Minimum Players to Start

[Chaingunfighter 917]

Want a "real debate", as you so call it? Fine by me.

 

Pros:

- Admins would be able to choose between 50-100%

I don't see how that's really a "pro", that's just your idea of how the system could work. You could argue that it's a con because they can't choose values any lower than that.

- Players will not be spawned until the player count is reached

Still not really a "pro". Again, you're just listing how you think such a system should go about.

- This would solve all those 2-3 player servers out there where people are gearing up in an empty world.

Fair enough, this would mitigate that issue, but there's plenty of locations to gear up around the map that people almost never visit. Balota is usually safe and the military bases across the western edge of the map remain unlooted most of the time, so you could simply hop into a half full server in a location like that and probably be fine. Sure, it would take longer and be more risky, but not for the most part.

- This would help reduce hopping in the sense that you would always be hopping between half full servers and up, making the method more dangerous

I wouldn't really say this is a separate point than your last one, it just expands upon and gives more detail to it. But as I conceded previously, this is indeed a positive consequence of a minimum player requirement.

- This helps level the playing on server resets, as there will be no lone players getting a head start

It may help, but only marginally so. Anyone who isn't spawning in as a new character would still have all of their gear and previous location, so it wouldn't be any different for them save for the fact that everyone else is ingame. Otherwise, I guess it could even the field for a server of entirely fresh spawns, but how often this happens I'm not sure of.

- I think this would also entice players to go back to the same server after a reset, especially if they were in the middle of a good battle as they would know that players didn't have a chance to change positions before they loaded back in

People could still jump around to other servers and change positions, it would just be risky, but this would "help", I guess. Otherwise the only incentive for them to stay on a server with this plan specifically is that they wouldn't have to wait so long as the server was up.

- On a fresh start of a server that has new players, this would give a greater chance of players meeting and teaming up early as they are all spawning at the same time

Seems like another continuation of the other post (two up from this one). How often new players are the majority population on servers I'm not sure, and on a restart as a new spawn you all have to wait until the server resets anyway. Chances are, unless you lag behind, you'll be with the first wave after a restart regardless, so the difference is minimal at best. Teaming up is a different issue for a different discussion, though.

- People wait for Battle Royale so I'm sure they would wait for DayZ

Well, I can't really say this is a pro, either. Battle Royale's gameplay is significantly different than DayZ's, as it relies on a somewhat symmetric and balanced start and the game becomes asymmetric immediately afterwards, whereas DayZ has asymmetric gameplay the entire way through. I understand that the point of this would be to give DayZ more of a balanced introduction, but I'm not entirely sure that would be a good thing.

The presumption that people would wait to play DayZ is fairly unfounded, though. People complained fairly significantly when the developers added the timer between switching or rejoining servers, so you can tell there would be a lot of active displease with it. It's not representative of the entire DayZ community, but it can give you a slight idea as to the general trend of opinion.

 

Those were the "rebuttals", although I use quotes because I can agree with some of the points that you made. Now, for the counter-arguments.

 

- The bias towards more popular servers becomes heavily extended

Unfortunately, with a system like this, the more popular servers would almost always be the ones that maintained a player base. Smaller servers, while they can have a decent size population, may not always reach the server maximum, and this would be a killer for such servers that have gone under, because naturally people would shy towards the ones with more players. This may seem good in some cases, but people pay money for their servers and it's already fairly difficult to get people to try new ones.

- Many people would not like to wait to play

As I've mentioned before, it's actually fairly likely that people would not be willing to wait. Sure, DayZ is pretty one of a kind, so most of the playerbase would essentially be coerced into going along with it, because they don't have any other similar games to play, but it doesn't mean they'd be okay with it. It's sort of like how YouTube has a knack for making unpopular updates to their site, and yet it continues to grow in popularity, because Google knows for damn sure that its userbase has nowhere else they can go where they can truly get the same experience and content.

