The "Lazy Owner" Issue

[Shrapnel (DayZ) 13]

It has been brought to my attention that there are a few servers whos owners have simply neglected to update to the current version of the mod, why is this a problem? Simply the fact that if nobody can play an outdated server, its just wasting valuable resources of the Database.

Ive got a few solutions to fixing the "Lazy Owner" Issue, but like most solutions, they have there downsides, so i will explain both the Pros and Cons of each solution. Feedback is wanted, but please don't post unless its constructive criticism.

Solution #1: "Outdated Auto-Lock" System.

Since each server running DayZ is connected with the Database, if it detects that a server is not running the latest version, it will send notice to the server owner, and locks the server until it is updated.

Downside: If a server owner is away or sleeping, the server will be locked until they are back. This would dramatically reduce the number of servers online after an update, causing the updated servers to be flooded.

Solution #2: Auto-Update system.

If an update is released, the server would shut down, and apply the update, and then reboot.

Note: Im unfamiliar with ArmA2 Hosting systems, if this is not possible please ignore it.

Downside: Servers would go offline without warning after an update is released, causing unsaved characters to lose progress, and players to become upset.

Solution #3: Servers run by the Dev Team, not individual hosts. (Personal Opinion)

Now, this IS an all out assault on Server Owners.. But if the servers were only allowed to be controlled by the Dev Team, the servers would be updated faster, and Admins wouldn't be able to change time, spawn items, or fuck with the settings to their liking.

Despite the fact that I plan to host a DayZ server in the near future, i stand firm on this opinion. There are to many stupid people out there who think that just because they own the server, they can ban/kick players, spawn items/vehicles, and make exceptions to friends and clan-fags.

Two options on this solution:

1.) Dev Team has full control, no Admins, no "Owners."

2.) Make it harder for people to host a server. (Rule/Regs, Application, Contracts, Etc.)

Downside:

More stress on the Dev Team, Running the servers AND making the mod would spread the Team and progress would be slow. Perhaps have a separate team that specializes in server management?

NOTE: Solution #3 is my personal opinion, you can argue with it all you want, but it will not change.

[colonel_black 0]

Simple reply. But i'd support option #1

[cm. (DayZ) 28]

FYI there are too many servers for option 3. That's sorta how it was at the start, not quite anymore.

[Shrapnel (DayZ) 13]

FYI there are too many servers for option 3. That's sorta how it was at the start' date=' not quite anymore.

[/quote']

Read the end of the Downside. Its a small suggestion that might fix that exact issue.

Yes there are tons more servers than there was when DayZ first opened to the public, but with a Server Management Team under the control of the DayZ Dev Team, The Inner-Workings of DayZ will run much smoother, and improve the overall quality of gameplay.

[Unnamed354 34]

My updater works for servers as well, I could make a version that doesn't require any user input, then you could tie it to a server task that runs ever X hours.

There is some wierdness there, and it won't update files that are currently locked by the game, so if there is an update available it would need to terminate the server.... just thinking out loud.

[colonel_black 0]

There is some wierdness there' date=' and it won't update files that are currently locked by the game, so if there is an update available it would need to terminate the server.... just thinking out loud.

[/quote']

Not weirdness ^^. The files are in use, so they cannot be overwritten.

But it'd be a good idea for Rocket to implement option #1.

[oskis_999@hotmail.com 1]

Ill vote for the #2 solution with a twist :) It should be made so that servers dont go offline with a bang, they should have a small timeframe with countdowns ingame etc. telling people to disconnect as soon as possible to update to the new version.

Then like 5-10 minutes later the server restarts and the update is applied. This way it would be very painless and nobody would get suddenly kicked the same second an updated is there.

Thats way I would like it anyways, an autoupdater is always the best when possible to achieve imo.

[Ander (DayZ) 530]

If someone doesnt update in a certain amount of time we'll ask them to update.

If they still dont update and won't give us an account (or run monitor) we'll detach them from DB.

[oskis_999@hotmail.com 1]

If someone doesnt update in a certain amount of time we'll ask them to update.

If they still dont update and won't give us an account (or run monitor) we'll detach them from DB.

Ok, thats actually great. But how long is that time? It must be like a day right? Cuz I guess most server admins aint working full time just running a DayZ server. So there could be a few hours before they are able to do anything.

But how are you doing right now, are you guys working on some kind of totally custom server software that will allow things like autoupdate and stuff?

[Shrapnel (DayZ) 13]

From what ive gathered in the last few posts, #1 and #2 can be combined.

Solution #4: Advanced Auto-Update System.

The server would lock itself when the Update is ready to be applied, and during this time, players are notified to get to a safe spot and log out.

After a set amount of time, the server would terminate and the update would be applied. The server would reboot, then unlock.

