LinusTechTips Minecraft Network
Minecraft IP: mc.ltt.gg

Number of clients for survival

Charn_

Regular
Mar 25, 2020
1
0
1
The number of clients for survival is limited to 100, is this cap set for reasons other than lag? I'm often in the waiting list to join survival for several minutes during peak times. Was wondering if the limit would ever increase if the number of players continues to increase.
 

TheForgeMaster

Regular
Mar 7, 2020
5
5
3
If there are significant performance improvements, then maybe. Originally, the server had a cap of 200. When Linus dropped the server IP in his Minecraft RTX video, the server had 120-150 players on with widespread complaints of unplayable lag. After the cap was reduced to 100, there hasn't been much lag.
 

dkressjr

Member
dkressjr
dkressjr
Void
Mar 6, 2020
64
24
8
If there are significant performance improvements, then maybe. Originally, the server had a cap of 200. When Linus dropped the server IP in his Minecraft RTX video, the server had 120-150 players on with widespread complaints of unplayable lag. After the cap was reduced to 100, there hasn't been much lag.
Yep.
The server is still in its beta phase. I speculate that decreasing the player cap and implementing a queue was a solution to temporarily resolve the lag. I'm sure when the server moves out of beta and officially launches, the player cap will be increased to where there will be, essentially, no queue. Just speculating though, could be wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: __paper

__paper

Regular
__paper
__paper
Mar 1, 2020
60
29
18
Eastern U.S.

DyDestroyer1027

Regular
trainboyns2
trainboyns2
Feb 27, 2020
75
29
18
Ranks for the win!
We shouldn't have to pay to be able to play in a timely manner or during peak hours
although recently the player count has been going down, so it's not as much of an issue now
 

Phonetic

Regular
Feb 24, 2020
23
10
3
We shouldn't have to pay to be able to play in a timely manner or during peak hours
although recently the player count has been going down, so it's not as much of an issue now
Well, there's a choice, either have a paid priority queue or not.
With a paid priority queue, some people get to play in a timely manner.
Without a paid priority queue, no one gets to play in a timely manner.
 

DyDestroyer1027

Regular
trainboyns2
trainboyns2
Feb 27, 2020
75
29
18
Ranks put you in a priority queue.
After the servers final release, that's gonna be the only way to play. Unless this bypass is removed, those who pay, get to play. Plus, without some kind of veteran queue, those who have been with the server for almost a year and can't afford ranks (it came out in July) don't get to play on the server they've been with for almost a year, or more.


Quick Math
If the final server video does come out, we will assume that the video ends up with 1 million views after a week.
If 5 percent of those viewers have Minecraft and want to play, or purchase the game to play, we would have 50000 more players.

There are 10080 minutes per week, that's 5 players per minute (rounded down). That means that if survival is empty (and assuming the 100 player cap), it will fill up in about 20 minutes. The entire server (assuming a 1200 player cap) would fill up in about 4 hours.
 
Last edited:

__paper

Regular
__paper
__paper
Mar 1, 2020
60
29
18
Eastern U.S.
Ranks put you in a priority queue.
After the servers final release, that's gonna be the only way to play. Unless this bypass is removed, those who pay, get to play. Plus, without some kind of veteran queue, those who have been with the server for almost a year and can't afford ranks (it came out in July) don't get to play on the server they've been with for almost a year, or more.
My opnion on priority queue:
Priority queue for ranks is a good thing. People who plan to commit to the server can pay (even for iron) and get ahead of the majority of players. However, if we're going to roll with the idea that players who commit (or plan to commit) to the server are going to be rewarded, then a veteran queue makes sense too. Rank priority rewards the players who plan to commit, but we need something to reward the players who already have committed. Hence, a veteran queue.
That fixes this problem:
With a paid priority queue, some people get to play in a timely manner.
Without a paid priority queue, no one gets to play in a timely manner.
and helps fix this problem (for veteran players, who deserve it):
The entire server (assuming a 1200 player cap) would fill up in about 4 hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DyDestroyer1027

dkressjr

Member
dkressjr
dkressjr
Void
Mar 6, 2020
64
24
8
There are 10080 minutes per week, that's 5 players per minute (rounded down). That means that if survival is empty (and assuming the 100 player cap), it will fill up in about 20 minutes. The entire server (assuming a 1200 player cap) would fill up in about 4 hours.
I think this here proves why it's, probably, unreasonable to assume that the cap will stay at 100 players when the server launches.

Again, I'm purely speculating (and maybe @jakkuh can comment if he has an idea of what he is going to do), but I don't think a 100 player limit will be the cap when then server launches. I get the sense that the player cap was reduced from 200 players to 100 players as a quick and temporary fix to the unbearable lag issues that manifested after the release of the RTX video to make the beta server playable at least. I don't see LMG launching something for their large community that so few people can enjoy at a time.

Again, I'm speculating, but I'm sure Jake and the Devs have the foresight and are aware of this potential problem. For that reason and all of the other reasons you guys have mentioned, I believe they will figure out a way to increase the player cap, as that is the least "community dividing" solution.
 

__paper

Regular
__paper
__paper
Mar 1, 2020
60
29
18
Eastern U.S.
Again, I'm speculating, but I'm sure Jake and the Devs have the foresight and are aware of this potential problem. For that reason and all of the other reasons you guys have mentioned, I believe they will figure out a way to increase the player cap, as that is the least "community dividing" solution.
I agree with you; 100 players seems way too little. For now, it works (we almost never hit the cap), but in the released server, it won't work. This is probably a temporary solution. I'm sure Jake and the devs will find a solution to this problem.
well, I checked and Jake wrote the script for that video so it was his choice.
We can't blame Jake or Linus for the player cap. It was going to increase anyway (we're still in beta, remember?). The RTX video was a sort of test, to see what the server could handle and how many people would join the server from a Youtube plug.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dkressjr