- Some people like to play alone

It's a relatively simple issue, but a lot of people just like the play alone or with a small group of friends/other people. I mean, not everyone who plays with the smaller crowd is doing so in order to server hop for gear or ghost into an advantageous firefight position, many of them just enjoy the sereneness that a quiet environment has to offer. There are plenty of little things people do with their friends or by themselves that make for truly interesting experiences on small servers, and why people shouldn't be allowed to do this just because other people server hop & ghost is beyond me.

This also ties in with the first issue, because someone who is paying their own money for a server wouldn't even be allowed to play on it because not enough others had joined.

 

Then of course there's the problem (not counter-argument) of;

- What happens when people leave the server?

Are they just temporarily forced out of play because someone got bored, or their game crashed? Or does the game just continue as normal, breaking the idea of the system? Then what's stopping an admin from just putting the lowest possible playercount and then waiting for a few people to join until kicking them and gearing up then?

 

 

Hopefully those are enough reasons to give you a reasonable debate versus your idea, even though I'm not entirely against it, and I'd still play with it involved (although I definitely would not like it, for the most part.)

[pale1776 375]

Still going? Ill just leave this here.

This is completely stupid. This is like the guy who wanted a 24 hour cooldown when you die. Frankly, I would be pissed if I had to wait for a server to reach a limit. Theres like 6 servers that are near full whenever Im on. I play on DayZ ATL servers by Vilayer, cause I never lag and its close by.

Now, theyre almost never full. But I like the non lagginess of them. So should I have to experience lag and high ping just because I cant play due to a timer? Hell no, and Id be pissed if I hosted a server and I couldnt do what all servers do: Start with a few, grow to many. Its always one or to people hop on a server, and it slowly grows. I have NEVER seen 20-40 people jump on at once to check out a new server. Hell, I just wasted my money, noone is allowed on unless its full!

And this would increase loot farming server owners, as now they are free to play alone without being shut down. Unless they cant either, in which case I would be PISSED if I wasnt even allowed to play on my own server.

These people pay THEIR own money for the servers, and unless YOU want to take over all their payments, then I suggest letting them do as they please.

Ya, I think so.

[Funkmaster Rick 373]

Ignoring all the childishness and churlishness here, I'ma go ahead and address this idea on its merits and weaknesses.

 

It would help somewhat to screw over the people who gear up on low-pop servers and then take their gear to high-pop servers to PvP. It would not address the issue entirely, though, as you'll always have some servers where the admin kicks everyone who isn't his friend off so his buddies can gear up there without having to actually defend themselves against enemy players. Even as servers stand now, with admins being able to do nothing except kick players and set restart timers, you can see this on a handful of servers. It won't go away without an entirely different approach.

 

The biggest problem I see? Playing during non-peak hours would become almost entirely impossible. During off-peak hours, you'd be herded toward certain servers that are able to maintain their numbers during those times. This would give those server admins a kind of power that they really don't need, and I expect they would use it irresponsibly. Too big a risk, in my opinion. Not to mention the possibility of simply not being able to play because there aren't enough players online in your timezone right now. If your choice ends up being not playing/playing at 200 ping/grovelling to some admin who's mad with power, a lot of people would take the first option. =/

[alldaypk 63]

I suppose this would work in high population density countries such as the UK or USA, but I live in Australia and there's only 2 full servers at any given time, every other server has 2 or 3. I don't know, I would hate to see 20 different servers with only 3 people each waiting for the server to fill up.

[Evil Minion 943]

Sounds like a good idea at firts glance but it comes with some pretty nasty downsides (most of which are discussed above) it also would change server dynamics as the first 50-100% of the players would spawn at once as well as conflicting with item persistence (you got all your belongings on a sever that is just not popular enough to start). In the end it probably hits "innocent players" more than it hurts the ones it should like server hoppers.

