How much control do server hosts have?

[Spadis 0]

I'm considering renting/hosting my own server, but I have a few concerns before I jump in to running my own server.

The game is incredible, like nothing I have ever played before.

But if I was to run my own server, how much control would I have?

Here's an example of what I mean.

I would want the server to focus more on team pvp as opposed to player A and player B are hunting around for supplies in the same area.

Player A see's player B looking for some ammo in a store.

Player B is Friendly.

Player A is also friendly, but doesn't know that player B is friendly.

Player A doesn't want to risk dying so chooses to shoot player B.

Player B dies and get angry thus quitting the server.

I would like to have the server so that you can join and openly ask to team up with people, and if someone abused this, they would get kicked for a time before they could rejoin.

I want the server to focus more on working as a team against others, and if a player/small group of players are bandits raiding a town, they have to state that they intend on raiding a town/base.

What sort of control would I have? Please refrain from replying "No you can't do that." I'd appreciate some advice on the extent of admin/host control.

Don't get me wrong, the game is great and I know the dev's want a certain experience across all servers, but what I don't get is take battlefield 3 for example. The dev's want player to have this intense 'realistic combat' experience, but don't limit server hosts to have a 64 player knife only 10,000 ticket conquest match on metro.

I'm not sure why a few different types of servers are out there.

Thank you in advance.

Spadis.

[zuk 39]

Player A obviously wasn't friendly? You want people to work in teams against others but you don't want to allow 1 on 1? You can't dictate how others play.

[mansen 1]

No control whatsoever.

BEWARE - The same restrictions apply to Non-Dev run servers!

- IT MAY NEVER BE PASSWORDED

- NO OTHER KEYS OR MODS. NONE. PERIOD.

- NO KICKING TO MAKE ROOM FOR 'FRIENDS' OR CLANMATES

- NO LOCKING THE SERVER

- IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO UPDATE YOUR SERVER TO THE LATEST VERSION OF DAYZ

- Their are only two reasons why you, as a server owner, should ban a player on your server. Those two reasons are: Malicious talk, and racism. You may not ban a user for stealing your loot, killing you, spying on you, etc.

- You may only kick for disruptive behavior (such as continued VOIP over side channel). But you may not kick due to race or language or because the person does something you do not like.

- Kicking for extremely excessive ping or desync is permitted, but if abused is grounds for blacklisting

[Spadis 0]

Player A obviously wasn't friendly? You want people to work in teams against others but you don't want to allow 1 on 1? You can't dictate how others play.

I understand what you mean. The point I was trying to get across was that I would want the server to be focused on players working with each other, which would lead to group pvp.

Take yesterday for example. I was low on blood and asked for help from other player. The first response I got was from a player telling me I had just painted a target on my head.

I would want an atmosphere where players could work together towards a common goal without being deceived by others.

There are plenty of server out there that are full on pvp servers, nothing against the rules. Would it be so bad if a few servers bucked the trend and allowed players that don't want to be shot ever time they encounter another player, or want to work with a team of people?

[fenrix 9]

yeah aint gonna happen man. devs do not support modified playing environments for dayz and actively work against them.

[fighter139 191]

Yeah, uhhh, I understand what you're trying to do and it's actually a great idea.

But it's not allowed at this time, sadly.

[Cype 0]

No control whatsoever.

BEWARE - The same restrictions apply to Non-Dev run servers!

- IT MAY NEVER BE PASSWORDED

- NO OTHER KEYS OR MODS. NONE. PERIOD.

- NO KICKING TO MAKE ROOM FOR 'FRIENDS' OR CLANMATES

- NO LOCKING THE SERVER

- IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO UPDATE YOUR SERVER TO THE LATEST VERSION OF DAYZ

- Their are only two reasons why you' date=' as a server owner, should ban a player on your server. Those two reasons are: Malicious talk, and racism. You may not ban a user for stealing your loot, killing you, spying on you, etc.

- You may only kick for disruptive behavior (such as continued VOIP over side channel). But you may not kick due to race or language or because the person does something you do not like.

- Kicking for extremely excessive ping or desync is permitted, but if abused is grounds for blacklisting

[/quote']

I don't understand, why not? I had to create an account just to type this.

Of course this is Rocket's mod. Why the fuck (excuse my profanity) should we have to listen to a dev or you for the matter of how a person may run his/her server?

