We need 60-100 player sever

[toasted duckie 156]

If Novo becomes the center of the map, then yes, increase the server population. The map is way too small for more people. Honestly 40 players isn't that bad, I encounter players all the time. Even with only a few people on I still run into people.The tension and core feelings that DayZ brings me would fade away quickly if I encounter players -all the time- 

[Grimey Rick 3417]

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.

 

Thanks "Dave", but they use the same servers on experimental each go around. I have them all in my favorites list; they constantly use the same servers but cycle their names each time they restart. So, "for argument's sake", when they were running 100 players on the experimental servers a few months ago, they "lagged" equally to what the experimental servers lag now.

 

Also, World of Warcraft uses multiple servers per instance, per realm to sustain its population. Instances, battlegrounds, and each continent are all kept up using thousands of servers.

Edited July 15, 2014 by Grimey Rick

[DaveATR 7]

They use the same server designations "Rick". Of course, its theoretically impossible to change a server designation I guess.

 

And servers are notoriously a multi-connection of "sub" computers running routines and prediction software. You're absolutely right about WoW's servers being a mainframe of interconnected servers. And I certainly wasn't insinuating that DayZ had that going on. I was only making the shallow comparison equivalent to yours.

 

Once again, the lag may very well have been the same on the 100 capacity server as it is on the 40. I cannot debate that, as I never played on the 100. Im not arguing a difference there. I'm actually fairly confident that you are right in that regard, 100%. I am saying, that though the designations remained the same, the server make up themselves changed.

 

Scenario: You're a gaming company renting server space from a third party. You opt to run a higher capacity server, for experimental testing as to loads and requirements that will be needed for your game. You finish with said testing, and reduce the normal server allowance to thusly accommodate the new models you have arranged with your now acquired data. You downstep those servers to adjust for a smaller player base. You're now running a smaller load, thus requiring a smaller server capacity. So to save money, you rent the smaller servers. The lag has changed, though it may generally be unnoticeable to general human perception. All looks similar on the surface, though the entire networking backbone has completely changed.

 

This actually happens quite frequently in gaming. Its a relatively sound business model, if anything.

Edited July 15, 2014 by DaveATR

[mercules 1290]

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...

Meeting one player does not equal encountering one player. You wouldn't believe how many times I spot people, hunker down, and let them wander away. 

 

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". ?¿?

Depending on the server set up you can dynamically change what resources they have. You might have multiple processors running either multiple game servers or one game server and with a blade system you could simply slot in a couple more blades when you bump up to 100 player servers, then pull them again when you drop back down to 40 players to use them somewhere else. 

[BadAsh (DayZ) 1513]

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

 

They did work ok, but they have changed a lot. They actually tested out a 64 player exp server yesterday, and it ran very very poorly according to those who tired it. So apparently some work is needed before we see those kind of numbers again.

[maninthewall 470]

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

100 people per 225 square kilometers is not much

[seismic 1]

Had to register to say this, I agree 100%.

 

I seldom meet other people in this game and it get's boring. Running around for hours, empty towns, empty forests...ZzZz...

 

I played on the 100 player experimental server too, and it worked fine.

 

Not sure about all the problems you guys have with servers with more than 20 players?! Maybe it's your computer because 40 man server all work for me.

 

So please, rocket & dayz team give us 100 player servers soon !!! :)

[captainvette2112 84]

Cars/Heli's are the key to more player encounters.... they shrink the map... in a good way. 

 

No one wants to run from Berezino to Zelenogorsk so instead people stay localized 

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

No one wants to run from Berezino to Zelenogorsk so instead people stay localized 

Better get used to it because once they add stamina, disease, freezing and lower spawn rate of items you're gonna have no choice but to make that trek.

[eskel (DayZ) 0]

Game runs like crap with 20 ppl on server , we definitely need more to be completely unplayable.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Game runs like crap for me with 20 ppl on server , we definitely need more to be completely unplayable.

Fixed that for you

[eskel (DayZ) 0]

Fixed that for you

For everyone who do pvp , not running through empty forests which im sure is what you do in this game ,since you dont have problems with performance.

[Pandema 352]

We need 100 player servers so we can what? Have 60 more people sitting in Berezino?

[Guest]

They actually tested out a 64 player exp server yesterday, and it ran very very poorly according to those who tired it .

Actually they didn't tested 64 players, it was intended the server ran very poor cuz they had a profilersoftware running on it. Tracking down the freezes and problems with navmesh.