 

I propose an alternative: Hive Management

So you basically have you hive where every server should have about the same rules. Now every server has a location so we can measure distances between servers. Now just make it impossible to join an empty server when there is a nearby (which means the distance between those two is below a certain threshold) low population server. Those servers stay inactive and there are only two ways of activating them:

1. you can join and activate a server if its the last server you played on (in this hive)
2. the last nearby low population server becomes populated or empty and some "transition time" passes

Empty servers will become inactive instantly if a nearby server becomes a low population server but a group of empty servers with no low population servers nearby will stay active until a player joins one of them (which causes the other servers to become inactive). This way we don't have too many low population servers but still avoid waiting times.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Evil Minion

[jubeidok 495]

Let me clear something up, as it seems to be adding to some confusion. This would be a requirement to 'start' the server, fresh or after a reset, not a requirement to keep the server up and running. It's also is not a requirement to ensure that a server must be full before another can be started. 

 

Joining a server does not become more difficult with the introduction of such a system. There will still be low pop servers, if that's your thing, but there will also be a higher percentage of high pop servers. If a server has started and at any point after player numbers drop below 50%, nothing happens. It's not like the movie speed where you have to keep the bus moving over 50mph at all times or else it explodes.

 

All this really means is that if you want to join a freshly rebooted server and have a good chance at all those freshly repopulated, high value loot areas, you're going to have to wait a bit and will have a greater chance of running into competition for those newly spawned shinies.

 

 

Let's base this on an average of a 10h restart cycle...

 

At any one time you bring up the server list, how many servers do you think would have just restarted? The percentage will probably be pretty low, therefore the 'wait' isn't really a viable 'con' now is it? Because you will always have a choice. What if you just had a great 4hr session and the server you are on resets? You join that same server and now you have to wait. If it takes 5mins is that so bad? Even if it ends up being a 10min wait, still worth it if you ask me. And once the wait is over how long before you ever have to wait again?

 

 

With that being said, the amount of waiting any one player would have to do is being ridiculously blown out of proportion. We should be striving to push people together, not apart. This type of system would help accomplish this by pooling the remainders of low pop servers that reset. For example; 4 servers at the end of their 10hr cycle have become low pop servers with 5-10 players in each > the servers reset and these players now pool together into one server after the reset. If not, they always have the choice to find some other highly populated server with some open slots are some other low pop server that is hours away form a reset.

[trev186 389]

I think instead of locking the servers down do this:

 

For an empty server have like 10-15x as many zombies as normal

 

This way it is going to be one heck of a challenge looting Military bases when you have 50 zombies at NWAF vs 5

 

As people join the server then the extra zombies should despawn

 

Also i doubt they will lock servers down from the CASH is king standpoint

 

Why would you rent a server if it is going to be unused 90% of the time? 

Edited August 3, 2014 by trev186

[jubeidok 495]

 

 

Also i doubt they will lock servers down from the CASH is king standpoint

 

Why would you rent a server if it is going to be unused 90% of the time? 

 

I was wondering when someone was going to bring it up. This is prob the strongest argument against this type of system. Does it reduce server rentals and the income generated by them? The question you ask though, I think can be already answered by looking at the server list. There are plenty of people out there renting servers that aren't being used 90% of the time. So, what player/host type do we lose by moving to such a system? The kind we want to get rid of anyway, the clan gear up server type servers are probably all you really lose in the end.

[trev186 389]

I was wondering when someone was going to bring it up. This is prob the strongest argument against this type of system. Does it reduce server rentals and the income generated by them? The question you ask though, I think can be already answered by looking at the server list. There are plenty of people out there renting servers that aren't being used 90% of the time. So, what player/host type do we lose by moving to such a system? The kind we want to get rid of anyway, the clan gear up server type servers are probably all you really lose in the end.

 

the key is they can be used anytime

 

the new change would make it such that they CANT

[jubeidok 495]

I would also like to address those that have claimed to play on low pop servers for reasons of solitude, a coop experience or to avoid KoS player types. By doing this you are avoiding playing the game for what it was meant to be. If it was meant to provide a PVP safe coop experience, it would have been built that way. There is no offline mode. It is in no way meant to be a single player experience, yet it still has the ability to provide one. If you don't want to be killed on sight, don't be seen. If you want solitude, there are plenty of areas you can find on that map that can provide that too. If you want a coop experience, you can have it, but it takes a little more work is all. All these things can be achieved on full servers too. Avoiding people and contact is a skill you need to learn in this game, it doesn't come free with admission.

