300 player servers ever possible?

[TheMachine 803]

The map is gigantic, 50 (or in a lot of cases less) is very few people imo.

I've read rocket say servers stress prevents more players from being on the servers.

But perhaps with arma 3, or maybe some optimizing more players will be a possibility?

The game would be IMMENSE with that many people to try to avoid, because north of the coast now is practically a dead zone, apart from 2 or 3 hotspots.

[Turin (DayZ) 3]

The map is huge, but i think 50 players is the right amount personally. Run-ins with players should be a rare occurence, and the majority of the time you should feel like you're isolated and alone.

Certainly any more than 150 and I think it would become an all-out open-world deathmatch experience with people just running around killing each other constantly. Not the right direction at all for the game.

[TheMachine 803]

The map is huge' date=' but i think 50 players is the right amount personally. Run-ins with players should be a rare occurence, and the majority of the time you should feel like you're isolated and alone.

Certainly any more than 150 and I think it would become an all-out open-world deathmatch experience with people just running around killing each other constantly. Not the right direction at all for the game.

[/quote']

I think it would add new emphasis to player avoidance.

And so what if people start killing each other en masse?

It's just a new dynamic to the game that you need to deal with.

More possibility of dying with more players = more fun.

[Turin (DayZ) 3]

And so what if people start killing each other en masse?

It's just a new dynamic to the game that you need to deal with.

More possibility of dying with more players = more fun.

There's a high possibility of dying when playing COD. :-/ That doesn't make COD a good survival simulator...

Trust me, the more you fill the map with players, the more the game will turn into an online open-world FPS game in deathmatch mode.

[dunnobe 3]

Without the saving & database system, you'ld probably have a lot more players. I've seen Arma 2 servers with 120 players filled up to the max and being played rather smoothly.

[Regicide 111]

Keep in mind that the disease wiped out most of the world's population. Given Chernarus's population, and the fact that the only survivors were the ones who were immune to disease, I think 50 per server is just about perfect.

[zcypot 0]

anymore than 60 players would be a little chaotic! If there was 300 player severs I would never have survived with broken legs as long as I did last night...

I spent a good amount of time crawling with gun fire going on around me. I was never found >:)

[TheMachine 803]

I can't believe people aren't into the idea of more players? :S

I don't want to kill zombies all day, I want to see some action, some tense encounters, i want to be scared in somewhere but the main cities or the NW AF.

[Vipeax 318]

300 is probably beyond what you should expect, but going stand-alone with an optimized (stripped) binary it will certainly be able to run more than it does now, as it has less work to do.

[zcypot 0]

Play zombie panic source :D. 1/2 of the players are zombies others are survivors.

Collect loot, barricade in a room, survive. Round based fast and ez.

[TheMachine 803]

300 is probably beyond what you should expect' date=' but going stand-alone with an optimized (stripped) binary it will certainly be able to run more than it does now, as it has less work to do.

[/quote']

Can we expect this to happen at some point? :D

[biorage 4]

Even on small servers, there's always going to be a bandit, or a group at the most popular places.

Being the costal cities, or the airfields.

If there were 300 players, it would be un-playable, unless the zombies get multiplied by 10.

[TheMachine 803]

Even on small servers' date=' there's always going to be a bandit, or a group at the most popular places.

Being the costal cities, or the airfields.

If there were 300 players, it would be un-playable, unless the zombies get multiplied by 10.

[/quote']

Unplayable as in you'd die and rage more often because you're not willing to be careful?

[walrus2517 27]

I think the current 50-60 player cap is a pretty good limit. Maybe once the performance bugs are worked out and the code is a bit more streamlined larger servers will come about, but I think 300 is just way too many people. Even 100 people would probably be too crowded.

Right now seeing another player can be a heart stopping moment. With 300 folks you'd see people everywhere. Plus you couldn't follow anything in the chat log because all the "connect, disconnect, player x was killed" messages.

[Regicide 111]

Plus you couldn't follow anything in the chat log because all the "connect' date=' disconnect, player x was killed" messages.

[/quote']

Truth. The wall of spam on the side of the screen would be never-ending.

[Vipeax 318]

300 is probably beyond what you should expect' date=' but going stand-alone with an optimized (stripped) binary it will certainly be able to run more than it does now, as it has less work to do.

[/quote']

Can we expect this to happen at some point? :D

Yes.

[zecele 211]

This has got to be one of the worst idea's ever. Im sorry but this isnt call of duty if you want to kill a lot of people go play it.

[Blasty 0]

I'm torn on this one, but I think the player limit will and should always reside in the server owners hands.. so you will still be able to find a server that supports your preferred gaming experience, and thus there should be servers with over 100 for sure.

[Lulu! 3]

Nope, defeats the purpose and look of the post apocalyptic lonely island. As stated in thousands of threads this isn't a party of celebration it's an apocalypse! Most of the population has turned to cannibalistic ghouls; survivors are /rare/.

[Remix (DayZ) 14]

No idea why so many people are butthurt over this idea.

I think it'd be great - the map definitely supports 300+ EASILY.

[fml 29]

I was in cherno with 20+ people last night. I went from 23 fps recording to 8fps recording. I doubt the game would support it, everyone would crash, even with their i7's and dual gtx560s. I can see it being a real possibility in Arma 3 however.

[bra1n 2]

Like someone previous said, i seen arma servers with 120 ppl.

I think 50-60 is ok, i think 100 would be cool, anymore than 100 would be called DayWarZ

[jahlmaar 0]

300 is probably beyond what you should expect' date=' but going stand-alone with an optimized (stripped) binary it will certainly be able to run more than it does now, as it has less work to do.

[/quote']

What does that mean? Removal of unnecessary parts of Arma engine never used in DayZ, or removal of complexity elements in Arma which are actually used in gameplay of DayZ? Or just optimization with all complexity left intact?

[Vipeax 318]

First. Once it's out of Alpha everything that's not needed can be taken out, what is needed can be optimized for DayZ and the DayZ code itself gets a good cleaning obviously.

[TheGoldElite 0]

First. Once it's out of Alpha everything that's not needed can be taken out' date=' what is needed can be optimized for DayZ and the DayZ code itself gets a good cleaning obviously.

[/quote']

I can't wait for this! Gut the Engine, it's a fantastic engine but offers too much sometimes, and has a greater focus on bigger battles, less on the individual.

personally I'd like more enterable buildings, maybe they could cut and past a couple more into the smaller towns, where there is often 5% enterable, would be happy if they just double it in towns that have so few. If this is possible that is. I get scared enough of 50 player severs as is, there always seems to be someone about near the towns, deffo not an empty map. That said 100 player severs I would not argue with, provided the game has been optimised more first.