[SA]Suggestion: Don't show server populations

[airfell 179]

As the title states, don't show server populations.

 

Playing the mod, its sometimes a tough call on how you want to play. A full server typically means frag fest, however an empty one can mean free loot, (however boring it may be). Even being able to see how many are on while you're in a server can give you hints as to what you may run into or how well you need to keep your guard up.

 

Since DayZ to me is a game somewhat about the event of running into the unknown, seems that not knowing what you're headed into as far as how many other players are on a server with you, really raises the stakes, and makes the event of seeing another player that more interesting.

 

I did a search and didn't see anything about this, I feel strongly about it, hope others do too.

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

The thing is, you NEED to know at least a little bit about server-population.

You don't want to be running around an empty server. That kind of defeats the point of playing online.

[Statik (DayZ) 2695]

No thanks. I don't want to join a server and run around for hours and find no-one, because there's only me on the server.

[kevsta545 451]

Hell nawwwwww 90% of dayz's fun is based on human encounters... Would hate this feature...

[IncognitoNico 71]

I kinda like this suggestion, but maybe instead of having a number it would be like "low/mid/high amount of player" because I do like the fact that you would need to keep your guard up

[-Gews- 7443]

I kinda like this suggestion, but maybe instead of having a number it would be like "low/mid/high amount of player" because I do like the fact that you would need to keep your guard up

This might be better...

Look at how many servers there are out there... then look how many are empty. People would be running around on empty servers half the time, except not, because everyone would group together on a few well-known servers and with the much larger amount of players on servers...

[airfell 179]

No thanks. I don't want to join a server and run around for hours and find no-one, because there's only me on the server.

 

Running around to find people to kill i assume?

 

Hell nawwwwww 90% of dayz's fun is based on human encounters... Would hate this feature...

 

This is true, however the more un-expected they are, the more fun and exciting they become.

 

I kinda like this suggestion, but maybe instead of having a number it would be like "low/mid/high amount of player" because I do like the fact that you would need to keep your guard up

 

I've thought about this, but then again, its also an apocalyptic scenario, not a death match as many seem to feel it is. Joining servers based on a population number you're looking for is a meta gameplay choice that takes quite a bit of the immersion out.

 

 

I will agree that completely empty servers, as well as crazy busy servers should have a marking of some sort, however I don't like knowing the odds personally. Its not a game breaker, but it does change the play in a massive way. So many people love this hardcore game, but don't want it any more hardcore than it already is. Such a shame.

Edited September 11, 2013 by AirFell

[DemonGroover 8836]

I like this idea

 

Low/Med/High

 

So, for example, if you jump on a Low server you know that there could be between 0-15 players, bit not the exact number. 

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

The thing is, you NEED to know at least a little bit about server-population.

You don't want to be running around an empty server. That kind of defeats the point of playing online.

Thing is it would keep a certain tension if you can't know for sure wether you are alone or being trailed :)

[enforcer1975 1111]

*already suggested by Nico* didn't see at first.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Enforcer

[IncognitoNico 71]

Well if it's for the sake of disorientation it could also just tell you if it's empty or not, but I do think the low/med/high is better

[Sam Winchester 3]

Whatever system it ends up being I feel like the most important thing is limiting the ability to just free roam for gear in an empty server then hop into a populated one at will,  really takes a lot out of what they are trying to accomplish and what I'm sure most of the fans are looking for.

[tommes 331]

The idea is not that bad. It would suck though playing on an empty server. I want to encounter other players...however that encounter ends up to be.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Meh, I'm not very keen on it. As much tension as it might create, I think having an exact number does at least give players a choice of how they want to play (which this forum seems to hate, at least in terms of server variation)

 

However, I'm fine with removing the player list, so that you can't 'stalk' individual players and that it would alleviate the problem of roving clans.

[enforcer1975 1111]

Meh, I'm not very keen on it. As much tension as it might create, I think having an exact number does at least give players a choice of how they want to play (which this forum seems to hate, at least in terms of server variation)

 

However, I'm fine with removing the player list, so that you can't 'stalk' individual players and that it would alleviate the problem of roving clans.

 

It not entirely about how they play...if you see it that way it's players looking for certain numbers on server so they can play because they can't play another way is a kind of behavious we have to remove. Imagine a player who only connects on servers with no players because he can roam around freely without using tactics and his brain because everytime he sees someone connect or looks at the player list and sees players besides him he DCs and looks for the next server. Now imagine the same player not knowing if someone connects and is suddenly confronted with another player without even knowing if someone was present, this would have them actually think in game instead of always beeing in their routine of looking for loot only.

About clans joining servers just to KoS other players, i think this is a good way to at least put a leash on them because they never know how much opposition they could encounter if they started shooting individual players ( maybe that one player was part of a very large group maybe the entire population was actually a bunch of players who always help each other out and they just poked a hornets nest without knowing and are now on the other side of the stick ) that would be fascinating. Imo it should only show an appoximate value like up to x players or even better just a bar with low/med/high/very high population.

[terrvik 2409]

How about this: if a server has five or less players on it it's impossible to join. You must find a more populated server.

Best suggestion ever.

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

How about this: if a server has five or less players on it it's impossible to join. You must find a more populated server.

Best suggestion ever.

With some tweaking, that would probably work.

If you flat out stopped players joining unpopulated servers, nobody would ever be able to join any server (they all start empty).

