Incoming: Password Protection.

[kaindebuddy 6]

Each player that applied would go through a lengthly interview, with it ending over voice comms so I can get a feel for the kind of character/player they are. If they fit the bill, they get the password and go on probationary status for about a week. If all goes well, they stay. If they do anything stupid, they get warned. They disregard my warning? They get banned.

Pretty simple.

yuk, control freak much?

if i did it i would just let the pw fly, word by mouth style. friends inviting friends.

1 or 2 hackers might slip in but that would still be better than what it is today.

[SumoS 168]

Our servers already have our website and contact details in the MOTD

We get people to create an account on our forum to review all the details and FAQ's about the servers. So if we are allowed to password our servers we will post the details in our announcements section alongside all of the rules and contact details.

This way we can keep track of troublemakers in the community and remove access if needed.

The way we work is, people sign up and can use us as a community to find other Day Z players. If they then want to use us as a permanent home we can then review them as a member.

If anything DayZ staff needs to give server owner power back to the owners... While I respect the rules as they are, I do not agree with them in any way.

A server admins should be able to:

- Kick players to make room for their own players- This can be abused but we need access to create reserved slots.

- have less than 40 slots. No, if they did this then there would be an even larger shortage of spaces. They need to cater for smaller groups but not smaller servers.

- kick whoever they want for whatever reason. This can be abused. By not giving them the option then it settles a lot of issues. You provide a service with the good and bad.

Cant understand why DayZ staff has to be so controlling of the servers.. Yes, its connected to their hive, but still...If you dont like how a server runs, join another one.

Highlighted your excellent points in green and added my thought in red.

Edited August 20, 2012 by SumoS

[MadHatter (DayZ) 1]

At this point I would be willing to password our server and do the application process online untill the game goes stand alone and all the sctipting curbed. Really the only rule IMO should be no hacking (Although im not real thrilled about coast campers). We want to have a full server as much as possable and passwording it will make that hard to accomplish.

[MadHatter (DayZ) 1]

At this point I would be willing to password our server and do the application process online untill the game goes stand alone and all the sctipting curbed. Really the only rule IMO should be no hacking (Although im not real thrilled about coast campers). We want to have a full server as much as possable and passwording it will make that hard to accomplish.

[andreasb 45]

Our servers already have our website and contact details in the MOTD

We get people to create an account on our forum to review all the details and FAQ's about the servers. So if we are allowed to password our servers we will post the details in our announcements section alongside all of the rules and contact details.

This way we can keep track of troublemakers in the community and remove access if needed.

The way we work is, people sign up and can use us as a community to find other Day Z players. If they then want to use us as a permanent home we can then review them as a member.

Highlighted your excellent points in green and added my thought in red.

I have to strongly disagree in your logic. THe fact that something CAN be abused does not mean it should be stasi-controlled. There must be guidelines in place for WHEN it happens, but not so much that you take away control.

There is no shortage of space.. Have you looked in the server browser? enough space everywhere.

Another hilarious thing is that we need to report every single kick we make, whaat? Thats insane. It really is. The person getting kicked is the one who should report it if its worth reporting.

ANY admin / server owner should be allowed to decide who they want playing on THEIR server. Because it's their server, not dayz staff's server. (Look at unban forum, they states "banned from our servers". Obviously players kicked/banned from other hosted dayz servers shouldnt post there.)

[SumoS 168]

I have to strongly disagree in your logic. THe fact that something CAN be abused does not mean it should be stasi-controlled. There must be guidelines in place for WHEN it happens, but not so much that you take away control.

There is no shortage of space.. Have you looked in the server browser? enough space everywhere.

Another hilarious thing is that we need to report every single kick we make, whaat? Thats insane. It really is. The person getting kicked is the one who should report it if its worth reporting.

ANY admin / server owner should be allowed to decide who they want playing on THEIR server. Because it's their server, not dayz staff's server. (Look at unban forum, they states "banned from our servers". Obviously players kicked/banned from other hosted dayz servers shouldnt post there.)

The rules were originally put in place to better the project and the overall player base. Not the server providers. You are providing a service in which people can test the game, provide feedback and have a say in how the game will turn out.

Don't forget that in the beginning there was a major shortage of servers. You had to 'queue' to enter a decent server with a good connection. Then more server suppliers got on board the band-wagon and exploited the increase in players.

Overall, I agree with the point you are getting at in that server owners should have more of a say on how their server is run and who will play on it, but your ideas are flawed in the sense that they will merely alienate players, create an aura of distrust and will eventually cause more grievances amongst players. Clearer rules will be rolled out in time.

