No Upkeep below 8 players to fill servers !

[Armbrust_Schtze]

The idea is that most people GTX when the players amount decreases below 8 because there will be no multi (no matter how fair teams are)

but though there is still upkeep ! i made up my mind and came to the idea to abolish upkeep when there are less than 8 players on server to  fill the server quickly or to ensure fun even with small amount of players..

[Shagrath Mork]

The idea is that most people GTX when the players amount decreases below 8 because there will be no multi (no matter how fair teams are)

but though there is still upkeep ! i made up my mind and came to the idea to abolish upkee when there are less than 8 players on server to  fill the server quick or to ensure fun even with small amount of players..

This or something similar could be a good way to encourage people to populate empty servers... +1

[Meow]

You mean like having 8 people on each "empty" server all night, leeching?
Sounds good.

[Tears of Destiny]

You mean like having 8 people on each "empty" server all night, leeching?
Sounds good.

Don't forget the voteban abuse anytime a 9th joins! 

[Arkonor]

I guess his plan could work if you also don't get income. So basically if a server is under certain number it is more like a "test" server until it is populated. But yeah it would make new players cry as they are stuck as farmers vs everyone else using their best gear available.

[Kafein]

The idea is that most people GTX when the players amount decreases below 8 because there will be no multi (no matter how fair teams are)

but though there is still upkeep ! i made up my mind and came to the idea to abolish upkeep when there are less than 8 players on server to  fill the server quickly or to ensure fun even with small amount of players..

Don't forget the voteban abuse anytime a 9th joins! 

The problem with the suggestion of ambrust is obviously the threshold effect caused by the 8 to 9 players "wall". Therefore, I suggest we integrate the methods of tax systems to avoid the threshold effect. That is, you first count the population of the server. Then you split this count between the different "taxation rates" you have, using the population thresholds associated to them (here, we have the "0-8" zone and the "9->" zone). Then, you divide the upkeep between the zones, weighted by population. An example :

The server has 24 players.

There are three zones :
1) 0-15
2) 16-32
3) 32+

The 1st zone represents 16/24 of the global server population and the 2nd zone represents 8/24. The third zone is outside the current server population.

Let's say your upkeep this round was 1000 gold. You'll have 1000*16/24 gold applied at the first rate, and 1000*8/24 gold at the second rate. So if the first zone had a reduction of 50% of upkeep and the second zone only 20%, you would pay 1000*16/24*50% + 1000*8/24*80% net upkeep.


If we apply this to the 0% upkeep under 8 players suggestion, and full upkeep over that, we get that you'll never pay for the part of your upkeep equivalent to 8 players among the total server population. Which means that you'll pay nothing under 8, 1/9 upkeep at 9 players, 2/10 upkeep at 10 players, 3/11 upkeep at 11 players etc. EU_1 usually has 100 players, which means they would pay 92% of their upkeep.

To make it really fair and abuse-proof (not completely but atleast as much as the current system is), the minimum upkeep rate shouldn't be 0%. Furthermore, having only two different rates seems not adequate. 8 seems like a good spot for the first delimiter, but it seems to me 24 players should also mean something. Let's say 40% upkeep under 8 players and 70% upkeep between 8 and 24 players.

[isatis]

The problem with the suggestion of ambrust is obviously the threshold effect caused by the 8 to 9 players "wall". Therefore, I suggest we integrate the methods of tax systems to avoid the threshold effect. That is, you first count the population of the server. Then you split this count between the different "taxation rates" you have, using the population thresholds associated to them (here, we have the "0-8" zone and the "9->" zone). Then, you divide the upkeep between the zones, weighted by population. An example :

The server has 24 players.

There are three zones :
1) 0-15
2) 16-32
3) 32+

The 1st zone represents 16/24 of the global server population and the 2nd zone represents 8/24. The third zone is outside the current server population.

Let's say your upkeep this round was 1000 gold. You'll have 1000*16/24 gold applied at the first rate, and 1000*8/24 gold at the second rate. So if the first zone had a reduction of 50% of upkeep and the second zone only 20%, you would pay 1000*16/24*50% + 1000*8/24*80% net upkeep.