 

I think, without showing players ANY server population info, you could make servers with 10-15 open spaces always the most prominent.

Maybe move them to the top of the list or whatever.

 

There are more important factors for what makes a "good" server, anyway.  Such as ping and timezone.

 

Maybe instead of locking players out of certain servers, impose a few minutes of countdown-timer, increasing more for emptier servers.

Even a warning saying "You will have to wait XX minutes to join a server with XX empty slots" would probably be enough to put most folks off.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

It not entirely about how they play...if you see it that way it's players looking for certain numbers on server so they can play because they can't play another way is a kind of behavious we have to remove. Imagine a player who only connects on servers with no players because he can roam around freely without using tactics and his brain because everytime he sees someone connect or looks at the player list and sees players besides him he DCs and looks for the next server. Now imagine the same player not knowing if someone connects and is suddenly confronted with another player without even knowing if someone was present, this would have them actually think in game instead of always beeing in their routine of looking for loot only.

About clans joining servers just to KoS other players, i think this is a good way to at least put a leash on them because they never know how much opposition they could encounter if they started shooting individual players ( maybe that one player was part of a very large group maybe the entire population was actually a bunch of players who always help each other out and they just poked a hornets nest without knowing and are now on the other side of the stick ) that would be fascinating. Imo it should only show an appoximate value like up to x players or even better just a bar with low/med/high/very high population.

 

Well, I'm really against loot farming and am more for each server having an individual hive (That's what I'm used to and it does not bother me much). I guess if someone wants to play solo, that's fine.

However, I guess it's debatable on whether you should see players connecting.

Ultimately this is something that the devs have to decide on, not us. There are usually development and administrating reasons outside the bounds of what players tend to think of that could inhibit (Or help) this idea.

[applejaxc 2500]

For all the people scared about being stuck on empty servers due to this, JUST PLAY PUBLIC HIVE! If DayZ hadn't allowed private hives to grow exponentially, like rabbits, there wouldn't be so many empty servers.

[enforcer1975 1111]

How about this: if a server has five or less players on it it's impossible to join. You must find a more populated server.

Best suggestion ever.

 

Great and how do you want to populate a server if it's emtpy??? ...where is my wall...???

 

For all the people scared about being stuck on empty servers due to this, JUST PLAY PUBLIC HIVE! If DayZ hadn't allowed private hives to grow exponentially, like rabbits, there wouldn't be so many empty servers.

 

They should have never allowed or give a reaon ( KoS players and hackers, which didn't really stop them ) to create private hives in the first place. If they allow this mistake to happen again DayZ SA will end up like the mod: Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Enforcer

[AP_Norris 1018]

It should come down to preference, dayZ isn't and shouldn't be a competitive game with stats or anything.

So I say keep the numbers.

Next they'll wanna remove ping filtering or something.

[terrvik 2409]

If you flat out stopped players joining unpopulated servers, nobody would ever be able to join any server (they all start empty).

 

 

Great and how do you want to populate a server if it's emtpy??? ...where is my wall...???

 

Yeah, that was the joke. :)

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

I thought so. Can never be too sure around these parts though.

[terrvik 2409]

I thought so. Can never be too sure around these parts though.

 

Not worry friend, I do not grudge.

 

My real and serious suggestion to solve this "problem" would be some kind of system where new empty servers only open up when all currently existing servers are full or almost full.

For simplicitys sake say that each server can have 10 people and on any given day 100 people play. 49 people immediatly join at once so 5 servers open up for them, but fill up each of them before letting anyone on the next empty one. Since the last server is 90% full a sixth server opens to let the next eleven people join without trouble. Not until that new one is 90% full (and every other server is 100% full) a new empty one will open up. If people disconnects from previously full servers these slots has to fill up before another empty one can start up. As the game should be designed around servers being full most of the time this would help the game, but of course there are multiple problems:

 

• Is this possible, technologically speaking? At all or even then with the system Steam is using?
• Would be annoying if you want to play on a specific server because your friends are there but you keep being forced on to another one
• Private hives/servers won't be possible since there has to be some kind of central moderation
• Merging servers to counter low population is a bad idea when lots of people starts disconnecting and so we will end up with many low population servers occasionally

Edited September 13, 2013 by Terrorviktor

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

 

Not worry friend, I do not grudge.

 

My real and serious suggestion to solve this "problem" would be some kind of system where new empty servers only open up when all currently existing servers are full or almost full.

For simplicitys sake say that each server can have 10 people and on any given day 100 people play. 49 people immediatly join at once so 5 servers open up for them, but fill up each of them before letting anyone on the next empty one. Since the last server is 90% full a sixth server opens to let the next eleven people join without trouble. Not until that new one is 90% full (and every other server is 100% full) a new empty one will open up. If people disconnects from previously full servers these slots has to fill up before another empty one can start up. As the game should be designed around servers being full most of the time this would help the game, but of course there are multiple problems:

 

• Is this possible, technologically speaking? At all or even then with the system Steam is using?
• Would be annoying if you want to play on a specific server because your friends are there but you keep being forced on to another one
• Private hives/servers won't be possible since there has to be some kind of central moderation
• Merging servers to counter low population is a bad idea when lots of people starts disconnecting and so we will end up with many low population servers occasionally

 

Be careful, server owners might assemble a plot to get you assassinated.