Why is the goal; servers able to support 150 players?

[AlfalphaCat 66]

Why is the dev team trying to make the game able to support 150 players per server?  It seems asinine to me, that during a catastrophic event such as the setting implies, that this many uninfected people would still remain in such a small area of the world. 

 

If you just do simple math, the population density of 'living' people would still be 1.5 per square kilometer.  That is pretty dense, even in non-disaster areas.

 

If you played the mod, you know that even a 50 player server can feel populated as all hell.  Why on earth would anyone want to play with 150 people running around on the same 225km² map?

It seems ludicrous to me, and I am really missing the threat of zombies.  If anything they give you something to do. 

 

Work on that and loot, not some pie in the sky server pop goal.

 

Love ya,

bye,

Alfa...

Edited January 15, 2014 by AlfalphaCat

[Max Planck 7174]

I'm not sure that is the goal.

 

What are you suggesting?

[AlfalphaCat 66]

I'm not sure that is the goal.

 

What are you suggesting?

 

75 human players max, and make it rain!!!  With zombies, of course.  It has been stated that higher server populations are a goal, but is it really needed?  People are buying the game and paying for servers, and it is still in alpha.  Servers are priced by population, in most cases, why does the game then need to support higher populations?  Dayz will only sell so many copies in its lifespan. 

 

It's quite Malthusian really.  Simple math to explain a complex situation.  Surely Max, you understand.  They have named particles, equations, or some shit after you, right? :)

Edited January 15, 2014 by AlfalphaCat

[Max Planck 7174]

It's quite Malthusian really.  Simple math to explain a complex situation.  Surely Max, you understand.  They have named particles, equations, or some shit after you, right? :)

 

Units of measurement, actually.

I'm still not sure that 150 players are a stated goal though. It's not the impression I get from the dev comments.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Max Planck

[gregor (DayZ) 95]

 

First of all are there plans to bring new maps to the world of DayZ, or will players spend all of their time on the current map that is in play?

 

"That is an area of content that is really good to expand, and let's imagine for a moment that we were in a standalone game. I think that would be a really good way of, say a year or so down the track after the standalone has been out for a while, that would be a good way to give some additional money. You could go out to people and say here's a whole new island to explore, so I think it's a really good way to expand the product and future without having to do a whole bunch of extra stuff. Right off the bat, that's the cool thing about the real virtuality engine is that you can create new islands, new worlds, give players access to them, and DayZ as it is at the moment supports that approach also. I think we'll definitely want to see the world expanding with new islands and the ability to travel between them."

 

http://pc.mmgn.com/Articles/dayz-has-outgrown-where-its-at-now-dean

 

 

That's from an one old interview. Logically, something could change now, but "hope dies last". I hope, that a "portal" system allow also adding new areas to mainland of Chernarus.

[AP_Norris 1018]

I think what 150 players would mean is... That the survivor is brought out in more people.

Some people stay in groups others go lonesome.

People don't bother shooting as they just attract attention to themselves as hostile and also well geared.

Where as someone that stands out of the way like a stray dog and speaks only when spoken to would have the best chance of survival.

Bandits are rarer, but also very feared for their skills (what?), yes with so many players roaming around you can't be wasteful of ammo a missed shot is one more person that could get close to them around a big town.

[Combine (DayZ) 247]

Keep in mind, the map we have now is supposedly not finished. That could either mean two things, or both: They will add more places or finish unfinished stuff on the current map and / or increase map size to the north or west. Or perhaps even add some to the east / south (small isles or whatever you call it?)

 

And even then, I guess it would be up to individual servers to determine max players. Meaning that if 150 are possible, you don't have to play there. Not every server will turn into a 150 server, just saying. And it's a lot, really. That's currently nearly 4 full servers (minus 10) in one. But it could be fun if loot slowly respawns and if you also have groups moving about, not just 150 loners ... that may be inclined to shoot at everything.

 

It could be pure deathmatch or it could be very awesome. Or let's not talk about 150. 100 or 80 is still a lot.

Edited January 15, 2014 by Combine

[bad_mojo (DayZ) 1204]

I think 150 or more would be great on a map like this. The more people, the more accountability people have. You want to start killing everyone you see? More people are going to hear or see you firing and will be more likely to kill you because of it. Want to run around in a group of 10? Watch out, there might be a group of 30 coming in the next town.

[phoboss 224]

Yep we need much more player interaction! With 50 people on the server you can hide out in certain places for ever and pick off lone wolfs one after the other. With 150 people there will be much more players around to hear you (scream ;)) shoot someone. 

[TheWeedMan 132]

Look at it this way, not every server will be 150 players, the ones that will have will offer 2 things to those that want to play on it...Large Clan/Groups fighting each other for supremacy or total carnage for all the cod kiddies and unless the maps made larger then you'll be bumping into players constantly.

[Ymath 30]

Right now 50 players feels like a lot.

Go to the coast on a full server with 50 people, you won't go 2 minutes without running into someone.

HVT's up north are the same.

[waffen-79 32]

If you played the mod, you know that even a 50 player server can feel populated as all hell.  Why on earth would anyone want to play with 150 people running around on the same 225km² map?

 

No, I played the mod in all its differents maps and variations

 

the Alpha, right now, is a Running Simulator

 

I play with my squad, we are 5-10 men and finding real geared players to fight with is difficult. we're talking in "full" 40 people server we need at least 80 to 100 per server.

