Anybody remember when Dean Hall said...

[Weyland Yutani (DayZ) 1159]

…that they had 140 players on a server in testing running at 15 fps?

 

Looking for the link to that quote. If anybody can help me out it would be greatly appreciated. Sifting through reddit atm  :(

[SmashT 10907]

I don't tbh, I remember we had about 50-60 or so at one point (and that was a struggle to find that many people available at the same time for testing) and I remember Rocket talking about 150 players as an ideal number in terms of player numbers vs map density in various interviews etc.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

I don't tbh, I remember we had about 50 or so at one point (and that was a struggle to find that many people available at the same time for testing) and I remember Rocket talking about 150 players as an ideal number in terms of player numbers vs map density in various interviews etc.

Well they did test 100 player servers and a few 80 player on experimental a few months back.  Other than that, ya, I don't recall anything about the 150 player servers or them even running them and getting 15 fps.

[t1337dude 101]

No. But I want 150 player servers now!

[Combine (DayZ) 247]

Seeing as the map tends to get larger and filled with more points of interests, seeing a higher player number may be advisable. Even if it's just +20 than right now, or doubled (80).

 

If you consider that many players usually stick to certain hotspots, then 150 almost sounds insane ... if most of those 150 end up in the same area, that is.

 

Call of Chernarus: Modern KOSing 5

[chompster 171]

Nope, but i do recall those few days we got to play with 100 players. Wasn't laggy at all for myself and friends. And it was a lot more fun, you'd have way more encounters and not all being hostile compared to now where 9/10 it will be.

[hefeweizen 254]

Nope, but i do recall those few days we got to play with 100 players. Wasn't laggy at all for myself and friends. And it was a lot more fun, you'd have way more encounters and not all being hostile compared to now where 9/10 it will be.

I can confirm this as the truth. 100 person servers ran nicely and had way more friendlies on them. Oh how I miss them...

[Ben_uk 24]

I need 200 players I think.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

Nope, but i do recall those few days we got to play with 100 players. Wasn't laggy at all for myself and friends. And it was a lot more fun, you'd have way more encounters and not all being hostile compared to now where 9/10 it will be.

It also had no zombies or loot respawn if I recall.

[SniperwolfMR 153]

Its been 3 days and I haven't seen one person. 

 

My character isn't in the north east. 

 

We need bigger servers. 

[Weyland Yutani (DayZ) 1159]

I don't tbh, I remember we had about 50-60 or so at one point (and that was a struggle to find that many people available at the same time for testing) and I remember Rocket talking about 150 players as an ideal number in terms of player numbers vs map density in various interviews etc.

Maybe thats what it was. I do remember him saying that as well, but I could have sworn he said they had 120 or 140 tested internally. How I wish reddit had a page counter lol. Thing is it might not even be on reddit and in a video interview.

 

Thanks for all the responses everybody!

[Baker. 1484]

Am I the only one who thought 50 players was the magic number?

[solodude23 649]

Am I the only one who thought 50 players was the magic number?

Yeah, or maybe like 80 maximum. Anything higher would seem ridiculous IMO; this isn't Battlefield.

Edited September 25, 2014 by solodude23

[chompster 171]

It also had no zombies or loot respawn if I recall.

Actually both of those were there. Though both were indeed very minimal, i could still go around and find cans of food, weapons and ammo. Zombies were there as well as i got held up by a group of guys and a zombie attacked one of their oblivious friends and ruined his jacked. I'll never forget how he raged in Russian(or a language that sounds like it idk)

 

 

Am I the only one who thought 50 players was the magic number?

Still doesn't seem like enough, especially if they expand the map even further.

 

80-90 would be a lot better imo.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Chompster

[hombrecz 832]

I want 40 virgins server....but this might be slightly offtopic.

 

Btw in mod, DayZero had like 65 people and it seemed perfect.

I can hardly imagine having like 150 on server although what do I know?

[heradon 12]

Actually both of those were there. Though both were indeed very minimal, i could still go around and find cans of food, weapons and ammo. Zombies were there as well as i got held up by a group of guys and a zombie attacked one of their oblivious friends and ruined his jacked. I'll never forget how he raged in Russian(or a language that sounds like it idk)

Still doesn't seem like enough, especially if they expand the map even further.

80-90 would be a lot better imo.