THEY paid for their own server, THEY paid for the right to their own server space. Why can't they lock the server for 5-15 of their OWN friends. Why should they not have control over their own server?

I play battlefield 3 and I know there are some REALLY douchebag server admins who kick people out for killing them or owning their team BUT, they paid for the server it's their temporary right to do whatsoever they want.

If an administrator is really abusing their power, then report it, and have DayZ staff blacklist the server IP with sufficient proof.

But the reasoning that a server can't be locked or kicked for their own reasons is just plain bullshit. Honestly, YOU let people have more rights to their servers, meaning more fun and more people testing the mod out. Let them do whatever the hell they want! They bought their own server hosting let them. There are plenty of other servers people can join if one other server is not to their liking.

I honestly don't see a rational standpoint to giving server administrators full reign to their PAID server. If this is to prevent admin abuse, THEN ban those servers that are abusive, don't completely set rules such as NO LOCKING servers that would stop personal games for just a few people.

yikes man.

***EDIT*** I just realized the possiblities of a private server, dragging items from your own servers to others, I disregard my last post, I understand the rules/

[Spadis 0]

I think the main point I don't really understand is why the rules are so specific?

Regarding the whole no kicking for friends/clan members I kind of understand, I don't think this is right 100% because server host's should have some benefit for running a server.

Would me or the admin's I choose to help me have to sit and wait for a spot if the server I/we pay X amount of money for a month is full?

What I don't understand is what benefit do server host have?

It says in the rules "Clans can call that server there home" but what's the point if you don't have rights to you own server?

What's the point if you can't set some rules out for you're own server?

If say I wanted to set the rule that pvp couldn't take place in cherno or elektro to give players a chance at meeting up players and forming groups as opposed to beginners walking into towns and getting there brains blown out? This would also promote pvp to take place in other areas as it seems like most pvp takes place in the NW airfield and the two major towns.

If players killed in the main towns they would get a warning in case it was friendly fire and if the continued a kick from the server. They could re-join but would be kicked if they continued ect.

Would that not mix things up a little?

[Ejaculacid 19]

I think the main point I don't really understand is why the rules are so specific?

Regarding the whole no kicking for friends/clan members I kind of understand' date=' I don't think this is right 100% because server host's should have some benefit for running a server.

Would me or the admin's I choose to help me have to sit and wait for a spot if the server I/we pay X amount of money for a month is full?

What I don't understand is what benefit do server host have?

It says in the rules "Clans can call that server there home" but what's the point if you don't have rights to you own server?

What's the point if you can't set some rules out for you're own server?

If say I wanted to set the rule that pvp couldn't take place in cherno or elektro to give players a chance at meeting up players and forming groups as opposed to beginners walking into towns and getting there brains blown out? This would also promote pvp to take place in other areas as it seems like most pvp takes place in the NW airfield and the two major towns.

If players killed in the main towns they would get a warning in case it was friendly fire and if the continued a kick from the server. They could re-join but would be kicked if they continued ect.

Would that not mix things up a little?

[/quote']

Well... You can ignore the rules but then your unique server id thing will be disconnected from HIVE server which will leave you fucked :)

[mansen 1]

I think the main point I don't really understand is why the rules are so specific?

Regarding the whole no kicking for friends/clan members I kind of understand' date=' I don't think this is right 100% because server host's should have some benefit for running a server.

Would me or the admin's I choose to help me have to sit and wait for a spot if the server I/we pay X amount of money for a month is full?

What I don't understand is what benefit do server host have?

It says in the rules "Clans can call that server there home" but what's the point if you don't have rights to you own server?

What's the point if you can't set some rules out for you're own server?

If say I wanted to set the rule that pvp couldn't take place in cherno or elektro to give players a chance at meeting up players and forming groups as opposed to beginners walking into towns and getting there brains blown out? This would also promote pvp to take place in other areas as it seems like most pvp takes place in the NW airfield and the two major towns.

If players killed in the main towns they would get a warning in case it was friendly fire and if the continued a kick from the server. They could re-join but would be kicked if they continued ect.

Would that not mix things up a little?

[/quote']

Your problem is that you have some notion of being entitled to something just because you host a server - which you most certainly do not.

You are offering to help host a server for the development and testing of a mod in its early alpha stages - not hosting a published game. So yes - you should have to wait to log on to your own server.

Can't deal with that? Don't host.