More slots will pop up, even if i don't think we NEED it. If u wanna c ppl, simple move to the hot spots on map.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Guest

[BadAsh (DayZ) 1513]

Actually they didn't tested 64 players, it was intended the server ran very poor cuz they had a profilersoftware running on it. Tracking down the freezes and problems with navmesh.

 

And of course they found this out by actually briefly testing a 64 player server.

[Etherimp 1323]

Hell, let's go 300 player servers... then we can have 295 players in Elektro, or Berezino, or Novo, or Svet, or Balota, or whatever other "area" the most people spawn at ...And you'll have the same 5 people running between Balota -> NWAF and all the hot spots inbetween.

 

 

If you want to impact the player experience (IE - run in to more people), you need to make more unique locations that encourage people to spread out (with an objective), and you need to spread the spawns across the map instead of all in 1 corner. 

 

Heli crashes are a good start.

 

I also suggest:

 

-Nerfing Balota much like NEAF was nerfed.

 

-Adding random "convoys" and survivor camps.. convoys = supply filled trucks/busses in the middle of the road surrounded by zeds.

 

-Nerf Veresnik and Kamenka military bases.. Remove the barracks. 4 Barracks and 3 barracks = more than NWAF.. Not right. NWAF is the main military installation in Chernarus. Should not be outshined by 2 small outposts.

 

-Restrict high quality military loot to only certain buildings (Barracks)

 

-Vehicles.. Adding vehicles means vehicles spawn and certain locations become valuable because they spawn vehicle parts (See: Palona factory from the Mod)

 

-Once tents and other permanent storage items are in the game, restrict their spawns to Grocery stores, military installations, and deer stands.

 

-Re-add some military tents to Stary Sobor.

 

 

 

Once the map is more balanced, THEN you can start talking about adding more players..But for now (and since launch), it's been 90% of the server congregating in the same 2-3 areas, killing each other, while the other 10% roams the map looting up.. That's not even taking server hoppers into consideration.

[pillock 850]

We don't need more players per server now. Not this very minute.

 

It's a bit pointless and shortsighted to look at the game as it is now, with the current server performance, limited spawn points, lack of things to do, over-abundance of weapons and ammo, badly balanced loot generally, unfinished towns, unfinished gameplay features, etc and say the game doesn't suit more players based on that. People aren't going to be hanging around Berezino forever.

 

Further down the line, when the game is more complete, it'll absolutely need higher server capacities - it'll make the game far more interesting, in tandem with added features and performance - but there's no hurry to do it until those future additions have been made.

[ZomboWTF 527]

it will of course be more equally spread out when cars and tents as storage will be in the game, but 100 players per server is a must, especially since the map has gotten way bigger up north

 

 

We don't need more players per server now. Not this very minute.

 

It's a bit pointless and shortsighted to look at the game as it is now, with the current server performance, limited spawn points, lack of things to do, over-abundance of weapons and ammo, badly balanced loot generally, unfinished towns, unfinished gameplay features, etc and say the game doesn't suit more players based on that. People aren't going to be hanging around Berezino forever.

 

Further down the line, when the game is more complete, it'll absolutely need higher server capacities - it'll make the game far more interesting, in tandem with added features and performance - but there's no hurry to do it until those future additions have been made.

 

yep, this can really wait, the game like it is now does not in any way show how DayZ is played, no high-end goal at all atm, just people deathmatching, which is why everyone stick to berezino and surroundings...

[StingingRumble 25]

,

[King Raptor 191]

I recall the game being rather laggy in the mod when the server cap was increased. In fact, I recall experimentation with the server cap that lead to them reducing it once again.

More players would be nice but not absolutely necessary. I think the demand for more players will largely be offset by the introduction of larger zombie groups ... No fun getting shot at when you're running away from a horde of zombies.

[LeeVanSpliff 156]

I guess the right order of business would be first adding all the features that create server load, then optimizing to make the game runs well again, then adding more players, then optimizing to make sure the game runs well again.

[bonesnap 75]

 

i find that player encounters are so rare its making the game really boring

This.

 

Also, add the following:

• 60-100 player servers
• Way more zombies
• Loot respawns in-game without server restart
• Vehicles
• Permanent item storage (aka "tents" / vehicle storage)

Voila, GoTY awards out the wazoo.

 

Obviously this will take much time. However, once we have 60 player servers, loot respawns and possibly a few dozen vehicles, things would be much more exciting.

Edited July 21, 2014 by bonesnap

[DeatHTaX 1217]

 

If you want to impact the player experience (IE - run in to more people), you need to make more unique locations that encourage people to spread out (with an objective), and you need to spread the spawns across the map instead of all in 1 corner. 

