Ryeng

@Killua // Ireland ^_^ I agree on some of it. It's not wrong that people can speed, but I think it's wrong that only one server is using speed limiters while all others are free speed. It should've been the other way around imo. If people really wanted to speed then they could queue up for the one or two servers that allowed it, or race around in SP. Even more so the biggest server should've definitely been a more realistic one with speed limiters instead of free speed as today. Then you can have smaller servers with free speed so that there is a trade-off between driving as fast as you want and playing with as many as possible.

+1, should have always been in place, if not even more rigid (actual driving test and license to connect to servers). Why TMP is supposed to be for everyone is beyond me. Minimum requirement to play should have always been to be able to follow basic traffic rules. Kids that don't pass the test can play singleplayer. Too bad something like this will never happen.

@Killua // Ireland ^_^ I was confused by the lack of detail on the update. I thought Eu 1 had limiters removed and all servers had free speed now. I now see that I was mistaken on this aspect. I still stand by my earlier statement though. I'm disappointed to see that the biggest servers with the most people is the ones where simulation is at the lowest. I don't understand the decision to open plenty of servers with no speed limits as it changes the core of the game too much imo. I would much rather see people being forced to play the game as it is intended with default settings (limiters on) from SCS when they choose to go play multiplayer. The people who can't stand the limiters can play their truck racing game offline or on a smaller server with less people, not be the ones that get the biggest server and multiple servers available to race around the map in 150+ kmh. TMP should be catered towards truck simmers, not truck racers imo.

Up the realism. Remove collision zones inside depots on EU1. (Keep them in repair, garage and hotel parking.) It will make the server more popular since it will be a much different and more realistic experience than other servers.

It's sad to see the direction the TMP Team is taking this multiplayer mod. Instead of promoting and working towards an enjoyable simulation experience, TMP is just becoming more and more like an arcade truck racing game where laws of physics are mean't to be ignored and the few realism aspects of SCS's truck simulator is deactivated to garner the truck racers instead of simmers.. This summer has made me lose a lot of interest in the MP seeing the decisions made by the TMP team.

@DAN RO If anything, people would have more than one option to go to, if this got popular. Just wait and see how Scandinavia will look after the next ETS version gets out of beta. @[Biu] - Luo Shen What do you mean with delayed phenomenon?

^ I don't think that would be the case.

^ I agree. The best would be dynamic afk only available in parking spots to give players an incentive to actually park where they're supposed to park, but if it's more work to implement, I would still be happy with a global dynamic system based on server population.

^ Good point about the afking in the middle of the road. Still think they would just get reported and banned for it tho. Player's choice if they want a quick ban. I don't see anyone waiting even the current afk time for a blocker to disappear anyway. F7+Enter and choose a different route if a road is blocked. After recording and reporting the blocker ofc.

@Supersam Thanks for expanding. I agree with many of your points, and I think your concerns are valid. On the other hand, I don't think that this suggestion would make things any worse than today. Heck, if trolls really go buy ETS2 hundreds of times, I would actually be kinda happy for that. It would only mean that SCS gets more money to expand their business and provide more great stuff (like the doubles, tried them today and they are just insanely cool and awesome). As for the hundreds of players enjoying the other servers, I agree, that will be a big hurdle to figure out here. I think the discussion regarding this should boil down to opting for a unison experience for all players, or keep things the way they are today with different experiences. As a middle ground, I could see this being "tested" with EU 2 and 3 today, meaning that you divide the map into 2 big chunks, but I don't see it providing anywhere near the same impact on the experience as potentially playing alongside 10k other players on 5 servers. @the bored hermit Thanks for pitching in. I disagree. I want to meet more people in the outer regions of the map, and I don't see this happening without giving players an incentive and higher chance to do so. @sko0923 Thanks for your input. I actually asked on the Discord yesterday regarding that specific thread and the chances of it happening. As far as I understood, it would require major re-coding of the entire server-setup, which made it highly unlikely to ever happen. Some day far into the future, I would definitely prefer such an automated system, but as of now, I don't think people would really mind taking a minute out of their time while they stop at a gas station to switch servers when they enter a new region. People play multiplayer because it's fun to drive alongside other people, this fact is what I believe will make this suggestion both possible and functional.

