Find a flaw in my logic, because this seems too simple.

[Grimey Rick 3417]

Why not just automatically assign a player to a server within their latency preferences when they click "Play"? That way we'd have more full servers, we'd eliminate server hopping, and it'd be impossible to ghost.

 

If you wanted to play with friends, implement a user interface for groups on the main menu. When you're in a group, click "Play". You're all assigned to a server within your parameters. If a friend logs on, leave the server and add him to your group. OR, implement a way for your friend to join your group while the rest of you are playing, and put your friend who just logged on in a queue to join your server.

 

[Beck (DayZ) 1768]

Because sometimes people want to play on particular servers.

[Nesuma (DayZ) 108]

Some people prefer 40/40, death match servers where you find someone to kill every 20 minutes and some prefer servers with ~15 people. Yes you could make a filter but why, there are much better ways of solving ghosting and the other stupid stuff.


I, for example would love to play on one server all the time, where you know the other players, can have clan wars etc... Private hives, I miss you :D

[oregonized 673]

But then people can't server hop the empty servers.

[gerbilschooler 229]

Won't work especially when persistent storage pops up

Edit: Also, no two servers are alike... though ping may be okay, desync can still be a bitch on some servers. I do not want, as a design of the game, my choices in server selection narrowed

Edited March 18, 2014 by GafMast

[mgc 92]

How do you set the parameters and what stops players from joining a different server with similar parameters?

""within their latency preferences""

That could be 100's of servers.

[oregonized 673]

I would rather have your character bound to a specific server, like in the mod.

[Nesuma (DayZ) 108]

I would rather have your character bound to a specific server, like in the mod.

That wasn't the standard system, this was private hive (which I favour, too)

[Grimey Rick 3417]

Because sometimes people want to play on particular servers.

 

I haven't figured this one out. Why would you want to play on a specific server all of the time for any other reason than it's always full?

 

Some people prefer 40/40, death match servers where you find someone to kill every 20 minutes and some prefer servers with ~15 people. Yes you could make a filter but why, there are much better ways of solving ghosting and the other stupid stuff.

I, for example would love to play on one server all the time, where you know the other players, can have clan wars etc... Private hives, I miss you :D

 

40/40 servers aren't deathmatch servers, c'mon. The game is best played on a full server where there's more interaction, and less gear farming. Is the point of DayZ the interaction or the amount of beans you can stockpile unsolicited? Private hives bring such stupid mods, though. I recently bought ARMA2 just to try the DayZ Mod and the number of vanilla servers is ridiculously low compared to the amount of "BICYCLE ON SPAWN / GUN ON SPAWN / INDESTRUCTIBLE BASES", etc.

 

But then people can't server hop the empty servers.

 

Exactly why I feel the main reason this idea won't fly. (;

 

Won't work especially when persistent storage pops up

Edit: Also, no two servers are alike... though ping may be okay, desync can still be a bitch on some servers. I do not want, as a design of the game, my choices in server selection narrowed

 

This is the only thing I hadn't considered, regarding the persistent storage. So when persistent storage is implemented, we'll essentially have to choose a server and stick with it, eh? If so, that'll suck. Especially when you want to play, you log on, and your server is 2/40 or something. What is the point of playing on a low population server? :T

[gerbilschooler 229]

I would rather have your character bound to a specific server, like in the mod.

Characters still existed on a hive in the mod, only there was the ability for people to have private servers which gave individual characters for that server

[Window Licker 504]

Flaw in logic, no

Flaw in implementation, probable due to the extra traffic from when you come online and having to communicate with a central DB to tell it where you are, find your friends and make a damn coffee for you.

Flaw in money, probable BIS would lose out because players wouldn't have a great incentive to select a server, however you only said for clicking the play button and I would conclude that people would still be able to go to the serverlist.

 

Over all it's a good idea but I rate it's chances of being implemented as rather low currently things might change tho.

 

Edit: Based on something you clarified I now lower the chances, people wouldn't rent a server if they didn't connect to them by default, BIS would lose a lot of money.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Window Licker

[xRann 126]

Soo...matchmaking like COD? Pass.

[enforcer1975 1111]

Why not just automatically assign a player to a server within their latency preferences

 

I'd rather want a server that refuses players connecting above a certain ping so the overall fps won't be drawn down by a player whose ping is too high resulting in desync and such. Of course they'd have to offer enough servers to serve the amount of players in an area of let's say up to 150ms as an example. I know you can already do that with BE but some admins don't seem to know how to or don't care or don't know high ping players affect server performance.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Enforcer

[Grimey Rick 3417]

Soo...matchmaking like COD? Pass.

 

Really? REALLY?!

 

[oregonized 673]

 

Exactly why I feel the main reason this idea won't fly. (;

 

Yeah, I am inclined to believe that majority of the self-proclaimed "badasses" are server hoppers.  I would love anything that would cause their delicious tears to flow into my cup.

[irl-calibre 744]

I've pretty much played on the same three servers since last Christmas, never had a character reset have never not been able to join at least one of them = win in my book.

[Damnyourdeadman 1045]

This is the only thing I hadn't considered, regarding the persistent storage. So when persistent storage is implemented, we'll essentially have to choose a server and stick with it, eh? If so, that'll suck. Especially when you want to play, you log on, and your server is 2/40 or something. What is the point of playing on a low population server? :T

It's not a "bad" thing.

