled to be honest.


1. Perhaps not much would improve with the feature disabled, so perhaps what we need is a different solution. Team Balance Parameter may be useful for balancing on player join as Beagle said, but it still does not prevent the eventual imbalance in team player numbers.

 

2. Players are much less likely to join servers with low player counts REGARDLESS of which team they want to play. This applies to players who don't care which team they will play on, most people just want to play on a well populated server. I played almost an entire game the other day and saw this play out. It could never get over about 16 players, despite the fact that both Blufor and Opfor had extreme advantages in players over each other at various times. Before the change, it was more likely to see a fresh server be completely full on both teams before half of the sectors had been capped. The player capacity means there will be an equal number of players if the server is full, regardless of the parameter of course. If we could fill more servers, we wouldn't have this problem as much IMO.

 

3. On that note. Having an equal number of players on each side does not necessarily balance the game in the long run. Those of us who have played Warlords extensively know that the game is often won or lost by a few players who know the most effective tactics to use in Warlords. I have been in plenty of games where one team had several more players, but was completely hopeless due to the opposing team having all the experienced players! Noobs often flood onto one team. I've tried to balance the game for the benefit of everyone by making an agreement with Opfor to send a few experienced players over to Blufor so we don't have to have another one-sided game, but we were prevented by the "Team Balance Parameter", because Blufor had 2 or 3 more players, players who were noobs I might add. There are plenty of players who like to join the losing team and help them out. If the losing team is flooded with a lot of inexperienced players, they can't join if they are prevented by the parameter.

 

Team Balance Parameter means that server slotting is balanced as if a Blufor noob player who cannot learn how to teleport from the base is the equivalent of someone like an experienced Opfor player who single-handedly maintains air superiority and has 50+ vehicle kills in a single game. Letting the players balance the game themselves is a bad idea, but it's still better than the current scenario... At least without it, or with another solution, more players would want to join!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Preliminary changelog for 1.94:

  • Added: Sector Scan cooldown parameter
  • Fixed: Consecutive friendly fire is no longer ignored
  • Added: Filter for GM assets in Arsenal
  • Added: Mass dismissal of subordinates
  • Tweaked: Garbage collector
  • Changed: Player icon is now shown on map, as well as other AI-controlled Warlords
  • Fixed: Various script errors
  • Added: More detailed logs of friendly fire
  • Changed: Spawn protection icreased to 3 minutes
  • Fixed: Garrison vehicles should no longer spawn repeatedly
  • Fixed: Altis scenario - some preset vehicles were not handled properly by the system
  • Tweaked: Some asset costs
  • Added: Altis scenario - Ammolofi airstrip sector
  • Changed: Subordinates limit for 32-player versions of Stratis and Malden scenarios raised to 6
  • Added: 48-player variant of Whole Altis scenario
  • Changed: Default value for the removal of abandoned vehicles decreased to 30 minutes
  • Changed: AI units are now added to the garbage collector if they get lost somewhere

  • Changed: Subordinates limit for 32p Altis scenario

  • Added: CH-67 Huron and Mi-290 Taru are now purchasable by players

  • Changed: You will no longer be able to place static defences when there are enemies nearby

Edited by Jezuro
Changelog update
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

note: large official Warlords servers (44 and 52 players atm.)

may run slightly modded/improved variant of above to provide more enjoyable experience 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jezuro Is it possible to add CAS UAV drones (with A2G missiles)?

And one more idea. My favorite work to collect GMG|HMG backpacks to use it for attack AAF sectors. But sometime too hard to find pair of them: GMG|HMG and folded tripod backpacks. There is it because GMG|HMG gunner and Aissistant in different squads. This is strange, because they should be together in one squad. Could you remove GMG|HMG gunners and Assistant from another squads and make them in one GMG|HMG squad?

Thanks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Blacklist (WLAIRequisitonBlacklist) function is for drives only. It would be good to use it on vehicles. UAV vehicles make problems with AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×