+1, I support this. It doesn't even have to be linked to parking spots or specific locations either. Just allow people to park for as long as they want, whenever the server isn't full. When server reaches 90% population, AFK timer will begin to kick people within the same time as today. It's probably easier said than done to implement such checks though, which is why it hasn't happened as of yet. I hope admins or moderators will convey devs or TMP team's opinion on this, as I think it's a very reasonable suggestion that wouldn't hurt anyone if implemented. I think reasonable suggestions should get some form of "official response". Whether it'll be "rejected", "accepted", or "open for discussion". I think it's important that contributors of suggestions get some kind of official statement, so that they can move on and think of new ideas instead of waiting for months for a proper response. My $0.02

@Doppler effect What do you mean? If TMP is paying money for a service that is less popular compared to another service they also pay for, then why shouldn't it be their right to change things as they wish? I'm all for simulation, and if it were up to me, all servers would have speed limiters enabled and NCZ in depots removed. However, I also understand that I can't possibly get everything the way I want it, so I would gladly give up my wish for more realism for a unison experience that everyone either accepts or avoids if they so strongly disagree with it. You can't satisfy everyone. It's impossible. In this case, I think more players gathered in each of the DLC areas would be a great improvement, and it would allow more people to play on "one server" together. As I said in OP, some players will very likely choose to drive to areas that are not suggested for a server. This is fine with me, as long as I meet more people in the areas I expect to meet more people (based on what server/map region I choose), then I won't be bothered by the people enjoying their loneliness.

@Supersam Thanks for your contribution. I respect your opinion, but I don't believe nobody would change servers if they had the option to. If I shared your opinion on that aspect, I wouldn't have bothered to post my suggestion at all. In terms of ping, I have to confess that I am currently living in the US, near the west coast. However, I play almost exclusively alongside my Norwegian friends whenever I play, and they have no problems with my ping of 160-170 ms to EU2. I have no issues either and I don't think a ping above 100 immediately makes a terrible experience for others. If that's the case, then I hope people record me and report me for my choppy connection (if there is one). I'm fairly confident that won't happen though. As I have stated in many other forum threads on many other subjects, I don't believe it's right to use trolls as a reason not to do something. Trolls, wherever they appear, will almost always be recorded and reported, no matter how they choose to go about their business. Therefore, I don't believe that anyone should resist change out of fear of trolling. In some cases, yes, it is obvious that some suggestions can allow more trolling, but I don't see how that applies to my suggestion here. Yes, on the long term, TMP would need more admins online to cover the 5 servers, but that's natural progression that shouldn't be a reason to not do something new. Please elaborate if you'd like. Yes, as of now, all servers are slightly different, but I think that overall TMP should strive for a more unison experience on all servers. If that comes at the cost of removal of speed limiter on EU 1 or the Full map NCZ EU 4, then so be it. As long as they reintroduce speed limiter inside city limits on all, I won't complain too much. I, like many others here, don't believe that the speed limiters alone are causing more mayhem than speed limiters being forced would do. Even if speed limiter was forced on all servers, trolls would still be trolling, some way or another. I also think that the speed limiters are a prime reason why the EU 1 server is not as popular as it once was. Yes, when there were no other option, then people would play with speed limiters regardless of their preference. However, I think many players quickly get accustomed to driving at 120+ kmh, and returning to 90 max or 110 max, becomes a bigger downgrade than it felt like before. I also believe there are many good drivers that really can handle high-speed trucking totally fine, which is why I don't think speed limiters are the culprit of trolling, nor a necessity in TMP. The same goes for the Skodas. It's not the cars that are the problem. It's the drivers. The trolls and bad drivers will eventually be banned (hopefully). @oolala11 Thanks for responding. As I wrote in OP, everyone can still drive everywhere on the map. The regions are just suggested regions for players to gather in. No changes needed to base game or servers as of today. Just rename them and inform the community. @Syntog Thanks for your response and questions. As I merely mentioned in my response to Supersam, I would like to see more of a unison experience overall in TMP. Yes, it will affect some players negatively, but overall I think the end result is a better, more predictable experience for all. If something like this was implemented, I would like to see the same rules for all servers. As of right now, I don't see the simulation server being as popular as it needs to be, to be an attractive choice for gamers. Neither is the freeroam server. In any way, after my drive through 3 DLCs earlier today, I have to say that driving alongside other DLC players are a joy compared to base game, central europe. I think even simulation players are choosing EU 2 over EU 1 as of now, due to the player base and amount of players. To your 2nd point, I don't see this being a problem at all. If you have a garage in each region, you can quick travel to whatever region you wish to play in. And for the ones that are yet to expand their trucking empire, they get a new reason to do so. Edit 1: To your latest edited part, I don't see the need for much, or any, extra work for admins to implement or test something like this. I would suggest this being tried and tested large scale before any sort of new coding or re-coding would be commenced. The biggest changes this would bring short-term, would be the closing of the currently low-populated servers in order to fully test this. In terms of increased amount of admin work, I would suggest that you (each admin) only focus on one server at a time if you decide to be online. Not jump between servers based on activity or reports. Yes, if loads of people are screaming on the Discord that someone is blocking or trolling really bad on a specific server that lacks an online admin, then someone could potentially jump in and get rid of the trolls. However, I think all players should just use the three R's, then drive somewhere else and let the trolls enjoy their limited time until they get banned. Seeing as some servers would almost exclusively be centered around DLC areas, then many trolls are out of the questions because of that alone. Edit 2: I also don't think there's any need for an automatic recognition of map location to server selection (Maybe for a future update if the devs really want to see it happen). I think all players will be able to figure this out manually all fine. There will be some questions about it on the forums, but when people get used to it, it will become 2nd nature. It's also fairly straight forward to understand. If you are going to drive in Scandinavia, join the server named Scandinavia.. If you plan on driving in France and southern eu, join the server named France/Southern EU and so forth. I think it's pretty self-explanatory in itself, and if it's also explained shortly in the rules that everyone should read before entering MP, then I don't see it being too difficult for players to grasp.

