• 1643 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 4222 Players Online
  • 2579 Players on Bedrock
  • us.mineplex.com
Attention Internet Explorer Users
To have the best user experience on our site please consider upgrading to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox

5 Servers

Discussion in 'Clans' started by Wisecraft1, Oct 31, 2019.

  1. Please remove all but 5 servers to reduce lag. By removing the dead servers you can increase the RAM on the other servers which would effectively reduce lag. 3 big things ruin clans, lag, hackers, and glitches. The main thing that killed season 6 was lag. The ambition to add 100 players was not thought out at all because the servers can't even handle 60. C1-3 should be hardcore with C4 being casual and C5 being hardcore for EU players. There is no need to have 9 US + 2 EU servers, simply reduce servers to increase the environment of the other more popular servers. While there are people that enjoy "dead" servers it's such a small player base and having less lag across other servers outweighs that player base. This won't go through but o well I tried.
    Posted Oct 31, 2019
    GAM, polarowo and Zorr_ like this.
  2. I like the thought of less servers, and personally I agree with removing some, but still:
    "removing dead servers can increase RAM on other servers" You can't just go "MOAH POWAH" -words of alex
    "c5 being hardcore for EU players" it's better to keep it casual because EU servers are removed
    Otherwise yeah, it'd be a great idea to remove some servers to reduce the spread of players as it's clear that we don't have as many players as we used to.
    Posted Oct 31, 2019
    Busjack5 likes this.
  3. As Xion stated above, removing servers does not reduce lag; it's not proportional like that. Changing which servers are hardcore and which are casual is a discussion that's been had before without a definitive answer (at least a definitive answer while Grandpa has been Admin). In my opinion, reducing the total amount of servers (just reducing hardcore tbh) is something that should be done since, let's be honest, the community isn't as prosperous as it was S3 and prior.
    Posted Oct 31, 2019
    Xion likes this.
  4. I say there should be 4 servers 2 casual 2 hardcore, objections?
    Posted Nov 3, 2019
    AshtonIsBad and BlueBrian like this.
  5. This has been suggested for clans numerous times before and there are two main reasons against it that I received from clans management; being the start of the map and some players liking emptier servers. The issue with the start of the map is that the servers are usually filled up at the beginning of a new map reset which means players are left behind not being able to join a server. I am opposed to this reasoning as I think players can wait in a queue for opening spots and maybe add priority queue to ranked players and whatnot. In terms of players liking emptier servers, I think having a clans server with a max player slot of 20 will do for this one. Nevertheless, my objections may also contain some issues but they are definitely a better alternative in my opinion. I'm with you for the decrease in the amount of clans servers but I also understand where clans management is coming from in terms of not reducing the number of servers. Though keep in mind that ram is not the only factor in reducing lag, in fact, I'm for reducing the number of servers because it'll allow clans to be a little more fun in my opinion where there is more competition and player interaction not because it'll reduce lag. Issues with server-side lag is composed of many different factors, things such as the specs of the machine(s) utilized for clans are more important than ram in terms of better TPS (ticks per second).
    All in all, I'm for reducing the number of servers but I don't think it'll be the solution to lag and I do believe there are more reasons on why clans management won't reduce the number of clans servers but those are the main two that I was told about.
    Posted Nov 8, 2019
    Xion likes this.
  6. This used to be true, but nowadays your arguments are riddled with flaws. Here's the breakdown.

    "Some players liking emptier servers." -> This is true, and having a preference for low-pop servers is fine. Other than Clans-2, though, we have 8 low pop servers. You don't need to pick between 8... low pop servers.

    "The issue... servers are usually filled up... players being [left not able to join a server]." -> C'mon man. It's been a long time since this has happened. In my opinion, we actually are splitting the player base with this many servers. Each low-pop server has 8-15 players on it at a time, but in reality if everyone on that server were to be on at once, it's more like a community of 30 players. If you took that 30, and multiplied it by 8 (8 dead servers), you would have 240 players. With that, you could fill up an entirely new server, allowing people interested in high-pop to have a choice other than Clans-2, AND you'd still have room for two low-pop server for players that decide.

    I believe we need 3 hardcore, 2 casual servers, and that's it. Not for OP's reasons of lag (because they're completely wrong), but because of the reasons stated above.

    "I also understand where clans management is coming from..." -> In fact, this is a very old opinion tracking back to Season 3. Clans Management has not recently made a public stance on reducing servers, as there's been a power switch with Grandpa taking charge. From what I've already seen, the "new" Clans Management team has a very different (and positive!!!) mindset from the old, and so a lot of mindsets might also be different.

    Any message to do with lag and reducing servers fixing that. -> You can't just stuff more power into a server. Mineplex's (well, all) servers cap out at 5GB of RAM due to java. Shoving more power does nothing. It's simply a problem with them needing to streamline how their systems work in order to be less resource-intensive. They have recently done this reducing lag significantly being caused by Champions classes in Clans.

