Player count per server plans

[Daimyo21 (DayZ) 6]

Hey guys. I've been playing Arma since the good ole OFP days and only since Arma I, II, and OA have I ever seen the multiplayer reach new heights.

I'm completely satisfied with the current 50-65 man servers and I value stability over quantity any day of the week. Being an Arma veteran, I've seen 100s on a server. I researched online and it seems the record for Arma 2 is 170 Players on a server that may have only lasted several minutes, but a true consistent record was 122-123 players for 3 hours of gameplay.

With DayZ having very optimized zombies (they have absolutely no BIS function) and are run mainly as a local entity (meaning even if the server is lagging, the zombies wont on your screen as long as they are targeting you). I can see servers supporting vast amounts of bigger numbers of players and with the server capabilities of today, I believe it can get record heights with DayZ.

I think bigger servers will benefit in the future as larger clans and groups would be working together in larger group, and thus make the game much more interesting in terms of territory control, battles, and overall more social and conflicting interaction with players.

In no way shape or form am I contesting this a priority NOW. Im simply looking ahead and seeing what other people think. Because this can potentially turn into an awesome mini MMO that has a few large major servers.

Anyone in the server industry think this is possible from a hardware perspective?

[SamStrife 1]

I think there's a balance that needs to be found where player numbers don't take away from the desolate feeling of the world. Even if you could break records with the amounts of players on the server, would you want to if it meant killing the feeling of isolation and loneliness?

I think if the servers maxed out at around 100 players you'd strike a nice balance and that's where I'd like the servers to eventually be at.

[Daimyo21 (DayZ) 6]

I think there's a balance that needs to be found where player numbers don't take away from the desolate feeling of the world. Even if you could break records with the amounts of players on the server' date=' would you want to if it meant killing the feeling of isolation and loneliness?

I think if the servers maxed out at around 100 players you'd strike a nice balance and that's where I'd like the servers to eventually be at.

[/quote']

I agree. Around 100 would be perfect.. However, I'd like to see them push the limits. I mean honestly its player preference and choice and if there is a 30, 50, 75, 100, 120, and 150+ man server. Than youll have much to choose based on your preference.

[vpope 28]

I think there's a balance that needs to be found where player numbers don't take away from the desolate feeling of the world. Even if you could break records with the amounts of players on the server' date=' would you want to if it meant killing the feeling of isolation and loneliness?

I think if the servers maxed out at around 100 players you'd strike a nice balance and that's where I'd like the servers to eventually be at.

[/quote']

I agree. Around 100 would be perfect.. However, I'd like to see them push the limits. I mean honestly its player preference and choice and if there is a 30, 50, 75, 100, 120, and 150+ man server. Than youll have much to choose based on your preference.

only one way to find out :) il look into it.

[SamStrife 1]

only one way to find out :) il look into it.

Looks like I know what server I'll be playing on tonight then :)

[ijswezel 2]

Disagree. I'm sure it's been beaten to death a thousand times before, but for the simple reason that with say 50 persons average on a server, once you get off the coast (even in a magical dreamland server where a third of the server does not magnet itself towards the cherno meat grinder (everybody get off the coast)), it is lonely and quiet and desolate and each encounter you have with a dude whether bandit or survivor is hugely memorable and contributes massively to the survival aspect, which in turn goes hand in hand with the atmosphere of the stalker-esque surrounding environment.

You could probably up this slightly without doing too much damage to the bigger picture (I have never played on any server larger than 50 players though) but once you start messing with arbitrary numbers like a hundred/one hundred twenty five/hundred fifty, completely aside from server stability and bandwidth needs, you start to lose the magic and sphincter-terrorising suspense that underlie the encounters thus far (I hope i'm not the only one feels like this?) because there are roughly double/1.5x the amount of players running about at any one time.

The map is only 15km by 15km and to me at least cramming more people in regardless of whether the server can eventually handle it or not just doesn't make sense.

[Trinity (DayZ) 0]

Yeah more people would make it a bit more action heavy.

