Server management & stand-alone

[taco241 393]

I thought I would start a topic to get some thoughts on how servers will be managed and maintained in the standalone.

I have complete faith in the dev team for good things coming in the release, but am concerned about how it will be served to us.

Currently, the player-hosted servers are not without fault. There are instances of admin abuse (probably not so frequent - a lot of awesome admins out there), and a huge variance in the starting equipment, vehicle and gear spawn options. Let's presume this will all be standardized and there will be no server-specific variance in the standalone.

My bigest concern is how servers I play on currently, seem to go offline inexplicably, negating my progress.

Assuming there's more end-game and long-term progress that our characters will be invested in, servers have to stay on and active.

This is not so much a problem if everything is saved to a hive and I can continue on a different server but what happens

if private hives become a possibility in standalone too?

Any recommendations/thoughts on how servers should be controlled or managed?

[aussiestig 681]

In my opinion, people should be forced to sign some kind of contract to say they will keep the server up for 'x' amount of time. Maybe a minimum of 3 months or something like that.

If you cannot afford to keep a server up for the period of time you say you will keep it up for, then you should not be hosting.

[ravey 24]

I think I read somewhere that DayZ will not be running their own servers. It will be a similar situation that we have now. This is why I thought they were introducing strongholds? So players have a global save point to keep gear safe when switching to different servers.

This is just an assumption from what I have read though.

[SmashT 10907]

Wrong game Ravey.

The current plan is to have all servers connect to a single public hive with a list of predefined settings for customization (first person, third person, view distance etc but nothing crazy like we see in the mod with extra vehicles, custom loadouts and stuff like that. You can't prevent people closing down servers they are paying for, that's unreasonable although the damage will be lessened with all servers sharing a single hive (just need to spread your tents across various servers)

Admin abuse is a tricky one and I'm not sure how they plan on handling that to be honest. Having a "Code of Conduct" simply doesn't work IMO and I can't really think of a practical alternative.

Edited January 14, 2013 by smasht_AU

[failhorse 2]

I've been lurking for a bit and thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. I've been a long time admin/host for Source based games. I'll use TF2 as the basis for most of my comments as that game seems to constantly come back from the dead.

First, to combat admin or server abuse. IE someone funking with server settings ect. Since the game will be on Steam you have access to the unique Steam IDs of every player. Do what Valve does with TF2. An admin/server owner must register a server for the quick play feature. Do the same to connect to the public hive. This is simply tagging the owners Steam ID to the server. This person becomes responsible for said server. If there is trouble you have someone direct to sort things out. If the problem persists you can delist/cut off the problem. To combat abuse. Simply offer a report server function while in game. A quick drop down menu and 255 char can sort out the whiners from real problems.

As for server longevity. What tools you give admins to promote is key in a server being successful. This breaks down into 2 functions. Advertising and retainment. On advertisement 1/2 of it is already there with the battleye messages everyone sees in game. A proper MOTD is also key. TF2 survived as long as it did, before hats, because of the communities. Players were able to connect with fellow players and stick together. In Source games when a player connects to a server they see a HTML MOTD first. example http://critsandvich....motd/index.php You click continue, and play the game. (It looks funky on a normal webpage.)

Retainment is more difficult. How do you get players to come back? Well that's on the server itself. A healthy fun server is key. Being unique also helps. Down the road non-game changing modding is key.

You also have to look at server costs. Offset them with non-game changing benefits. It is possible to get someone to shell out a few bucks a month for visuals. Just like the admin flag (but without the admin menu.) If it's possible, go with reserved slots. Which can be easily setup to not kick players. Simply have a 50 slot server only show 45 slots on a server list. Show only public available slots. No one likes to get kicked for reserved slot when a server shows 47/50. You do not need a ton of invisible slots. Large servers will have players coming and going all the time. What about visuals? Throw a couple unique skins server owners can assign to donor flags. Both ideas aren't Earth shattering. But compare them to the private hives that give donors idiotic starting gear. Benefits should be a thank you, Not a p2w ordeal.

Edited January 14, 2013 by failhorse

[Darkwater (DayZ) 63]

Thing about DayZ is that it's quite a different game from TF2 or any FPS. All are FPS, but you cannot tamper with the visuals or skins of DayZ too much before it could be considered unfair. The ghillie is just a skin, but if you were to freely give that out, it would give a very unfair advantage to whatever player had it. Or camo clothing, it would make you harder to spot. Weapon skins, it would be harder for opposing players to get a pinpoint on what weapon you're wearing and weapons are used for deciding if you should kill them or not.