 

 

Well at the game's current state, with 40 player servers, I already feel that there are too many towns. It has been so boring for the past 3 days, running to every town, every airfield, finding MAYBE 3 or 4 players to interact with over the course of that time. I'm sorry but it was never better than when we had the high-pop experimentals. Loot was hard to find, it FORCED you to go to other cities to find loot, ALL over the map, and for those who wanted combat (because let's be honest, that and random player encounters are the most exciting thing in the game at the moment.) could find it. The survivor, as well as the fighter, were both appeased.

 

And as for altering the map to FORCE players to change their playstyle? Not so much for that. I'm all about free-market gaming. Let the people play the way they wanna play. You can maybe nudge them in a certain direction, but if 95% of the people are going to hang around an airfield, berezino, or one spot whatever it may be, obviously they WANT to be there, so I don't see why a dev would force them to do the contrary.

 

That's why I'm a fan of the experimental high-pops. Players will go where the situation dictates they go based on their needs, rather than on the 40 person servers now where everyone is just running around praying to God that they see someone because for the last four hours all they had seen was a pig and a zombie, because right now the end-game is pretty horrendous lol

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Hmmm, correct me if I'm wrong but DayZ is not suppose to be about running around, meeting people and singing songs in a circle while holding hands.   Meeting someone in DayZ should be rare and also should be done with caution.  That's the point to it.  I get it that people just want to turn the map into a giant battlefield but that isn't DayZ and would ruin the immersion of a post apocalyptic world.

[Etherimp 1323]

Well at the game's current state, with 40 player servers, I already feel that there are too many towns. It has been so boring for the past 3 days, running to every town, every airfield, finding MAYBE 3 or 4 players to interact with over the course of that time. I'm sorry but it was never better than when we had the high-pop experimentals. Loot was hard to find, it FORCED you to go to other cities to find loot, ALL over the map, and for those who wanted combat (because let's be honest, that and random player encounters are the most exciting thing in the game at the moment.) could find it. The survivor, as well as the fighter, were both appeased.

 

And as for altering the map to FORCE players to change their playstyle? Not so much for that. I'm all about free-market gaming. Let the people play the way they wanna play. You can maybe nudge them in a certain direction, but if 95% of the people are going to hang around an airfield, berezino, or one spot whatever it may be, obviously they WANT to be there, so I don't see why a dev would force them to do the contrary.

 

That's why I'm a fan of the experimental high-pops. Players will go where the situation dictates they go based on their needs, rather than on the 40 person servers now where everyone is just running around praying to God that they see someone because for the last four hours all they had seen was a pig and a zombie, because right now the end-game is pretty horrendous lol

 

 

I'm not against higher populations... I just don't think that will solve the problem. The reason everyone is in the NE side of the map, is because that's where everyone spawns, so that's the highest population density, so that's where people go to encounter others (kill or interact.) Other than that, it's NWAF or Balota, because they are the highest density of high value loot.. That, and there's nothing "special" about any given place on the map anymore. The only things that are limited to military spawns are:

 

Hunting backpacks (speculative... I've found them in warehouses several patches ago but not lately)

AKM's - And associated parts

M4's (heli crashes)

SOME military clothing (ie - tactical vests, etc)

Ammo crates

 

I could be forgetting a few minor things.. But my point is that there's little reason to congregate at NWAF when there are 4 barracks at Kamenka military base, 3 at Veresnik, and 3 at Balota.. The only thing special about NWAF is all of the hangers. Balota has tents. Stary is also pretty much a ghost town, seeing as there's no reason to go to the center of the map either.. It's actually a really nice place to gear up before heading further north, but it's nothing like it was in the mod. Not that it necessarily should be... I just don't know if I like how there's a "silk road" of great loot between Balota -> NWAF, and then everyone spawns on the NE side of the map. I get what they're trying to do but I think there's a better way to go about it. The mod seemed to balance it pretty well. 

You went to Cherno, Elektro, and Berezino to help fresh spawns (hero) or hunt fresh spawns (bandit). They were also good places for vehicle parts. Zeleno and surrounding areas, and Palona factory were good for industrial/vehicle parts. NEAF, Balota, and Stary were medium risk medium reward.. Decent gear, but not to some of the more exclusive stuff at NWAF.. And NWAF was for only the strongest. If you could make it up to NWAF, survive, and get out with good loot, you were either lucky or skilled. 

 

This provided a kind of "tiered" grouping of zones. It helped to spread people across the map, so it would benefit from higher population servers. If you keep the spawns/loot the way it is now, it would end up how I explained in my previous post: A very high density population in a small area of the map with the rest of the map mostly empty.. Same way it is now.