[Wüstenfuchs (DayZ) 105]

I'd love to see bigger (100+ players) servers as well, but I think it will be very heavy on server's bandwidth. Even as the zombies are handled locally by clients, the local zombie positions must be uploaded to server from all clients, and then sent back to all other clients. Bigger servers might need to decrease the zombie numbers because of that.

As for losing the nice feeling of desolation, it won't happen easily. Chernarus is such a big map that we'll have to go much higher, to maybe 500-1000 players, before it starts to feel crowded.

[ijswezel 2]

maybe 500-1000 players' date=' before it starts to feel crowded.[/quote']

That's a whole sack of wrong

[ratszo 2]

Bis has stated the netcode in Arma3 will be improved.

Playable netcode is a recent event in Arma2. Before v1.60 last december, pvp was very bad; unplayable for many, players would skip all over the place.

I don't know anything 'bout servers, but i bet bigger is better.

[Daimyo21 (DayZ) 6]

I'd love to see bigger (100+ players) servers as well' date=' but I think it will be very heavy on server's bandwidth. Even as the zombies are handled locally by clients, the local zombie positions must be uploaded to server from all clients, and then sent back to all other clients. Bigger servers might need to decrease the zombie numbers because of that.

As for losing the nice feeling of desolation, it won't happen easily. Chernarus is such a big map that we'll have to go much higher, to maybe 500-1000 players, before it starts to feel crowded.

[/quote']

You may be right.. Its really up to the code.. As of now, the zombies have no BIS AI functions.. they are literally top-down scripted by Rocket. That will help save tons of bandwidth as his code his probably very simple and basic as I've seen the structure chart he presented in the interview.

I think with some testing and fine optimization, it will work. I do programming on the side and I have personal experience in making the zombie mod called Zombie Invasion. I've been guilty of writing very bad efficient code (how else are you supposed to learn) and over the months-year I have seen much improvement in the way I write new code. I think with Rocket, he has 10x more experience then me and I know he can pull it off if he wanted to.

Disagree. I'm sure it's been beaten to death a thousand times before' date=' but for the simple reason that with say 50 persons average on a server, once you get off the coast (even in a magical dreamland server where a third of the server does not magnet itself towards the cherno meat grinder (everybody get off the coast)), it is lonely and quiet and desolate and each encounter you have with a dude whether bandit or survivor is hugely memorable and contributes massively to the survival aspect, which in turn goes hand in hand with the atmosphere of the stalker-esque surrounding environment.

You could probably up this slightly without doing too much damage to the bigger picture (I have never played on any server larger than 50 players though) but once you start messing with arbitrary numbers like a hundred/one hundred twenty five/hundred fifty, completely aside from server stability and bandwidth needs, you start to lose the magic and sphincter-terrorising suspense that underlie the encounters thus far (I hope i'm not the only one feels like this?) because there are roughly double/1.5x the amount of players running about at any one time.

The map is only 15km by 15km and to me at least cramming more people in regardless of whether the server can eventually handle it or not just doesn't make sense.

[/quote']

I dont know where you got 15km by 15km but thats TINY.

The Chernarus map size is actually 225km x 225km. 100km x 100km is forest.

There is plenty of room...

Like I said before though. Its preference and you truly dont know until you play it out, and even then.. someone might enjoy it more than others.. None the less its just an option and I guarantee there will eventually be one reaching that height. If Project Reality can do it at 100 stable with all the very very very many complex features and intense battles that go on. Im pretty sure DayZ can pull it off even with the zombies as they dont use any BIS functions and are actually animal models converted into zombies.

EDIT: This also might be a coincidence but if you login to a server, the mission has 100 survivor slots... Im sure Rocket plans on hitting that peak, if not to just allow servers to try themselves. The soft-code side of the engine maxes out its support at 255 players I read somewhere. That means that the hardware side (and bandwidth) basically determines the possibilities after that.

[ratszo 2]

15x15km is 300 square kms.

[zorg_dk 30]

IMO 100 player servers would be awesome, and not at all too much for the Chernarus map.