[trucksandtrains 2]

RE: Comparing BF3 servers to DayZ

When hosting a battlefield 3 server (I personally host 2) you agree to EAs T&Cs. They are very restrictive as well and include not being able to limit weapons used, and not banning / kicking players for no good reason. Its just impossible to police, so they let it slide.

[Adam (DayZ) 193]

Your problem is that you have some notion of being entitled to something just because you host a server - which you most certainly do not.

You are offering to help host a server for the development and testing of a mod in its early alpha stages - not hosting a published game. So yes - you should have to wait to log on to your own server.

Can't deal with that? Don't host.

Couldn't have said that better myself. Servers are hosted for the community, not for one person and their little band of self-entitled buddies.

[Spadis 0]

The silly thing here is people are jumping on me for things I haven't said.

I understand this game is in alpha still, and that its being tested, but that still doesn't mean that servers shouldn't experiment. Isn't that the point of testing? To try new things and see what works? It seems like more rules and harder game play is being forced on players, with the recent increase to the minimum slots for new servers being 40 (Limiting the chance of getting on a low pop server to grasp the basics if you're new).

And the fact that you don't start with a weapon now.

Adam in reponce to you're "Self-entitled buddies remark." Can you honestly say that you think a main admin and person the funds the server shouldn't not have 100% free access to his/her own server, even in the event of policing the server? That with the current rules as they are, if I hosted and hackers were messing my 40/40 slot server, I would have to wait to join? That seems stupid to me, really really stupid.

I never said id kick people to get my friends/clan members into a server, I personally like this rule, but the exception to the rules should be that admin's have priority, not a whole clan or admin's but a rule like this, "If no admin is present on the host's server, a player can be removed so an admin my join the server."

All I don't want to happen is for me to pay for a few months of running a server, then a week later find out that more rules are going into place. And I just wanted to find out the extent of the control I could have over the rules on a server. I can't dictate to players about pvp, that's not a problem. Doesn't mean that I wont try something within the rules anyway, I suppose that way I am testing the game more.

[Greg-UK4 31]

Don't look at it as:

I'm paying for a server so we have a place to play.

Look at it as:

I'm paying for a server to help the DayZ community, I do not expect anything back from this, I would just like to be a part of this amazing masterpiece of development and gameplay mechanics.

I've been running UK4 for almost a couple of months now, and regularly myself or my friends are not able to log in, no problem I find another UK server to play on.

The time and effort I've spent working on/improving/testing the server and it's environment is recompense enough for the actual hosting - and the thanks I get from the community as a whole for providing yet another place for them to play is a happy bonus for me.

I gladly follow the rules set by rocket, and as he once said (paraphrased because I forget the exact wordings):

Hosting a server is fine. Having access to HIVE is a privilege that can be revoked if you do not follow the rules. You're doing this to aid development and help the community grow.

A very altruistic approach to server hosting yes, but it's in the spirit of the mod and in my eyes a way forward for gaming as a whole.

Too many times have I joined other game servers to be restricted in my actions by some overbearing micro-managing overly aggressive admins who saw themselves as the outright almighty, their word was gospel.

Well dayz takes it a level higher, Rockets word is Gospel.

And as stated before: if you do not like the rules, reconsider hosting.

[Spadis 0]

Don't look at it as:

I'm paying for a server so we have a place to play.

Look at it as:

I'm paying for a server to help the DayZ community' date=' I do not expect anything back from this, I would just like to be a part of this amazing masterpiece of development and gameplay mechanics.

I've been running UK4 for almost a couple of months now, and regularly myself or my friends are not able to log in, no problem I find another UK server to play on.

The time and effort I've spent working on/improving/testing the server and it's environment is recompense enough for the actual hosting - and the thanks I get from the community as a whole for providing yet another place for them to play is a happy bonus for me.

I gladly follow the rules set by rocket, and as he once said (paraphrased because I forget the exact wordings):

Hosting a server is fine. Having access to HIVE is a privilege that can be revoked if you do not follow the rules. You're doing this to aid development and help the community grow.

A very altruistic approach to server hosting yes, but it's in the spirit of the mod and in my eyes a way forward for gaming as a whole.

Too many times have I joined other game servers to be restricted in my actions by some overbearing micro-managing overly aggressive admins who saw themselves as the outright almighty, their word was gospel.

Well dayz takes it a level higher, Rockets word is Gospel.

And as stated before: if you do not like the rules, reconsider hosting.

[/quote']

Thank you for giving some good words of advice.