The game will feature, as far as I know, many different clothing options based on what you find. If it's there, you can wear it. So in a sense it makes it close to impossible and pointless to give out various skins for donations. In DayZ it seems that in order for a server to be successfull and live long, it has to have 24/7 daytime or Fullmoon every night, but once that is forcibly removed, all will be on equal footing again and people will play on servers depending on what people they meet.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Darkwater

[failhorse 2]

You'd be surprised what people are willing to pay for. This is why the micro-transaction model works. Not that I am endorsing any such thing! What skin you use is dependent on your play style. Spawning with a gillie is obviously a p2w advantage. Maybe I'm thinking more player model than clothing. But on clothing. Here's an example. Say you like to work out your inner hipster and fancy a bike ride around Cherno. There are 4 pieces of clothing that can be randomly found to dress like a hipster. The non-game changing benefit would allow you to swap your default spawn clothing for the hipster set. Then you'd be free to ride your fixed gear over to the pub for a PBR. Less ironically. The whole idea is just to give a thank you to someone for shelling out a couple bucks.

[SmashT 10907]

First, to combat admin or server abuse. IE someone funking with server settings ect. Since the game will be on Steam you have access to the unique Steam IDs of every player. Do what Valve does with TF2. An admin/server owner must register a server for the quick play feature. Do the same to connect to the public hive. This is simply tagging the owners Steam ID to the server. This person becomes responsible for said server. If there is trouble you have someone direct to sort things out. If the problem persists you can delist/cut off the problem. To combat abuse. Simply offer a report server function while in game. A quick drop down menu and 255 char can sort out the whiners from real problems.

I quite like the idea that a server is tied to the owners steam ID.

My experience with reporting servers and player reporting too for that matter is they simply do not work, at least in every game I have ever played it hasn't worked. Where do the reports go? Who investigates these reports? How do they determine the report is genuine? Any popular game is going to get hundreds if not thousands of reports a day, that's a lot of time/money spent on support staff that could otherwise be spent on game development. I expect having these rules is good to fall back on in situations where a server is doing something significantly damaging but in most cases not much happens.

While it's good in theory, I just don't think it's a practical solution, maybe it doesn't need to be though as most players seem satisfied if there is a mechanism in place for submitting reports, even if doing so has seemingly no outcome.

Edited January 14, 2013 by smasht_AU

[Cdrive 60]

I thought I would start a topic to get some thoughts on how servers will be managed and maintained in the standalone.

I have complete faith in the dev team for good things coming in the release, but am concerned about how it will be served to us.

Currently, the player-hosted servers are not without fault. There are instances of admin abuse (probably not so frequent - a lot of awesome admins out there), and a huge variance in the starting equipment, vehicle and gear spawn options. Let's presume this will all be standardized and there will be no server-specific variance in the standalone.

My bigest concern is how servers I play on currently, seem to go offline inexplicably, negating my progress.

Assuming there's more end-game and long-term progress that our characters will be invested in, servers have to stay on and active.

This is not so much a problem if everything is saved to a hive and I can continue on a different server but what happens

if private hives become a possibility in standalone too?

Any recommendations/thoughts on how servers should be controlled or managed?

Seems as though a lot of your concerns are directed towards private hives. While admin abuse will always be around, I believe in one recent interview they had said that the controls put out by administrators would be much more constricted than they are now. The standalone will be forcing servers to whitelist on the public hive, which will not only keep servers in check in terms of custom (if even possible) settings but also for a quality standard. I agree that server stability is a big issue back when everyone was on the public hive but there have been many server architecture changes that have been made to streamline and optimize so it shouldn't be as severe as what we once experienced back in may, june and july. That being said however I don't think we should expect complete stability as this is still going to be considered an 'alpha' build, with many changing variables and as Matt Lightfoot said "The foundation build (alpha) will be consistantly evolving and we will continue to add and change features while trying to keep it stable."

When we're dealing with the way DayZ currently is, and will be for the next year it's a rational expectation to see instability in the standpoint regarding private hives but I don't think it will be a concern until much, much later in development simply because the public hive forces servers to play by Rockets rules, the way that he wants the game to be played and I feel that is detrimental to the project.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Cdrive

[failhorse 2]

I quite like the idea that a server is tied to the owners steam ID.

My experience with reporting servers and player reporting too for that matter is they simply do not work, at least in every game I have ever played it hasn't worked. Where do the reports go? Who investigates these reports? How do they determine the report is genuine? Any popular game is going to get hundreds if not thousands of reports a day, that's a lot of time/money spent on support staff that could otherwise be spent on game development. I expect having these rules is good to fall back on in situations where a server is doing something significantly damaging but in most cases not much happens.

While it's good in theory, I just don't think it's a practical solution, maybe it doesn't need to be though as most players seem satisfied if there is a mechanism in place for submitting reports, even if doing so has seemingly no outcome.

Reading through 1000s of reports is pointless. I actually missed an entire part... Lack of coffee. Basically stick all the reports into a database assigned to server owner IDs. Keep maybe the last 30 days of reports. When you start and register a server, you're given 20k points. Every time a player connects you lose 15 points. Then gain a point for every minute the player is on the server up to 30. A crappy server will watch its score disappear quickly. As people will disconnect before their score equals out. If a server hits 0, it alerts the appropriate employee who then checks the reports to see what's going on. If the server is misbehaving, you have some sort of paper trail to deal with them. This is how Valve deals with Source games.