    Overall, I think that a reduction in servers is in order. I've listed my rebuttals to your argument, and my reasons why I believe it should be reduced. Feel free (you, and anyone else potentially reading this) to give me your opinion on the topic! I look forward to a good argument, or, maybe some changed minds!

    - :b:allen
    Posted Nov 8, 2019
    matrixyst, Abood and Xion like this.
  7. Well, you have misquoted me there
    I've stated that this is an issue only at the start of a new map reset.
    I completely agree with you, it's just a matter of waiting and helping clans management with what to do with the issues that can result from reducing the number of servers, even though I don't see any major issues with it we still need to simply wait and see what they decide to do!
    I understand this, however I used the reasons given to me by clans management when I was a staff member which was indeed a while ago so I am not rejecting your statement and I think they do have a different approach currently and I'm excited to wait and see if they make any decisions on reducing the number of servers soon or in the future.
    I'm not entirely sure if you have read my entire post, however I stated that it depends on the machine's specs. Unless Mineplex has the absolute most powerful specs being used on the hosting for clans, then yes you can stuff more power by simply upgrading the hardware. For example, upgrading from an old Xeon model to an i9-9900K, this results in the machine being a lot more powerful. Other components such as the storage and ram type do matter, but the CPU is the most important and that's what I meant by "specs".
    Huh? Are you by any chance able to PM me any sources? I've owned and managed large servers before, and I can assure you, you can stuff as much ram as you'd like. It wouldn't be good to do so but you can, a certain server I use to manage had a factions gamemode that utilized 48 GB of ram on a singular server. But it does depend on server configuration as too much ram is not good at all.
    If you upgrade your computer's CPU, it will perform better. If you upgrade the hardware of Mineplex's hosting, it will perform better and help with TPS (ticks per second).
    No disagreement concerning making things less resource-intensive as it does help, however it is not the only factor which is why it's not that simple.

    Overall, I agree with a lot of what you've said but some of your information may be inaccurate and I was at fault for highlighting too much on the conversation I had with clans management long ago.
    Posted Nov 8, 2019
    Fallen likes this.
  8. Will respond to this when I get the chance.
    --- Post updated ---
    No. This is an issue that happens on a singular server. You cannot apply that logic to all Clans servers. People clump into the high-pop server because the majority like high-pop. Having more servers has no effect on this.

    ok boomer

    Quoted from @AlexTheCoder way back when over discord chat, I'd have a hard time finding that source.
    I have a limited understanding of how their hosting works, but I'm pretty sure they are partitioning 1-2 game servers into many many servers and so upgrading one would likely mean all of them- so, probably not happening. Of course better specs mean better performance, but it's just not going to happen :/
    Posted Nov 8, 2019
    Abood likes this.
  9. I'm almost certain that you may have misunderstood him or that he made a mistake. Java does not limit a Minecraft server to 5 GB or else you won't see a Minecraft hosting company selling more than 5 GB of ram... so I'm a bit confused about that but it's not that big of a deal and isn't the topic at hand.
    I generally agree with what you have said, I tried to shed some light and then give a rebuttal on what clans management has told me before and how I interpreted it. It seems as though the information I have is a bit outdated and I apologize for that mistake, interested to see a clans management member give us some insight regarding this though. Nonetheless, I am all in for reducing the number of clans servers as stated before, so I advocate for that I think there's a lot of positives to come with it for clans!
    Posted Nov 8, 2019
    Fallen likes this.
  10. To be honest, while I do vaguely remember that our servers specifically have a 5GB cap, I'm not new to the server game myself, obviously you can fit more than 5GB on a regular server. That being said, Alex would have said that 2+ years ago. So, my information could be wildly out of date, not to mention I probably could have misinterpreted it, or even more likely, my brain might be collating two thoughts into one and giving you some jumble of the actual truth he told me 2 years ago.

    Definitely looking forward to @GrandpaNguyen 's opinion on all this!!! And no, not the 5GB stuff Gramps, the server amount. (That's right Grandpa, I'm dragging you into this, smh)
    Posted Nov 8, 2019
    Abood likes this.
  11. Hey! I completely do agree with this idea. Clans recently had a map reset which has helped most of the player base come back, but the most popular server is Clans-2. All of the other servers have 0-20 players on them at any time in the day. I believe that the amount of clans servers needed to be limited to five so that lag wont be as bad. Also with less servers that means more people on each server. In the end of the day if clans explodes in popularity they will always be able to add back more servers. I am not a developer so I have no idea how hard that is although I'm guessing its not very easy. This is just my opinion, thanks for reading! Have a great day everyone!

    Posted Nov 10, 2019
    Fallen likes this.
  12. Number of Clans servers has nothing to do with lag. Less servers does not mean less lag. Everything else I agreed with :)
    Posted Nov 10, 2019

Share This Page