The main reason for me wanting to host was to have a server in which I could get to know the regular players and to help build a clan/team up.

If I can't make some changes to the rules I am fine with that in all honesty. One of the main reasons also was so that I could add another UK server to the list, as most are full most of the time.

[trucksandtrains 2]

I host a DayZ server for these reasons:

1. I want a stable, updated server for my clan to call home.

2. I want to contribute to this project in the only way I know how.

3. I want to give 40 more people a place to play on a hopefully great server, without fear of being banned, kicked or abused without cause.

4. I understand and agree to the rules set by the developers.

Whatever your reasons, if you don't agree with no. 4 your going to have a bad time because those rules aren't going to change anytime soon. If you don't agree then don't host.

[dayzdeadmeat 44]

Did you consider that ensuring all servers are run in the same way creates a stable, reproducable test environment for this _alpha_ development project?

If/when this goes beta or gold, you may get the chance to host your own server with your own rules. You may not. But for now, it is what it is.

[mansen 1]

The silly thing here is people are jumping on me for things I haven't said.

I understand this game is in alpha still' date=' and that its being tested, but that still doesn't mean that servers shouldn't experiment. Isn't that the point of testing? To try new things and see what works? It seems like more rules and harder game play is being forced on players, with the recent increase to the minimum slots for new servers being 40 (Limiting the chance of getting on a low pop server to grasp the basics if you're new).

And the fact that you don't start with a weapon now.

[b']Experiment? Yes - but not on their own volition. The developers are the ones who decides what is being experimented.

Adam in reponce to you're "Self-entitled buddies remark." Can you honestly say that you think a main admin and person the funds the server shouldn't not have 100% free access to his/her own server, even in the event of policing the server?

That with the current rules as they are, if I hosted and hackers were messing my 40/40 slot server, I would have to wait to join? That seems stupid to me, really really stupid.

Again with the entitlement - Admins can "police" the server just fine without having to be physically logged on as a >> PLAYER << Clearly someone is missing Admin 101 here.

I never said id kick people to get my friends/clan members into a server, I personally like this rule, but the exception to the rules should be that admin's have priority, not a whole clan or admin's but a rule like this, "If no admin is present on the host's server, a player can be removed so an admin my join the server."

See above

All I don't want to happen is for me to pay for a few months of running a server, then a week later find out that more rules are going into place.

Then don't host - play on someone else's server

And I just wanted to find out the extent of the control I could have over the rules on a server. I can't dictate to players about pvp, that's not a problem. Doesn't mean that I wont try something within the rules anyway, I suppose that way I am testing the game more.

Bending rules is not considered "experimenting" with the game - Experimenting implies something a player, any player can do.

[Spadis 0]

I still think people are getting the wrong end of the stick.

This thread could be closed as far as im concerned, as my questions have been answered.

All I was suggesting was having non-pvp zones in a game.

Not everyone's game, just mine, just as a test.

That's against the rules, and now I know that.

I was making a suggestion and now feel very alienated for trying to contribute.

[mansen 1]

I still think people are getting the wrong end of the stick.

This thread could be closed as far as im concerned' date=' as my questions have been answered.

All I was suggesting was having non-pvp zones in a game.

Not everyone's game, just mine, just as a test.

That's against the rules, and now I know that.

I was making a suggestion and now feel very alienated for trying to contribute.

[/quote']

Well you did your very best to deviate from the thread yourself - if you want to suggest a PvP safe zone for the game there's a forum for that aptly named "Suggestions".

I severely doubt it'll be popular however due to the nature of the game - bandits would camp the "zone" exits and just lie in wait all day long ganking players. Having a "everywhere is potentially dangerous" setup makes people much less inclined to dying.

[WildGunsTomcat 78]

I take umbrage with the "self entitled little buddies remark" Adam.

That's all well and good, and please feel free to pay my 200 dollar server bill a month. But while I'm paying...I'm going to USE my server. And that means if I want to get into my server, I will get into my server. Period.

I don't kick for my friends...but I'm the admin. And the admin should be IN the server.

But speaking to the OP, I wouldn't bother buying a server. The dev team have set a precedent that puts all the powers into the players' hands....so much so that if you make one wrong move...they come running to mommy and daddy crying and screaming about how mean you were to them.

Don't get me wrong...some admins are pricks. But, if I even lock my server to test the stability of that server....I'm secretly hoarding weapons and exploiting...

It's getting stupid.