[jubeidok 495]

the key is they can be used anytime

 

the new change would make it such that they CANT

 

It's irrelevant if no one is joining them anyways. Bottom line is there are already people paying rentals for servers that go unused. In fact, those servers actually have a lower chance of ever filling up than they would if there was a minimum players to start condition. Why? Because there are currently no forces at work to drive players into servers together so an unpopular underpopulated server will always be that way. So when that unpopular server is seen with only 5 players on the current model, no one will join because they know the server pop isn't going to grow. But seeing that 5 on a min players to start model would actually drive more people into that server.

 

Have you ever notice that a half filled server is the most uncommon type of server on the list? The vast majority are either almost full or almost empty. Why do you think this is? 

Edited August 3, 2014 by JubeiDOK

[Rigor Mortis (DayZ) 141]

I'm not a fan of this idea because I enjoy searching for gear and living 'off the land' in DayZ... but I had an idea that might help.

 

What if you gave control of joining a server to the hive?  When you started the game, you picked which _type_ of game you wanted to play (Regular, Veteran, Experimental) and the hive looked at ping and which servers already had people and gave you a spot.  Your spot would be reserved for a set period as well (like an IP address) so when you logged off/back on, you'd end up on the same server again.

 

Solves server hopping and will help group people together.

[jubeidok 495]

Just wanted to add a video of this to give a clearer picture of how sad the trend of gearing up on empty servers is....

 

[Chaingunfighter 917]

I would also like to address those that have claimed to play on low pop servers for reasons of solitude, a coop experience or to avoid KoS player types. By doing this you are avoiding playing the game for what it was meant to be. If it was meant to provide a PVP safe coop experience, it would have been built that way. There is no offline mode. It is in no way meant to be a single player experience, yet it still has the ability to provide one. If you don't want to be killed on sight, don't be seen. If you want solitude, there are plenty of areas you can find on that map that can provide that too. If you want a coop experience, you can have it, but it takes a little more work is all. All these things can be achieved on full servers too. Avoiding people and contact is a skill you need to learn in this game, it doesn't come free with admission.

 

There is no "how DayZ was meant to be played". The only thing dictating how people play are the limitations and gameplay factors set, there are no rules stating "You must play on servers with X number of players".

 

Never use the argument "adding/doing Y takes away from what X was meant to be", unless you are the creator of X, because it's only a personal opinion at that point, not a stated fact. Sure, it may be important and useful to learn when to initiate contact and when to break it, or avoid it entirely, but in no way is it indicative that we have to use that against large numbers of players.

 

It's perfectly reasonable for people to express how they like the game when someone else expresses how they would like the game to be. Some people don't want the restriction, and find it unnecessary. Others find it useful, as it has the potential to solve some problems. Neither are inherently more valid than the other.

 

On to the point that "If you want to have a coop experience, you can have it, but it takes a little more work is all", the same could be directly re-applied to the entire system you're trying to prevent. People can still go and gear up on other servers, it's just more dangerous, and takes a little more work is all.

 

It's irrelevant if no one is joining them anyways. Bottom line is there are already people paying rentals for servers that go unused. In fact, those servers actually have a lower chance of ever filling up than they would if there was a minimum players to start condition. Why? Because there are currently no forces at work to drive players into servers together so an unpopular underpopulated server will always be that way. So when that unpopular server is seen with only 5 players on the current model, no one will join because they know the server pop isn't going to grow. But seeing that 5 on a min players to start model would actually drive more people into that server.

 

Have you ever notice that a half filled server is the most uncommon type of server on the list? The vast majority are either almost full or almost empty. Why do you think this is? 

It may, in some cases, entice people to join servers where there's a minimum amount, but that would rarely be the case.