You may have switch to whatever server you desire.

But you will have to think twice in which server you are going to set up "home"

If this gets implemented,it would help with the overall server population.

[xRann 126]

Really? REALLY?!

 

If you fail to understand how it was implemented with COD and the issues that arose than I cannot help you. I was using their system, which is what yours sounds like, as an example and have no desire to experience that bullshit again. So, again. Pass.

 

*COD is not bad for what it is, a cookie cutter twitch fps, nor was I using it as an insult.

Edited March 18, 2014 by xRann

[NagsterTheGangster 388]

I have friends that only enjoy the PVE aspect of the game. I realize its prolly boring after youre geared but thats how they like their DayZ.

[Grimey Rick 3417]

If you fail to understand how it was implemented with COD and the issues that arose than I cannot help you. I was using their system, which is what yours sounds like, as an example and have no desire to experience that bullshit again. So, again. Pass.

 

Besides the potential issue with persistent storage, what's the issue with my suggestion?

• It nullifies server-hopping and ghosting
• It keeps the servers full
• It lets you play within a specified latency range so you're not stuck on a laggy server

The only thing it doesn't currently take into consideration is persistent storage. For me, personally, if I have to choose one server that may or may not be populated when I decide to play just so I can have a completely ridiculous-looking base with military encrypted locks, garages, APCs, tanks, helicopters, etc., I'd rather my system.

 

Give me a tent that I can deploy and store items in that follows me from server to server or something. Set it up somewhere safe, log out. Log in on a random server, tent follows you, go about your business gathering supplies, return to your tent, log out. You'd then also be able to move it around if you wanted, or something.

[oregonized 673]

Besides the potential issue with persistent storage, what's the issue with my suggestion?

• It nullifies server-hopping and ghosting
• It keeps the servers full
• It lets you play within a specified latency range so you're not stuck on a laggy server

The only thing it doesn't currently take into consideration is persistent storage. For me, personally, if I have to choose one server that may or may not be populated when I decide to play just so I can have a completely ridiculous-looking base with military encrypted locks, garages, APCs, tanks, helicopters, etc., I'd rather my system.

 

Give me a tent that I can deploy and store items in that follows me from server to server or something. Set it up somewhere safe, log out. Log in on a random server, tent follows you, go about your business gathering supplies, return to your tent, log out. You'd then also be able to move it around if you wanted, or something.

You're wasting your time on the people who inhabit these forums when you come at them with logic.

[gerbilschooler 229]

Besides the potential issue with persistent storage, what's the issue with my suggestion?

• It nullifies server-hopping and ghosting
• It keeps the servers full
• It lets you play within a specified latency range so you're not stuck on a laggy server

The only thing it doesn't currently take into consideration is persistent storage. For me, personally, if I have to choose one server that may or may not be populated when I decide to play just so I can have a completely ridiculous-looking base with military encrypted locks, garages, APCs, tanks, helicopters, etc., I'd rather my system.

 

Give me a tent that I can deploy and store items in that follows me from server to server or something. Set it up somewhere safe, log out. Log in on a random server, tent follows you, go about your business gathering supplies, return to your tent, log out. You'd then also be able to move it around if you wanted, or something.

Another thing that came to mind, is I play with a few Australians and I live in Northern California. We have to find a server that we all get under 200 ping on, which can be difficult. I just see your system making it a bit more dificult to find a suitable server that we could all play on

[xRann 126]

Besides the potential issue with persistent storage, what's the issue with my suggestion?

• It nullifies server-hopping and ghosting
• It keeps the servers full
• It lets you play within a specified latency range so you're not stuck on a laggy server

The only thing it doesn't currently take into consideration is persistent storage. For me, personally, if I have to choose one server that may or may not be populated when I decide to play just so I can have a completely ridiculous-looking base with military encrypted locks, garages, APCs, tanks, helicopters, etc., I'd rather my system.

 

Give me a tent that I can deploy and store items in that follows me from server to server or something. Set it up somewhere safe, log out. Log in on a random server, tent follows you, go about your business gathering supplies, return to your tent, log out. You'd then also be able to move it around if you wanted, or something.

And completely nullifies public servers...I, for one, would not host a public clan server due to the headaches and issues with the anti-serverhopping system. It is a bad idea. If you take away the ability to manually join a server you will have locked private servers with an admin bot used as a beacon for their members and very few open public servers. Pass.

Edited March 18, 2014 by xRann

[Grimey Rick 3417]

Another thing that came to mind, is I play with a few Australians and I live in Northern California. We have to find a server that we all get under 200 ping on, which can be difficult. I just see your system making it a bit more dificult to find a suitable server that we could all play on

 

If you all selected 200ms (or whatever the ping difference would be, I have no idea) as your maximum latency, you'd be fine.

[Grimey Rick 3417]

And completely nullifies public servers...I, for one, would not host a public clan server due to the headaches and issues with the anti-serverhopping system. It is a bad idea. If you take away the ability to manually join a server you will have locked private servers with an admin bot used as a beacon for their members and very few open public servers. Pass.

 

Not to sound too negative, but any clan server I've joined I've been kicked off of within minutes of connecting. The only exceptions are when clans are lurking around airfields waiting for unaware passersby. I'll personally pass on that.

 

I'm sure there's something that could be brainstormed to maintain the incentive to rent a server. But wait, this is the DayZ forum, where everyone knows best.