[SA]Suggestion: Don't show server populations

[enforcer1975 1111]

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.

 

You won't be able to stop people from hosting their own servers ( for whatever reason ever even if they are only two people in a group ) nor the providers from renting servers to those people because that's how economy works: supply and demand. If you are willing to pay for the loss those companies have due to these regulations you propose you might be able to make them limit the server numbers to counter low pop servers. In the end they have to earn their money somehow.

One way of combating empty servers but keeping groups intanct would be a system like in War Thunder where you can form a squad without any other advantages but still be able to join a server if enough slots pop up.

[tommes 331]

• 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

Might be done with a group spawning system. You define a group in the login moderation system (match making system) which will then be thrown on the same server in the same area so they get the chance to find each other within let's say 15 minutes or so.

If a server becomes low pop (maybe >5 players) all will be logged out with a countdown of 10 minutes so they get time to finish their business and go through the match making process again. So you and your group will never be completely alone.

Player made buildings, tents, camps and the like will not be possible with this system though.

[terrvik 2409]

You won't be able to stop people from hosting their own servers

 

 

Yes, as I said such a system would only be possible if BIS had full control of the servers themselves which they won't. The suggestion was just to show off what my utopian server architecture would look like.

 

 

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

 

That's great, I've been very bored lately.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Terrorviktor

[enforcer1975 1111]

Yes, as I said such a system would only be possible if BIS had full control of the servers themselves which they won't.

 

If they make it their policy then they have full control or at least for a very long time. EA also went that path, you couldn't actually host on a server of your choice but had to rent a server from their partners.

[terrvik 2409]

If they make it their policy then they have full control or at least for a very long time. EA also went that path, you couldn't actually host on a server of your choice but had to rent a server from their partners.

 

Yeah, but it would be pretty crappy if you rent a server that you then couldn't start because too few people are playing. :)

 

EDIT: The point of the above system would be that there only ever will be just enough servers to accomodate currently online players. No more, no less. So private servers would be useless since you wouldn't be able to decide when it would be online. Since rocket already has made clear that server files will be released it's kind of an unnecessary suggestion from my side.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Terrorviktor

[Trizzo 632]

Fuck that...while i would usally support removal of all UI/VOIP/TPV i want action or the potential for it and i'm not talking PvP...i don't want crickets as my only companions.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Trizzo

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I think a low/medium/high indicator is an elegant solution. However, that would also mean preventing you from seeing people's nameplates in the server as well, so as long as I can see my friends or maybe even a specific name I'm looking for, I'd be okay with it. It would certainly make it harder for me to hunt nemeses, which is something I really enjoy doing in DayZ. It makes the game feel more purposeful.

[mr_chabowski@live.co.uk 2416]

I don't think end-users really need to see player names at all. A player-tracking meta-list isn't necessary for gameplay.

 

I'd rather have the game play-out in such a way that we're encouraged to take a home-server, so you could eventually form a rough idea of who's going to be there instead of needing an actual list of residents.

Base-building and long-term survival preparation lend themselves well to this IMO.

 

If you're meeting friends, you can always just use the server IP, or whatever means of server identification we get, to find them. Same as always.

[enforcer1975 1111]

I don't think end-users really need to see player names at all. A player-tracking meta-list isn't necessary for gameplay.

 

I'd rather have the game play-out in such a way that we're encouraged to take a home-server, so you could eventually form a rough idea of who's going to be there instead of needing an actual list of residents.

Base-building and long-term survival preparation lend themselves well to this IMO.

 

If you're meeting friends, you can always just use the server IP, or whatever means of server identification we get, to find them. Same as always.

 

That's what i am hoping, too. Less server nomadism, more "home" servers. You can't possibly be bound to a server and male yourself a home if you always hop around to fight other people. Of course it sucks if you don't get any action at all, but not knowing any exact numbers or ID of players you will still have a lot of tension.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Enforcer

[airfell 179]

I think the point has been lost.

 

How do you play when you know the server is empty? The world is yours, you just roll around taking what you want, no worries other than zombies.

 

How do you play when the server is full? Keep your guard up, keep an eye open, move carefully as if you're always being watched.

 

Either way though, you KNOW and ACT accordingly. If you didn't know the server pop, every interaction with a player would be completely unexpected and you would have to play with a certain level of paranoia at all times.

[airfell 179]

Sorry to double post and necro or whatever, but after talking to a couple of my DayZ buddies, I think we figured out a solution to this.

 

Basically, if servers where listed by "popularity", players would be able to find a server that is very likely to have players in it avoiding the empty server issue, but still remain blind as to what that number may be.

 

What is "popularity"?

If servers were tracked by population over X amount of time (could be per day, per week, whatever) and then placed into percentiles by traffic. Then 90%+ percentile would fall into "Extremely Popular", where 50th percentile would be "average popularity".

 

This way the randomness of people will still be present, just keeps the blindfold on a bit more.

 

percentile

1. 1.

   each of the 100 equal groups into which a population can be divided according to the distribution of values of a particular variable.

   • each of the 99 intermediate values of a random variable that divide a frequency distribution into 100 groups.

     "the tenth percentile for weight"

 

Edited September 19, 2013 by AirFell

[enforcer1975 1111]

How do you play when you know the server is empty? The world is yours, you just roll around taking what you want, no worries other than zombies.

 

That's why it had been suggested to never show actual numbers. Even with 0 players the server will show "low population" to decieve each player. Removing the join message and player list entirely will make the player always act like he is never alone.