 

All in all, the disused servers are just going to become even more disused. The trend will become more extreme, and the overall number of active servers will fall to just a few, with an even lower chance of disused ones coming back. The server population may not grow on the smaller servers, but with this system it's either; "Grow into a huge tree, or you don't even get to sprout."

[jubeidok 495]

There is no "how DayZ was meant to be played". The only thing dictating how people play are the limitations and gameplay factors set, there are no rules stating "You must play on servers with X number of players".

 

Never use the argument "adding/doing Y takes away from what X was meant to be", unless you are the creator of X, because it's only a personal opinion at that point, not a stated fact. Sure, it may be important and useful to learn when to initiate contact and when to break it, or avoid it entirely, but in no way is it indicative that we have to use that against large numbers of players.

 

It's perfectly reasonable for people to express how they like the game when someone else expresses how they would like the game to be. Some people don't want the restriction, and find it unnecessary. Others find it useful, as it has the potential to solve some problems. Neither are inherently more valid than the other.

 

On to the point that "If you want to have a coop experience, you can have it, but it takes a little more work is all", the same could be directly re-applied to the entire system you're trying to prevent. People can still go and gear up on other servers, it's just more dangerous, and takes a little more work is all.

 

It may, in some cases, entice people to join servers where there's a minimum amount, but that would rarely be the case.

 

All in all, the disused servers are just going to become even more disused. The trend will become more extreme, and the overall number of active servers will fall to just a few, with an even lower chance of disused ones coming back. The server population may not grow on the smaller servers, but with this system it's either; "Grow into a huge tree, or you don't even get to sprout."

 

I suggest you read through my posts again. These points have already been counter argued. There is only one legitimate argument against this system and that is a potential loss of revenue form server rentals. Regardless of why you want to play alone, when you pull up a server list there will still be low pop servers, but they will have been up for hours already. Why does that become a roadblock for you?

 

Remember, this is not like the movie speed, you don't have to keep a server at 50%+ populated to keep the server running. This only has to occur when a server is reset.

 

I think you also misinterpret the concept of sandbox and the idea behind letting people play the game however they want. This doesn't mean it's OK to cheat. This doesn't mean bypass the core concept of the game so that you can get your ideal shinies every time you play. It's a multiplayer game so playing it on servers with other people also on the server is indeed "the way it was meant to be played". I don't need to be the guy who created it all to say that either, it's just common sense.

[Chaingunfighter 917]

I suggest you read through my posts again. These points have already been counter argued. There is only one legitimate argument against this system and that is a potential loss of revenue form server rentals. Regardless of why you want to play alone, when you pull up a server list there will still be low pop servers, but they will have been up for hours already. Why does that become a roadblock for you?

 

Remember, this is not like the movie speed, you don't have to keep a server at 50%+ populated to keep the server running. This only has to occur when a server is reset.

 

I think you also misinterpret the concept of sandbox and the idea behind letting people play the game however they want. This doesn't mean it's OK to cheat. This doesn't mean bypass the core concept of the game so that you can get your ideal shinies every time you play. It's a multiplayer game so playing it on servers with other people also on the server is indeed "the way it was meant to be played". I don't need to be the guy who created it all to say that either, it's just common sense.

If there are servers that have less or none of the required population that have passed their "wait-to-start", then what exactly is stopping people from just server hopping there? And what's stopping anyone from just getting a sizable group of people who also want gear to go onto an empty server? Or what about just hopping onto a server that does meet the quota, but simply in an area that is not frequently visited by players?

 

What you're suggesting would, at best, slightly mitigate the issue. And it's not like setting up a brand new system would be easy, so it's a lot of work for little return. "Better than nothing" isn't a valid argument when there are other priorities and are counter arguments.

 

And I can turn your question right around? How is it any more of a roadblock for server hoppers than it is for people who simply wish to play with lower numbers of people? (I never said none, I rarely play solely by myself, but I sometimes prefer just a small number of people).

The only difference between the groups is the goal; one wants to play the game legitimately and enjoy it in a certain position, while the other wants to use it illegitimately to get loot easier.