Downside: Scanning for updates ever X Hours meens the servers would be outdated for however long the cycle is. If you set it to scan every X minutes, it would use the servers resources and cause lag.

Unless.... Instead of the server having to run the update scanner, the DayZ Dev Team could have a program that, once an update was ready, would tell the server to start the lock and update system. Removing the need for the update scanner.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

If someone doesnt update in a certain amount of time we'll ask them to update.

If they still dont update and won't give us an account (or run monitor) we'll detach them from DB.

In this case, why are there still 4 servers still running 1.5.6/7 ??

Heres the list: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=6639

[oskis_999@hotmail.com 1]

Thats about right yeah :)

---

From what ive gathered in the last few posts' date=' #1 and #2 can be combined.

Solution #4: Advanced Auto-Update System.

The server would lock itself when the Update is ready to be applied, and during this time, players are notified to get to a safe spot and log out.

After a set amount of time, the server would terminate and the update would be applied. The server would reboot, then unlock.

Downside: Scanning for updates ever X Hours meens the servers would be outdated for however long the cycle is. If you set it to scan every X minutes, it would use the servers resources and cause lag.

Unless.... Instead of the server having to run the update scanner, the DayZ Dev Team could have a program that, once an update was ready, would tell the server to start the lock and update system. Removing the need for the update scanner.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

If someone doesnt update in a certain amount of time we'll ask them to update.

If they still dont update and won't give us an account (or run monitor) we'll detach them from DB.

In this case, why are there still 4 servers still running 1.5.6/7 ??

Heres the list: http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=6639

Thats about right yeah :)

[mrsherenai 64]

Hm, I'm kinda split on this point. Yes having outdated servers coud be an issues, there are some major bugs related to version missmatch. BUT big but, keep in mind that we server owners donated this servers and spend a lot of money to rent em. In fact money doenst grow on trees we have to go to work or college etc. to kepp the servers up. So just an example, I'm from germany, when patch 1.5.8.3 rolled it was 1 am here in germany and I was lucky that I was still awake so I could investigate in the database issues happening that night. But normaly, in week at that time I'm sleeping cuz I have to go to college next morning and do my 12 hours "work" here. So its simply not possible for all server admins to react to an update in a short time span. I just shut down the server when I notice there are updates rolling and I dont have the time to update the server in time.

So for me your first suggestion is the best opinion in fact thats exactly what I'm doing now, but please please get away from the idea that we have to deliver something to you. Like the Devs work our work is voluntarily. Anyway we have to stick to the rules that are set up for hosts, so leaving the server unmonitored for a couple of days is of course not okay, but 24 hours should not be a problem imo...

[Haiiro 1]

Option 3, while helpful is practically impossible... Servers cost a TON of money, 'specially windows ones :/

[Shrapnel (DayZ) 13]

-Sniped' date=' Please read original post.-[/quote']

I am well aware that servers are costly, I own a server for another game and maintain the community for it. All Solution 3 suggests is that the DayZ Staff consider tightening their grip on server control. There are a lot of server now, and keeping up with all of the admins is by no means a small task.

If Staff start cracking down on abusive owners/admins, people will think twice before starting there own server in order to have more power over other players.

On-Topic:

If you read the bottom of Page 1 on this thread, a solution might have been found for the Updating issue. The only issue is that Rocket would have to create that system and implement it with EVERY server running DayZ.

That might take some time.

[demine0 43]

FYI there are too many servers for option 3. That's sorta how it was at the start' date=' not quite anymore.

[/quote']

Read the end of the Downside. Its a small suggestion that might fix that exact issue.

Yes there are tons more servers than there was when DayZ first opened to the public, but with a Server Management Team under the control of the DayZ Dev Team, The Inner-Workings of DayZ will run much smoother, and improve the overall quality of gameplay.

Mojo is working on getting a Server support team together. It's not an official DayZ support team, but it'll get the Job done. The DayZ dev team tends to keep to themselves, so I doubt we'll be seeing any Developer endorsed support teams. Not to mention, the devs have enough on their plate allready.

Option 3 may have worked when this game was in it's infancy, but considering you need a minimum of a $70 a month server to run a 50/50 server, the dev team wouldn't be able to take on that type of fiscal responsibility. The current system works fine. The server owners supply the servers and maintain them. The Devs get 200+ servers to test with for free.

I don't see locking servers as being a viable solution either. There are tons of reasons someone might want to downgrade, or not upgrade yet. I personally don't upgrade until it's been out for an hour or so.

The auto updater would be a good choice, and I'm sure could even be coded by a member of the community here.

[Shrapnel (DayZ) 13]

FYI there are too many servers for option 3. That's sorta how it was at the start' date=' not quite anymore.

[/quote']

-Snip-

I don't see locking servers as being a viable solution either. There are tons of reasons someone might want to downgrade, or not upgrade yet. I personally don't upgrade until it's been out for an hour or so.

