Display Server Player Count?

[Tolakram]

On the Portal Storm is now in the supporting section, somehow removed from official server

[Etaew]

On the Portal Storm is now in the supporting section, somehow removed from official server

yup did it as a trial

[Tolakram]

hmmm, I think that's interesting ... not sure if official drives people away though.

[Trick]

I actually like the idea of having players rate the server, and that rating showing up on the portal-- It gives new servers the chance to prove themselves once players log in, and doesn't deter a player unless the server has a low rating. If we look at Youtube, no one is going to want to watch a video that has more dislikes than likes, etc.

So this is the method I propose, keeping it simple:

new servers have a No Rating status, rather than 0 players. That encourages players who give a crap to log in and check out the server.

Also the rating imo should be separated into, Corruptness, Difficulty, Repetitiveness, etc. and this will give the admins a good idea of what they must change in order to get their ratings back up. Ofc. there will be issues if an admin decides to use proxy.org to boost his ratings, but then again its not hard to change the client count to whatever suits his or her needs anyway (ratings through DOL website account rather than guest would help keep the trolls at bay) . I like the idea also of separating the status of a server by how much it contributes as its done now, so keep that. ["equal playing fields" is is a good way to get no one to contribute to DOL ]

Also a good idea for keeping trolls from hindering a new server, I suggest keeping the No Rating status for at least 10 rates.

[geshi]

And making it so you can only rate a server if you have over 10 posts on this forum... good idea.

[baradien]

And making it so you can only rate a server if you have over 10 posts on this forum... good idea.

reminds me of betaarchive. same thing ya need more then 10 posts for to download throught there ftp.

[Argo]

The problem that i see here is that numbers don`t say anything about the quality of a server, it does not say something about the gamers experience etc... Storm is in my eyes a high quality server but has a low population, Utgarth is a high quality server with a high population. these two servers are both brilliant in their own ways but as a new visitor i would see only that utgarth has a high population and go there without even have tried storm. I guess you all know what i want to say with that...

kind regards
Argo

[baradien]

The problem that i see here is that numbers don`t say anything about the quality of a server, it does not say something about the gamers experience etc... Storm is in my eyes a high quality server but has a low population, Utgarth is a high quality server with a high population. these two servers are both brilliant in their own ways but as a new visitor i would see only that utgarth has a high population and go there without even have tried storm. I guess you all know what i want to say with that...

kind regards
Argo

yep but know the most players wants it like the old classic way that should attracts a lot peeps in my opinion

[Trick]

yep but know the most players wants it like the old classic way that should attracts a lot peeps in my opinion

The old classic way? I actually played Iseult because of its low population so I didn't have to worry about taking turns killing mobs

but I totally agree with Argo, I played Storm for a while and it was a great server, the only problem was no one else knew it was; instead they all flocked like lemmings to the high populated eden/uthgard :O

+1 to ratings system

[Recursion]

Is player count really even all that reliable with how easily it can be spoofed?

[Tolakram]

Generally yes, because people know if they spoof they will get caught and banned from the portal.

[stephenxpimentel]

Is player count really even all that reliable with how easily it can be spoofed?

Generally yes, because people know if they spoof they will get caught and banned from the portal.

and the topic is dead. i like showing the pops as low/medium/high.

[Trick]

Yeah it's like how WoW does it; not better than ratings, but better.

[Tolakram]

There is no difference whatsoever, except the potential to make it worse. With displayed numbers people are making individual choices on what pop they like, with words we are lumping those choices into bigger pools. Someone who might have joined a server with 40 players might not if it says Low. So the server loses that player.

At this point we start to get into word inflation, where the decider of the limit has to start adjusting them to better fit the overall population.

If Uthgard has 500 people and Eden has 200 ... are they both high? is Eden Medium? Is Eden Low? What about the smaller servers like Storm? Always Low?

The only two valid choices, IMO, are showing the numbers or showing nothing. I've already stated what I feel about nothing ... which is players will have to waste time to join to see the pop.

[Etaew]

Display all the information, rep, players, and whether or not the players online are low / normal / high for that particular server at the time?

Just we change how servers are ordered, not by player count anymore.