Not for me, because I'd like to hide my tent, vehicles and my stuff. There is less wilderness in SA than it was in the mod. Which means you can't even hide a can of beans in a bush with almost 100 people on the server. Less wilderness, and with 80-90 players which is almost twice as many compared to what we had in the mod. Even with a 50 slot server it was impossible to hide a few tents in the mod. Not sure if ppl used hacks to find em or not. Coz the first camp we had on our 50 slot server. Wasn't hidden well and it was huuuge. Still it took 3 weeks before someone with maphack to find it. Btw they won't be expanding the map any further. They said so in the first stream. They will only make improvments to old cities like Cherno and add more apocalyptic feel to it.

[Grimey Rick 3417]

It also had no zombies or loot respawn if I recall.

You mean infected? They're not zombies. You've even argued as much a half dozen times in the odd thread.

And no, loot respawn wasn't on the table when the 100 player experimental server was up, nor did it respawn infected. BUT IT WAS SO MUCH MORE FUN, and ran just as well as current 40 player servers with zombies.

And since loot respawn is currently broken, I'd trade the terrible... zinfecties... for 60 more players any day of the week. I've never had so much fun playing DayZ.

[rybec 339]

Yeah, or maybe like 80 maximum. Anything higher would seem ridiculous IMO; this isn't Battlefield.

You're implying Battlefield can house that many players at once.

You should've said "This isn't Arma."

You can go forever along the center to West side of the map on a full server without seeing anyone. It's kind of sad, really.

[Grundlesmuggler 41]

Honestly 100 person servers will have more friendlies that now.  Whether it just be due to density or not.  But If loot spawning is not ramped up significantly for that type of population then people will most likely have to be friendly and trade more gear right?  Also I think you'll have accelerated death matches on the coast which will eventually thin out and have people looking to venture out more to get gear.  80 - 100 person servers could also end up being more "stable" in terms of returning players calling servers home since interactions and what not will be more frequent.  Just a couple of my thoughts.  It would be nice to have more that 6 ish servers to choose from if you only like playing on populated servers.

[chompster 171]

Not for me, because I'd like to hide my tent, vehicles and my stuff. There is less wilderness in SA than it was in the mod. Which means you can't even hide a can of beans in a bush with almost 100 people on the server. Less wilderness, and with 80-90 players which is almost twice as many compared to what we had in the mod. Even with a 50 slot server it was impossible to hide a few tents in the mod. Not sure if ppl used hacks to find em or not. Coz the first camp we had on our 50 slot server. Wasn't hidden well and it was huuuge. Still it took 3 weeks before someone with maphack to find it. Btw they won't be expanding the map any further. They said so in the first stream. They will only make improvments to old cities like Cherno and add more apocalyptic feel to it.

Sounds more like they need to improve the wilderness then. Which actually is the issue.

 

Things are very poorly rendered at a distance making it really easy to spot things in the already incredibly thinned out "forests" 90 most likely would become problematic if they want to add a large number of zombies(which i hope they do) so maybe scaling it back down to 50-60 would be better. But as it stands 40 right now just isn't enough. I'm playing on full servers everyday and 3 weeks long i have only met 5 people. All the while hitting busy places (except for Berezino of course. we all know why..) which is pretty lame. And regardless if it stays at 40 or not, people will use some sort of hack and find someones wilderness stash.

[bonesnap 75]

The things I would do for a 100-200 player server to exist right now.

 

Ohhh the NSFW things..would..do..

 

want. now. :(

[RagedDrew 209]

Yeah, or maybe like 80 maximum. Anything higher would seem ridiculous IMO; this isn't Battlefield.

 

Is it just me that sees the irony in this?

 

Actually both of those were there.

 

Actually loot did not respawn so therefore both were not there. You might have found food and what ever but it's not because it respawned.

Edited September 26, 2014 by RagedDrew

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

You mean infected? They're not zombies. You've even argued as much a half dozen times in the odd thread.

And no, loot respawn wasn't on the table when the 100 player experimental server was up, nor did it respawn infected. BUT IT WAS SO MUCH MORE FUN, and ran just as well as current 40 player servers with zombies.

And since loot respawn is currently broken, I'd trade the terrible... zinfecties... for 60 more players any day of the week. I've never had so much fun playing DayZ.

Heh, a lot of times I have to use zombies or zeds so the simpletons know what I'm talking about, but yes infected. 

[RagedDrew 209]

Heh, a lot of times I have to use zombies or zeds so the simpletons know what I'm talking about, but yes infected. 

So DayZ is not a zombie survival game?

 

Splitting hairs comes to mind.

Edited September 26, 2014 by RagedDrew

[Judopunch 523]

It also had no zombies or loot respawn if I recall.

Ya, everyone was friendly because they knew they were going to starve to death in the next 5 minutes anyways.....