If we apply this to the 0% upkeep under 8 players suggestion, and full upkeep over that, we get that you'll never pay for the part of your upkeep equivalent to 8 players among the total server population. Which means that you'll pay nothing under 8, 1/9 upkeep at 9 players, 2/10 upkeep at 10 players, 3/11 upkeep at 11 players etc. EU_1 usually has 100 players, which means they would pay 92% of their upkeep.

To make it really fair and abuse-proof (not completely but atleast as much as the current system is), the minimum upkeep rate shouldn't be 0%. Furthermore, having only two different rates seems not adequate. 8 seems like a good spot for the first delimiter, but it seems to me 24 players should also mean something. Let's say 40% upkeep under 8 players and 70% upkeep between 8 and 24 players.

*zombie mind* wall of text, uh, k cool bro, we connected...

(in fact you divide the unkeep by number of player, while 8 fist are free an then adding one by player an then you'll get a population based unkeep... cool)
 per exemple you got to pay 60% (600 in the case of 1000 (duh magic math)) at 24 player.

work for me!

[JuniorD]

I like the idea, but it would be possible to spam smaller sized servers. So, it'd be best to put it on a scale.

[FRANK_THE_TANK]

As a player that plays in Australia where are servers are more often than not bellow 8 players. I value your input and whole heartedly endorse your idea.

GIVE ME MA FREE MONEYZ!!!!!!!!!!

Also I tracked my upkeep costs over a 2 week period 1h of play in every session I screen caped the end. Low pop or high pop made no real difference. The only time there was a problem was when you had bellow the limit of players to cause an x3 and the rounds were dragging out. Our rounds were ending on average after 1:10 which is optimal really. 2 ticks and then you get straight back into it. More or less max XP output. The best thing to do in that situation is to sub down to cheaper gear but really if the round turn over is fast enough it doesn't matter because you pay out on less gear.

[dodnet]

Oops... selected wrong vote. I wanted to say upkeep no matter how many ppl are on. Else a lot will be leeching on the small servers.

[slothscott]

You mean like having 8 people on each "empty" server all night, leeching?
Sounds good.

Its called Australian servers at non peak times , we got screwed over.

[Zerran]

(click to show/hide)

The problem with the suggestion of ambrust is obviously the threshold effect caused by the 8 to 9 players "wall". Therefore, I suggest we integrate the methods of tax systems to avoid the threshold effect. That is, you first count the population of the server. Then you split this count between the different "taxation rates" you have, using the population thresholds associated to them (here, we have the "0-8" zone and the "9->" zone). Then, you divide the upkeep between the zones, weighted by population. An example :

The server has 24 players.

There are three zones :
1) 0-15
2) 16-32
3) 32+

The 1st zone represents 16/24 of the global server population and the 2nd zone represents 8/24. The third zone is outside the current server population.

Let's say your upkeep this round was 1000 gold. You'll have 1000*16/24 gold applied at the first rate, and 1000*8/24 gold at the second rate. So if the first zone had a reduction of 50% of upkeep and the second zone only 20%, you would pay 1000*16/24*50% + 1000*8/24*80% net upkeep.


If we apply this to the 0% upkeep under 8 players suggestion, and full upkeep over that, we get that you'll never pay for the part of your upkeep equivalent to 8 players among the total server population. Which means that you'll pay nothing under 8, 1/9 upkeep at 9 players, 2/10 upkeep at 10 players, 3/11 upkeep at 11 players etc. EU_1 usually has 100 players, which means they would pay 92% of their upkeep.

To make it really fair and abuse-proof (not completely but atleast as much as the current system is), the minimum upkeep rate shouldn't be 0%. Furthermore, having only two different rates seems not adequate. 8 seems like a good spot for the first delimiter, but it seems to me 24 players should also mean something. Let's say 40% upkeep under 8 players and 70% upkeep between 8 and 24 players.

Good idea, but I'd cap the upkeep at around 20 something players. This shouldn't be something that is used other than in fairly extreme cases where the pop is too low for a multi.

[Armbrust_Schtze]

You mean like having 8 people on each "empty" server all night, leeching?
Sounds good.

didnt get it mister comminist cat? under 8 players you get no multi, x1 isnt that very leechable ;)

[Segd]

Just disable repairs when "team not fairly balanced" message happens.

[Armbrust_Schtze]

yeah it must be awesomely leechable and fun to leech x1 hard with 7 players...