We need 60-100 player sever

[StingingRumble 25]

With all the enter-able buildings we really need higher populations servers, i find that player encounters are so rare its making the game really boring. I understand they are working on this, but even just bumping the player count to at least 50 would make a big difference, and i doubt would add too much lag. Right now the game is boring

[trev186 389]

Right cause on a server with 20 or more people the game is lagging and killing people who are on a level higher than the first floor in buildings...

The servers can barely handle 30-40 at 60-100 I guarantee u going up stairs will be 100% death due to server lag

First they need to fix the issues causing the lag

Edited July 14, 2014 by trev186

[Katana67 2907]

I mean, having enterable buildings doesn't magically make players less likely to be encountered. If you want to be encountering more players, advocate for the things which actually encourage mobility. Like persistent storage, vehicles, loot bias changes, significant/consequential survival needs, and more attractive high-value loot locations.

 

Doesn't matter if a player's inside a building or next to it, that player is still there.

 

I think 100 players will be the absolute limit. I've said it before, but Chernarus ain't that big when you've explored it all. There's only so many spots where you can hide a tent effectively, and the number of spots has shrunk dramatically from the mod (with the marked marginalization of the wilderness). And bear in mind as well, it's not just the 100 people on your server at any given time that you've got to contend with... it's the 500 or so regular visitors which move in and out that you've got to worry about. Sure, 100 players could be the maximum limit at any single moment... but that's not representative of how many players visit that server overall.

Edited July 14, 2014 by Katana67

[HIHBGaming 14]

Until server performance is sorted, no we don't need more player slots. 30-40 players is definitely pushing it atm.

[TIC 1050]

Do we need 60-100 players or do we want 60-100 players?

 

I think the servers need to be improved before making a big development change like increasing server numbers otherwise it's going to create more problems like crashing. With the current player count, it's still pushing it as mentioned above. Same goes for Arma 2.

[meat pie 632]

It took warz like 3 years to get 300 player servers give dayz more time there is no rush for servers that big

[maninthewall 470]

Right cause on a server with 20 or more people the game is lagging and killing people who are on a level higher than the first floor in buildings...

The servers can barely handle 30-40 at 60-100 I guarantee u going up stairs will be 100% death due to server lag

First they need to fix the issues causing the lag

Did you not play the 100 player experimental servers? they were working fine, except voip didnt work some times.

 

100 players atleast would be awesome

[HIHBGaming 14]

Did you not play the 100 player experimental servers? they were working fine, except voip didnt work some times.

100 players atleast would be awesome

This was before they implemented more features, currently servers are struggling with the player slots it has now. I don't know how you cannot see this and still ask for 100 slot servers.

At this juncture it's a silly want and it's definitely not a need. Not now at least.

Edited July 15, 2014 by R.Neville

[ZomboWTF 527]

we really need more players, last saturday i was playing about 6 hours on a server with 40/40 all the time, except a few minutes after restart of course, and we travelled from NWAF down to zeleno, to the military base in the SW, then to Balota, and to Cherno, AND Elektro, and met only ONE other player, in elektro...

[timoseewho 23]

could not agree more

 

i must be the only one to admit this, but i play this game to ruin other people's day, if it comes at the cost of mine, so be it:)

 

nothing beats the thrill of losing it all in any seconds of play

 

-proud 'player killer'

Edited July 15, 2014 by timoseewho

[xalienax 621]

i dont think we need anymore then the good ol' 60 and only once performance is fixed properly.

 

You SHOULD be able to wonder for a few hours between encounters imho. it makes the environement in my eyes. the last thing i want is having 20 fire fights break oout between every single town, city, and village.

 

100P server would need a map 2x or more the size of current chernarus imho

[DeatHTaX 1217]

In the future when this game is actually finished (sometime in 2018) I would be all for high pop servers. for now, no.

 

just no.

[Khanarac 252]

clearly need it and it will come once x64 servers are in place. If not, this game has no future Imo. Im fucking tired taking on the eventual solo scrub at the NWAF.

[DeatHTaX 1217]

clearly need it and it will come once x64 servers are in place. If not, this game has no future Imo. Im fucking tired taking on the eventual solo scrub at the NWAF.

 

What's going to happen with large pop servers? I see them being populated for about 2 or 3 days, then once everyone starts crashing, glitching out, and encountering rampant hacking and desync, they will return to the 30 - 40 servers, and I don't think they'll see the initial traffic after that

[agentneo 337]

Did you not play the 100 player experimental servers? they were working fine, except voip didnt work some times.

 

100 players atleast would be awesome

You ever tried to meet a group of people of 10 or 20 people in one room the server will crash

 

happened twice to my group and to several others...

 

Try and get 10 people together for a trade = crash

try and get 30 people for a PVP battle = crash

 

So good luck on 100 person server

 

Also, on topic, it's not meant to be a GTA style online game where you have a population; or an MMO where people are everywhere. In a zombie apocalypse there should be way way more zombies than people. It should be something like 10 or 20 to 1 ...I don't want to see survivors everywhere I run..its meant to be an apocalyptic wasteland, a ghostland, not full of people. If i only see one of two people per play session that is a good amount and its not meant to be non-stop action.