[SmashT 10907]

Reading through 1000s of reports is pointless. I actually missed an entire part... Lack of coffee. Basically stick all the reports into a database assigned to server owner IDs. Keep maybe the last 30 days of reports. When you start and register a server, you're given 20k points. Every time a player connects you lose 15 points. Then gain a point for every minute the player is on the server up to 30. A crappy server will watch its score disappear quickly. As people will disconnect before their score equals out. If a server hits 0, it alerts the appropriate employee who then checks the reports to see what's going on. If the server is misbehaving, you have some sort of paper trail to deal with them. This is how Valve deals with Source games.

While I am sure some method of statistical analysis could be used to determine a "server rating". I haven't ever seen such a system effectively implemented and I really don't expect to. If Valve already does this then it's extremely inefficient given the huge number of complaints about admin abuse on their forums while not being able to find a single reference to any server ever being removed (even from quick play) Even their own knowledge-base pretty much tells you to add the server to your personal blacklist and play elsewhere. https://support.stea...=8830-EOBN-8013

I'm very sceptical of these systems, the reports could just go to an unread mail server for all we know, at least it gives the impression something is done I guess. I do like the personal blacklist system they have though.

Edited January 14, 2013 by smasht_AU

[wooly-back-jack 294]

I think we should still get the private option tbh, I know we are promised less/no hackers but in the real world people who make and sell cheats would surely target the new games to make ££$$

What if then we are all stuck on a hacker infested public hive?

[failhorse 2]

While I am sure some method of statistical analysis could be used to determine a "server rating". I haven't ever seen such a system effectively implemented and I really don't expect to. If Valve already does this then it's extremely inefficient given the huge number of complaints about admin abuse on their forums while not being able to find a single reference to any server ever being removed (even from quick play) Even their own knowledge-base pretty much tells you to add the server to your personal blacklist and play elsewhere. https://support.stea...=8830-EOBN-8013

I'm very sceptical of these systems, the reports could just go to an unread mail server for all we know, at least it gives the impression something is done I guess. I do like the personal blacklist system they have though.

I think that was the breakthrough needed to close, at least my part of the discussion. Quite simply. Have a report server button. You report the server. It does something in an unread mailbox. But for the player it automatically blacklists any server tied to that server owners account. :lol: Think that's an acceptable outcome for an alpha.

Just briefly on the server point system. Valve is using it differently that what I'm thinking. The point system feed into their quick play feature. Basically my top server, 4 people join, quick play will send it 20 players almost instantly. My lower rated servers, it could take 8-12 before it kicks in. Without quick play, you need a lot of regulars to keep a server at a decent population. Low scored server rarely get any quick play 'customers.' Very few players browse the server list anymore. It's either fav's or quick play. And Valve won't remove a server from quick play. They want it listed with a low score. At least that's what I'd want.

I don't see this system, as designed, working with DayZ. That's why i augmented it slightly. On servers getting delisted. This has happened. At least in CS:GO. Where TF2 is more for testing. CS:GO had a lot of shenanigans early on. The only thing I've ever seen Valve do in TF2 was back when they really wanted to crack down on fake clients. They sent out an email via srcds and warned that offending servers would be delisted. The next update offending servers were getting warning spammed in their console. I think every offending server removed fake clients. Then a few server groups died months later. (Lack of players.)

OK i'm done.

[theirongiant 200]

I'd hope that private hives make a come back some point in the future, for anybody that doesn't have a ready made community behind them, trying to build a player base is going to be difficult for fledgling hosts when they don't have the flexibility to tailor the game for their players. Currently there is a lot of room to try and find a niche, I know some people will say it's just led to a proliferation of "400 VEHICLES!!!! 20 CHOPPERS!!! DEER STANDS THAT FART OUT AS50's!!!" type servers but these things are always cyclic, if it starts getting top heavy with "extra stuff" servers then maybe you can pick up players by running a more vanilla server. Currently 35% of servers are tumbleweed territory, when there is little difference between server A and server B it's only going to drive players to the busier servers (barring the odd drive by player raiding the NWAF on a low pop one).

This isn't a complaint, i'm dying to see the SA and I'll be switching my server to SA as soon as possible but trying to get a regular base of players is going to be an even more uphill struggle.

[wooly-back-jack 294]

^exactly

[taco241 393]

Maybe the whole public/private hive argument will be out the window. Perhaps we'll have a hybrid system that allows customizable severs offering different maps while still retrieving your character and all his/her on-body posessions from a central hive-like database.Who knows.

But if you will need to start a new life on a custom map (as happens currently for private-hives) it'd be nice to have a server browser that indicated your progress (maybe a 3D model of your character and a list of all gear).

Edited January 16, 2013 by taco241