[UNDERWORLD 76]

More the better. Imagine they'll open up more spawns to spread it out, would be good too. I often shut off going through the countryside because it's highly unlikely I'll see anyone but more people about would keep me on my toes

[Monkfish (DayZ) 339]

I've played on several full (40 player) servers and have spent hours exploring without seeing a soul. The increase to 50 would be negligible and tripling that still isn't a massive amount for a 250km2 map. The question is, could the code/servers handle that much traffic?

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

75 human players max, and make it rain!!!  With zombies, of course.  It has been stated that higher server populations are a goal, but is it really needed?  People are buying the game and paying for servers, and it is still in alpha.  Servers are priced by population, in most cases, why does the game then need to support higher populations?  Dayz will only sell so many copies in its lifespan. 

 

It's quite Malthusian really.  Simple math to explain a complex situation.  Surely Max, you understand.  They have named particles, equations, or some shit after you, right? :)

So less servers are needed.

The achile heel of DayZ to qualify as a "multiplayer persistent" game is player concurrency, which at the moment is fairly low, which means a LOT of servers are required in order to soak the population.

Less server means less fragmentation of the community.

[AlfalphaCat 66]

I've played on several full (40 player) servers and have spent hours exploring without seeing a soul. The increase to 50 would be negligible and tripling that still isn't a massive amount for a 250km2 map. The question is, could the code/servers handle that much traffic?

 

 

That's what I am saying.  Much rather have more zombies and other entities, than have a server running 150 players.  100 might not be too bad, but I like there being areas that feel secluded.

 

People saying that it's hard to find other players, are forgetting or don't know about some of the features that will change that.  Such as camps and places to store gear.  That tends to spread people around the map more, and offers new encounter opportunities.  When people are able to 'stake a claim' on areas of the map, it won't be hard to find them.  Add to that vehicles, and the map will seem crowded quite fast.

 

Like I said 75 max, is my suggestion.  Seems like a happy medium, once other features are implemented. 

[AlfalphaCat 66]

So less servers are needed.

The achile heel of DayZ to qualify as a "multiplayer persistent" game is player concurrency, which at the moment is fairly low, which means a LOT of servers are required in order to soak the population.

Less server means less fragmentation of the community.

 

Are you paying for a server?  I just did a quick check on prices, and it looks like ATM a 40 player server is costing 75 dollars US per month.  Since most game server services charge per slot, these 150 player servers are gonna be costing someone close to $200 US/month.  That is pretty pricey, if you ask me.  

 

I also think most 150 player servers will not fill up all that often, so it's just wasted space.  Maybe it would be cool to have that ability for special events and such, but it would mostly just be a 'cool' feature to put on a list of features.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

Are you paying for a server?  I just did a quick check on prices, and it looks like ATM a 40 player server is costing 75 dollars US per month.  Since most game server services charge per slot, these 150 player servers are gonna be costing someone close to $200 US/month.  That is pretty pricey, if you ask me.  

 

I also think most 150 player servers will not fill up all that often, so it's just wasted space.  Maybe it would be cool to have that ability for special events and such, but it would mostly just be a 'cool' feature to put on a list of features.

Well with 150 man servers that's 3 times the capacity of the current servers, so we would only need a quarter of the servers we currently need. That's easier to manage, less machines to keep updated, less people to talk to. It reduce a lot of overhead.

[Wolfguarde 108]

Might be wrong in this, but I would assume servers capable of handling that many players would also have significantly better performance/higher loot/zombie/vehicle/etc capacity than servers that cap out at lower figures.

Meaning they might work to get the server performance up to that kind of level in order to cap it at a lower level and vastly increase the zombie count, introduce vehicles and the like.

[vladiman 25]

I am all for 150 players as long as they double or triple the map size first  :P .

 

Even with 40 players you run into people alot, 150 people on the current map would just be a huge clusterf*ck.

[CommandoKain 15]

I dont know about the kind of hardware that Dayz Servers are running on but I think 200 Player servers would be a good target number, just make it to were the Individuals Hosting these servers have the ability to decrease the amount of players allowed to be on there servers if they want to. Also for those who like PvE servers, there needs to be a option for Server host to  make it so that players cant do damage to each other. That will cut down on Trolling in those PvE Servers.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

there needs to be a option for Server host to  make it so that players cant do damage to each other.

 

No, there definitely does not need to be that option.

 

People who want a friendly game have plenty of options in other games. Violence between players is one of the core underpinnings of the game and all of the other mechanics are balanced around this threat of violence. Removing it essentially breaks the game.

 

Welcome to the forums and all, but slow it down. I invite you to read through other suggestion threads, the dev blogs, and previous threads on related subjects and hope you will realize why PvE servers will not and should not ever exist in DayZ.

[phoboss 224]

Also for those who like PvE servers, there needs to be a option for Server host to  make it so that players cant do damage to each other. That will cut down on Trolling in those PvE Servers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygs3hj8J730

Oh HEEEELL no! I'm sorry but this is not a PvE game. It's DayZ! And that means its brutal, its ruthless, its ridiculously hard (or at least it will be) and its about realism (to a certain degree). So nope, never EVER going to happen. 

[DMentMan 707]

i think 40 is enough, player encounters should be fairly rare.

[Monkfish (DayZ) 339]

Even with 40 players you run into people alot, 150 people on the current map would just be a huge clusterf*ck.

No you don't. Or at least, I have yet to experience that. See my previous post.

 

Mind you, I always run off into the wilderness and avoid large towns, so I guess how many people you bump into is directly related to which parts of the map you frequent. If you're constantly fannying about in Cherno then it's no wonder you bump into lots of people, but if you, like me, run off into the sticks, the chances of actually seeing someone are pretty slim.