Any news on 100 Slot servers?

[Khanarac 252]

I thought the guaranteed Messaging system would introduce 100 slotservers. We had that in experimental and it seemed to work fine except for a couple crashes every now and then. But somehow it worked better than the stable 40/40 Slot servers.

Any news on that? It would be a huge setback if they gave up on that. I can't see a reason to introduce new cities in a map that is too large for 40 players already.

I suspect a huge majority of lag comes from the central hive always receiving data for each and every item constantly, or that the specs the serverproviders use for the dayz servers are insufficient. Imo the guaranteed messaging system did not change anything for the better (for me atleast). Since it was introduced, I pick up weapons I can't fire, pick up clothing with loot in it that I can't see and other not so fun stuff. Has anyone any info what went wrong there, and when / if to expect 100 slot servers?

Thanks in advance.

[applejaxc 2500]

The map would have to get pretty big for 100 players...

[Khanarac 252]

I disagree. They are introducing new cities. Which basicly is a territorygain for the map.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Khanarac

[Etherious 907]

They took them down pretty fast with this new introduced experimental update. I was only in one for like 1 hour. o.o Although they may still be up, I couldn't find them on the server list. Although, right now there is SO much rubberbanding that I stopped playing this new awesome exp update. Maybe there are doing some late touch-ups for better performance.

[JimmyGate 41]

The map would have to get pretty big for 100 players...

100 players is fine.  It was alot of fun.  You didnt have to sit on the coast or in zino in order to find people.  You could find people everywhere.  It was the best.

[qww 287]

map is enough for more than 100 players, but 100 would be fine i guess.

[brumey 116]

60 is the sweet spot imo

 

even on a large map like altis

[FrostDMG 398]

60 is the sweet spot imo

 

even on a large map like altis

 

QFT. Over 60 players and the map becomes a clusterfuck. Chernarus simply isn't big enough.

[qww 287]

the map is massive, 100 or 150 could easily be on the map, it woudl stop peopel running around in the open expecting to always be safe, and it would make players actually use the map. a low % of players are west on any full server, some of those towns will be deserted all night.,

150 would be fine, but for sake of a smoother running game lag wise,  id say 100 is ok.

[Katana67 2907]

Well, a lot of things need to happen before they can up the player counts. Not only just optimizations, but the map needs to be completed before we can actually gauge what it'd be like. That and spawns need to be tweaked, loot needs to be tweaked, vehicles would have to be added, player structures need to be added, storage options need to be added... just so we can gauge the effects of upping the player count on the overall experience.

 

I've always maintained that the map, even a map as big as Chernarus, is too small for 100 players. I encounter folks a lot in the mod in larger count servers, even just out in the woods. Which I'm not against. But I can only imagine how often people's vehicles/structures would get robbed if there were more people per server.

 

Simply adding enterable structures doesn't increase the map size, or even player density. It doesn't matter if someone's IN a building, or BESIDE a building, that player is still there.

 

But I'm always willing to try out new things.

Edited May 21, 2014 by Katana67

[blacklabel79 949]

 

I thought the guaranteed Messaging system would introduce 100 slotservers. We had that in experimental and it seemed to work fine except for a couple crashes every now and then.

 

I whould gather that data and maybe figure out if i move the server architecture to a , lets say 64bit, operational level and then, introduce the desired lootspawns and fix the fucking Zeds, well than i might say something along the lines of..BETA

 

( tl;dr....give 100 slort servur neooww...)

Edited May 21, 2014 by {Core}BlackLabel

[qww 287]

why can less than 1 player per 2km2 be too much,

i play only on full servers for 500 hours on sa, and i dotn see many players west, except at the obvious places like air field etc.  map is masive, most of it is not used, 100 would still feel empty to me.

 

edit - ok maybe not empty , but woudl not feel full. and no i dont want to be running into peopel, i want the map to remain quiet, because then meeting other players still retains the excitement, 100 or even 150 would not change that i think

Edited May 21, 2014 by qww

[blacklabel79 949]

thats a max 40/40 projection.

 

100 people and persistant storage ...ect ect. ect..might change things

[FrostDMG 398]

With more people PvP in cities would be even more out of control... But I suppose if it meant more random player interactions and player spread then sure.

[kircheschm 6]

The map would have to get pretty big for 100 players...

The map of Infestation is 50% - than DayZ map and it support 200 players...

I think 100 is a good player limit

[monolith1985 109]

im pretty sure i read...somewhere, maybe the devtracker, that 100 didnt run well (i tried and it was great) but they think they can go 60-80 some point soon

 

I think 100 would be fine, if they spread out the spawns abit more

[applejaxc 2500]

The map of Infestation is 50% - than DayZ map and it support 200 players...

I think 100 is a good player limit

 

Yeah but... I mean, do you have any examples of GOOD games?

[-DMG-Jonesy 226]

Hell, it's already costing me nearly $70 to rent a 30 person server, and that's with so little administrative control it's borderline criminal.

I can't wait to see how much a 100 player server will cost.  

[kircheschm 6]

Yeah but... I mean, do you have any examples of GOOD games?

Yes infestation is a really goodgame... Better than DayZ in much things