 

Having played lots of day z mods, arma 3 mods, standalone etc.. I think Chernarus works with 40 or 50 players..its not a huge map and the interesting areas are always busy..Those experimental servers that were full of 40/40 used to have people everywhere i ran..it didn't feel like an apocalypse..

Altis, or Sauderland could probably handle 70-100...not chernarus imo

Edited July 15, 2014 by AgentNe0

[DeatHTaX 1217]

 

Also, on topic, it's not meant to be a GTA style online game where you have a population; or an MMO where people are everywhere. In a zombie apocalypse there should be way way more zombies than people. It should be something like 10 or 20 to 1 ...I don't want to see survivors everywhere I run..its meant to be an apocalyptic wasteland, a ghostland, not full of people. If i only see one of two people per play session that is a good amount and its not meant to be non-stop action.

 

Once they're done with making sure you can paint your crossbow, they'll get right on that :P

[Khanarac 252]

You ever tried to meet a group of people of 10 or 20 people in one room the server will crash

 

happened twice to my group and to several others...

 

Try and get 10 people together for a trade = crash

try and get 30 people for a PVP battle = crash

 

Thats not true. If there are no dupers there the server will work fine. THere are some vids out there where 40 players meet in one place, and I myself have been in a meeting with 15 players and we traded stuff.

[agentneo 337]

Thats not true. If there are no dupers there the server will work fine. THere are some vids out there where 40 players meet in one place, and I myself have been in a meeting with 15 players and we traded stuff.

Good to hear, I  have seen flashmob videos too which looked good, but  i have tried twice with a large group, and the servers crashed. There was no dupers. There were probably a few idiots with like a vest inside a backpack, but apart from that, everything legit..I think we need more testing in this field.

[DaveATR 7]

It depends on the desire, ultimately.

 

Do you want a 100 server max so that you can run into more players, and thusly have more shootouts?

To my understanding, not the goal of the game. Please see next Deathmatch shootout FPS to come out. Or plenty of previous ones of good quality.

 

Do you want a higher server max so you at least run into more players for multiplayer experience that leads to interacting with more people, in a survival setting?

Understandable; of course, there isn't much in the game that requires you to truly work with other players via raiding for goods, trading, or handling any type of contextual situation that you really can already handle solo.

 

It sounds to me more like people want to be able to kill other players, on a more regular basis. Is this a deathmatch game with zombies in the background, or is it a survival game with zombies as the catalyst for apocalypse?

Edited July 15, 2014 by DaveATR

[DeatHTaX 1217]

 

It sounds to me more like people want to be able to kill other players, on a more regular basis. Is this a deathmatch game with zombies in the background, or is it a survival game with zombies as the catalyst for apocalypse?

 

Wait...there are zombies in this game?

[DaveATR 7]

I see what you did there.

[Grimey Rick 3417]

I noticed zero difference in lag when they had the 100 player experimental servers up. The game lagged exactly the same as 40 players on stable.

 

?¿? RIDDLE ME THAT ALL YOU "NETWORK EXPERTS". ?¿?

Edited July 15, 2014 by Grimey Rick

[agentneo 337]

i feel like zombies population should be configured to spawn inside the buildings which would scale them accurately to the town population..if every building contained 2-4 zombies it would give a good zombie numbers and realistic feel to each town rather than them spawning on the road..Places like military bases should be ram filled with soldier zombies...simple changes like this would make looting challenging and people would be less likely to just kill everything they see..anything to reduce KOS will improve the game and I think most people agree with that even the bandit players

[DaveATR 7]

I noticed zero difference in lag when they had the 100 player experimental servers up. The game lagged exactly the same as 40 players on stable.

 

?¿? RIDDLE ME THAT ALL YOU "NETWORK EXPERTS". ?¿?

 

 

Not all servers are created equally. Equal logic: WoW has servers that run tens of thousands of players at a time. Zomg DayZ, WTF is your problem?

 

 

To Add: Yes, its very plausible that those 100 capacity servers were much better servers than the 40 capacity ones currently in use. This shouldn't have to be explained, but for brevity's sake I will go ahead and cover this base.

 

And to add even further, lag is determined by more than just the server in use. The number of access points required to reach said server plays a huge part, as well as behind which backbone is being ridden to the server site. Some companies who control regional backbones are very strict with the way data is routed through said backbones. That delves more into information delivery, and an entirely different avenue of packet loss than is normally discussed.

Edited July 15, 2014 by DaveATR

[pillock 850]

I think I remember someone saying that 64-bit servers would allow them to double the number of players per server and treble the amount of loot.

 

So I'd say it's coming. And I can't see how it's be anything other than a good thing. 100-150 players would be awesome, server performance allowing.