@Smalley - Truckers.FM I think you're jumping to a conclusion on something you won't know the answer to before it has been tested. I'm not saying you are wrong. You might be right. It might not change anything. Maybe players are lazier than I think, and won't change servers as they enter each map region. However, I don't think that's the only possible result of my suggestion here. I think many people would actually want to change servers to have more people to drive with. If I was driving from Germany to Norway, and I saw that the "Scandinavian Server" had 1k+ people online, I would change to that one when I crossed the border into Denmark because it could mean that I would be playing with more people than the 3500 players spread across the whole of EU. I'm pretty sure many more would think the same way. Yes, if you only drive around central europe, it won't change a thing for you personally, but for everyone that loves driving across the map and drive to different areas, this could bring a lot more life to the outer regions and DLC areas that are currently quite dead because most people drive in central europe to experience more traffic. It would also allow more people to be online and driving at the same time. Why have seperate servers where everyone is still driving in the same areas(but usually with less players), when you can make people swap servers based on where they want to drive? If it became the norm and all servers were packed, then you would have 2000 players in a much smaller area, all over the whole of EU, instead of 2k players spread across the whole map.

@Smalley - Truckers.FM I didn't find any similar suggestions when I searched the whole of the "Suggestions" forum. Yes, some are about server regions, some are about automatic server changing based on location etc. But I couldn't find anyone that was specifically the same as my suggestion, which is something that can easily be implemented right away. Please post a link to it, then I'll improve my searching habits for my next threads. This suggestion is not about different server locations. All servers would still be located in the EU. The servers are just named and suggested for different regions of the map to increase the player density in each of these regions. This will allow each player to choose different servers to play on depending on where they want to drive. If they want to drive in Scandinavia, Great Britain, Central EU, East or South(France DLC), you can choose the corresponding server alongside many other players, and you will potentially have a much higher density of players in each respective region. I don't see how it is hard to implement at all. It's just renaming servers, informing all players, and potentially adding 1-2 new servers (by removing some of the unpopular ones). Edit: This thread is suggesting an automated system which most likely involves huge changes to the coding of MP. It is not what I am suggesting, even though the essence of the end result is similar.