 

As a side note, the most recent patches took away loot spawning on start, so that point of your argument is moot.

 

 

I never once stated that it is fair or okay for people to server hop to get loot, I find it illegitimate and fairly cheaty (not completely because it's recourse from the public hive itself). However, it is completely fair to want to play with only a certain number of other people. It's not "bypassing the core concept of the game", because it's not a core concept that everyone has to be grouped together.

 

Sure, it's a multiplayer game, but that doesn't mean jack. There are plenty of other games with no single player out there that you still have the option to play by yourself if you so choose.

 

I wouldn't be vehemently opposed to them adding a single player option, so long as the gear doesn't carry over into online play, but it's not always just "single player". Sometimes I just want to play with 2-3 friends, tell me again why there's something wrong with that?

Edited August 14, 2014 by Chaingunfighter

[demongornot 23]

No, no no no no, and no again...

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL00F953EE8C41F8BD

 

For a LOT of reasons i play everytime i can in empty server, and in fact if DayZ can also have a singleplayer mode with ONLY player and zed (and wild life of course) it will be great.
But a HATE to play with more than 3 other peoples, and i'm already trolled enough by stupid server player number that show 1 or 2 and while in the server their is over 10...

Why ?

Simply cause :

1 - For RP, in surviving situation like this we will probably be FEW survivors, the rare immunized one...This is immersion braking to see a people every 2 minutes.

2 - Cause loot is already rare enough and pretty much boring to find out every house already open and everything consumed, mainly in a game that only 2 hours split you from stuffed to starving to death, or where medicaments are already rare enough in a game where only "few minutes" is enough to kill you just cause you have eaten a rotten banana...How many kids have fun to heat rotten things for challenge ? even if they become sick, they will not die in 2 minutes, the time we try to find something we are already dead...
3 - Because too many bandits, you never know if you will find a stupid 10Yo one that will kill on sight for nothing or a real dude that is friendly, i want to survive long as possible, i don't see the point to get killed every 2 hours cause of the concentration of people...

And NO i don't play on almost empty server for just having gear, just cause i WANT to play alone and sadly game devs are in a stupid period where they all copy each others and their is no "realistic" surviving game with SINGLEPLAYER (and no, The forest is NOT realistic).

 

If you want a Battlefield/COD like server game, go play such games, i don't see ANY good reason for doing this, hosting server that will not "start" will NOT in ANY way give you a better bandwidth/stability or anything else, cause this is professional server and they probably host more than DayZ...And its is the ONLY good reason for this.
And by the way, the only reason for game to have a minimum number of player, its game like Battlefield where STATS REALLY COUNTS and ARE show up, in DayZ their is NO stats like K/D ratio or things like this that you can "farm".

And you know what ? your idea will in fact create MORE server jumper, simply cause minimum number of player = less loot on map, and those who want to "gear up" like you say will find nothing, and finally swap server a lot, result ? The poor number of loot left will be scavenged, server jumper will wait for a server to restart or respawn loot and scavenge it and jump in another, in fact it will be a advanced method of server jumping, or others will more actively looking for cheats which will attract more skilled hacker/cracker that will create some "trainers" and others cheats things.

 

Anyway if someone want to gear up, why the hell prevent him to do it ?
If you think that a guy full of loot is stronger or can kill more easily than a guy with a single Mosin, you don't know DayZ or Arma...

Look here : 

for example on the mods.
And if you search enough you will find video of unarmed people that beat one or sometime even two guy that have guns.
So lets people gear up if they want, they can still be killed in a stupid way...

If you want a REAL idea against server jumper, look my topic : http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/202269-my-huge-suggestion-list-long-topic part 1 and 3

But yeah, lets people play the way they want, video game become shitty and boring, not cause they are made with too much "commercial" aspect, but cause people loose freedom to play how he want and he is forced to play the way game dev choose him to play, which is stupid, NO MORE RESTRICTIONS AND MORE FREEDOM damn it !

Edited August 14, 2014 by Demongornot