[BlackAlpha 12]

Well... 100 players means there will be a player in every square kilometer. A kilomer can be traversed on foot in about 3 minutes. So, wherever you go, you'll find other players. Personally, I wouldn't enjoy that very much. I don't want to see servers with more than 50 players, and I think 50 players is already too much, too crowded.

[skyline 1]

15x15km is 300 square kms.

Dude, it's 225 square kms.

What's wrong with you people? 225 x 225 kms?

The map is 225 km², so if the map is a square, it is 15 x 15 km.

[Kask 1]

Disagree. I'm sure it's been beaten to death a thousand times before' date=' but for the simple reason that with say 50 persons average on a server, once you get off the coast (even in a magical dreamland server where a third of the server does not magnet itself towards the cherno meat grinder (everybody get off the coast)), it is lonely and quiet and desolate and each encounter you have with a dude whether bandit or survivor is hugely memorable and contributes massively to the survival aspect, which in turn goes hand in hand with the atmosphere of the stalker-esque surrounding environment.

You could probably up this slightly without doing too much damage to the bigger picture (I have never played on any server larger than 50 players though) but once you start messing with arbitrary numbers like a hundred/one hundred twenty five/hundred fifty, completely aside from server stability and bandwidth needs, you start to lose the magic and sphincter-terrorising suspense that underlie the encounters thus far (I hope i'm not the only one feels like this?) because there are roughly double/1.5x the amount of players running about at any one time.

The map is only 15km by 15km and to me at least cramming more people in regardless of whether the server can eventually handle it or not just doesn't make sense.

[/quote']

Totally agree with you, the sense of being" surviving" would be lost if more players were added per server.

Currently any encounter raises my heart beats in expectation after asking " (name) you friendly?"

---

Disagree. I'm sure it's been beaten to death a thousand times before' date=' but for the simple reason that with say 50 persons average on a server, once you get off the coast (even in a magical dreamland server where a third of the server does not magnet itself towards the cherno meat grinder (everybody get off the coast)), it is lonely and quiet and desolate and each encounter you have with a dude whether bandit or survivor is hugely memorable and contributes massively to the survival aspect, which in turn goes hand in hand with the atmosphere of the stalker-esque surrounding environment.

You could probably up this slightly without doing too much damage to the bigger picture (I have never played on any server larger than 50 players though) but once you start messing with arbitrary numbers like a hundred/one hundred twenty five/hundred fifty, completely aside from server stability and bandwidth needs, you start to lose the magic and sphincter-terrorising suspense that underlie the encounters thus far (I hope i'm not the only one feels like this?) because there are roughly double/1.5x the amount of players running about at any one time.

The map is only 15km by 15km and to me at least cramming more people in regardless of whether the server can eventually handle it or not just doesn't make sense.

[/quote']

Totally agree with you, the sense of being" surviving" would be lost if more players were added per server.

Currently any encounter raises my heart beats in expectation after asking " (name) you friendly?"

[beefalo 0]

There are some reasons to increase and not increase the player numbers.

1> I've noticed with the solo player mentality, you would like far less people, it seems to allow more survivability and such.

2> For those of us who like to play in groups, I find the 50 man servers a bit lacking. Personally, playing in a group kind of ruins it for others on these servers. With 4+ people its easy enough to kill people and have the upper hand, GENERALLY. Not saying a solo person can't take out a full group. I'm just saying with say a group of 5-10 people that means 40 other people are all thats left on the server. It's a bit lacking in that department.

[WitchZero 0]

Bandit's on the large servers. Survivors on the small ones. Works for me. I would love to see the zombie population on a 100 man server.

[vredg 0]

A server with 100 players would take a great deal of cpu power. I don't think a hexacore would suffice. Probably you'll need at least two fast quad cores. Could prove quite expensive.

[guitarxe 6]

I'm all for this. Right now player contact is too rare. I can spend like 3 hours and not come across another player.

Either map needs to be smaller, or more players need to be on the map.

[FrIEND (DayZ) 9]

i strongly agree with OP