The auto updater would be a good choice, and I'm sure could even be coded by a member of the community here.

Locking the server for the 10 minutes when its getting ready to restart would prevent anyone from joining as the server goes down. It makes perfect sense.

As for the Auto-Updater, In my earlier post, i stated that if the timer was set to low, the servers would update at the end of the cycle. And set to high, it would use to much resources and cause lag on the server.

[Lady Kyrah 1110]

The dayZ dev team could probably cut down a lot of maintenance work if they pick a selected list of worldwide, trustable and proficient server providers and have everyone who want a server have to deal with them.

Basically make it more difficult to be directly a server operator, have some requirement, like "we want you to manage at least 10 servers" and it's then up to the trusted server provider to lease at least this number of server (or more).

Because i know how it work when you let everyone who can rent a quad core be a direct host, your database will get corrupted again and again and every server admin will apply the "no withness, no crime" logic when it comes to violating the server operator rules.

[Greg-UK4 31]

Some admins need sleep.

Like me for example. I stayed up late to patch 1.5.8.2.

I did this then went to bed. Went to work. Came back then updated to .4

It wasn't laziness it was necessity.

To presume otherwise is rather rude.

If someone is lethargic enough to neglect an update for several days, then it's a problem. A day? Not so much.

[Shrapnel (DayZ) 13]

Some admins need sleep.

Like me for example. I stayed up late to patch 1.5.8.2.

I did this then went to bed. Went to work. Came back then updated to .4

It wasn't laziness it was necessity.

To presume otherwise is rather rude.

If someone is lethargic enough to neglect an update for several days' date=' then it's a problem. A day? Not so much.

[/quote']

There are some servers out there that are still on 1.5.6, thats not a simple day of forgetfulness..

[Haiiro 1]

An auto-updater would have to update a couple of servers every 10 minutes or so though, that way people can slowly make there way in and the strain on the database server wouldn't be too high. Otherwise you'd have thousands of people logging in at the same time, which doesn't really seem all that optimal xD

[johndstill@gmail.com 172]

Honest, I understand the complaint here, I do and I think that owners should keep in check, but I also believe that this will happen because of the enormous growth that has occurred. If there are still 90% of the servers joinable within like 5 hours, why is that a problem?

[tiri 21]

There are to many stupid people out there who think that just because they own the server' date=' they can spawn items/vehicles.

[/quote']

I just wanna say that this is complete BS.

Admins can't spawn items, cheaters can by injecting scripts when they log in and play. Aim your critics toward the right target.

However, your ideas are not bad, but #2 is somewhat already in place. A lot of servers are set up by someone and rented, and the first one almost always update the server when it is needed.

The real problem for option #3 is:

Why would someone rent a server 70$ a month if he (i'm not talking about his friends and clan) can't even log on his own server.

Now, this is not important because there are a lot of server owners wanting to host the mod, but in the long run, will it still be like it ? Will the people who selflessly lent their servers still want to, or will they move on to something else ?

[Shrapnel (DayZ) 13]

Like i said before, Solution 3 is my personal opinion. If you read closely, i don't much like it either because i plan to host a DayZ server as well. What it would do is take all the power out of the renters hands so they cant hand out admin, or use admin themselves.

As for Admin not being able to spawn items, that was my mistake. And i apologize for that.

But... there is still the issue of Admins kicking and banning people without good reason. Such as: Kicking AFK players, Kicking players to make room for clanfags or friends, and banning people because they killed an admin or admins friend.

You might not think that this is still an issue after Rocket said it was fixed, but it is.

[cm. (DayZ) 28]

I think your idea has no merit whatsoever.

Taking away all the power out of the renters hands? Each admin/community has thier prefered way of administering a server. We for example, will kick players just for being immature or using excessive caps. I have just handed out a week long ban to someone for being a general idiot, he didn't break any "dayz rules" but he broke our rules while playing on our server. If he wishes to talk like a 12 year old he can play on other servers. If another server doesn't mind this sort of thing (or can't be bothered policing it) then that's fine - it's thier server.

We also have an auto AFK kick for players who idle in the lobby longer than 5 minutes. There is no need to sit in the lobby for so long and take up valuable slots that other players are waiting to use.

Also, do you know how much work goes into managing just one arma 2 server, nevermind dayz? It would be a full time job trying to manage 100 servers, even with a big team.

[johndstill@gmail.com 172]

Also' date=' do you know how much work goes into managing just one arma 2 server, nevermind dayz? It would be a full time job trying to manage 100 servers, even with a big team.

[/quote']

EXACTLY! While, Shrapnel, I agree that Admins shouldn't be kicking for clan members, I feel that this would happen if a team were established to admin servers. Its human nature...

I have been setting up servers for people and we are running 8 of them right now, sheesh!!!!!!!!!!