Had the rules been lax from the get-go it would have been possible to have admins ban every person entering their server so they can play in a group of four people on an empty server. Therefore the rules were designed to keep a large population playing and more importantly testing.

Please remember that we are all alpha testers and that we need to test. If every server had a 10 person limit with a password then a large majority of players won't be able to play. Once the game goes standalone they will probably have small population, pass worded servers. Until then those are the rules and unless Rocket makes amendments we will have to all deal with it.

Edited August 21, 2012 by SumoS

[andreasb 45]

The rules were originally put in place to better the project and the overall player base. Not the server providers. You are providing a service in which people can test the game, provide feedback and have a say in how the game will turn out.

Don't forget that in the beginning there was a major shortage of servers. You had to 'queue' to enter a decent server with a good connection. Then more server suppliers got on board the band-wagon and exploited the increase in players.

Overall, I agree with the point you are getting at in that server owners should have more of a say on how their server is run and who will play on it, but your ideas are flawed in the sense that they will merely alienate players, create an aura of distrust and will eventually cause more grievances amongst players. Clearer rules will be rolled out in time.

Had the rules been lax from the get-go it would have been possible to have admins ban every person entering their server so they can play in a group of four people on an empty server. Therefore the rules were designed to keep a large population playing and more importantly testing.

Please remember that we are all alpha testers and that we need to test. If every server had a 10 person limit with a password then a large majority of players won't be able to play. Once the game goes standalone they will probably have small population, pass worded servers. Until then those are the rules and unless Rocket makes amendments we will have to all deal with it.

No, I am providing a server where players can play this mod. And to some degree it should be on my terms. (I am not saying abuse should ever be OK.)

The need to queue to enter a good server is a good thing, but it does show theres too few "good servers". Considering the stasi-rules im baffled that there are as many servers as there is at the moment.

I am not saying that an admin should be able to ban whoever he want for whatever reason. Or I kinda am, but yet no. There needs to be some control considering we are all connected to the same hive. But playing on a server.. That should really be a privilege, NOT a right.. As of today that is a right!, and that is utterly wrong.

"it would have been possible to have admins ban every person entering their server " No, this is CLEARLY admin abuse. And needs to result in a disconnection from the hive.

" so they can play in a group of four people on an empty server. " <-- This is not what I want.

"If every server had a 10 person limit with a password then a large majority of players won't be able to play. " I totally agree, and this is not where I was headed. My thoughts are that in basis I want everyone to play on my server. (Yes DayZ admins, its not your server such as stated in the unban forum, its MY server.) The more the merrier. BUT, any kind of disruptive behaviour, hacking, cheating(if disruptive), smacktalk, flaming should be bannable. By the server owners, without informing anyone.

The problem today is that we have to report every single kick. Thats ... way-borderline hilarious. We should only have to do so if someone complaints on their ban/kick. And even then, getting kicked is no biggie? Maybe you should look at why an admin kicked you?

Edited August 21, 2012 by AndreasB

[SumoS 168]

No, I am providing a server where players can play this mod. And to some degree it should be on my terms. (I am not saying abuse should ever be OK.)

The need to queue to enter a good server is a good thing, but it does show theres too few "good servers". Considering the stasi-rules im baffled that there are as many servers as there is at the moment.

I am not saying that an admin should be able to ban whoever he want for whatever reason. Or I kinda am, but yet no. There needs to be some control considering we are all connected to the same hive. But playing on a server.. That should really be a privilege, NOT a right.. As of today that is a right!, and that is utterly wrong.

"it would have been possible to have admins ban every person entering their server " No, this is CLEARLY admin abuse. And needs to result in a disconnection from the hive.

" so they can play in a group of four people on an empty server. " <-- This is not what I want.

"If every server had a 10 person limit with a password then a large majority of players won't be able to play. " I totally agree, and this is not where I was headed. My thoughts are that in basis I want everyone to play on my server. (Yes DayZ admins, its not your server such as stated in the unban forum, its MY server.) The more the merrier. BUT, any kind of disruptive behaviour, hacking, cheating(if disruptive), smacktalk, flaming should be bannable. By the server owners, without informing anyone.

The problem today is that we have to report every single kick. Thats ... way-borderline hilarious. We should only have to do so if someone complaints on their ban/kick. And even then, getting kicked is no biggie? Maybe you should look at why an admin kicked you?

Andreas I agree with you mate. Many people feel the same way. The current rule set is very laissez-faire when it comes to how people play Day Z, in regards to duping/exploiting and hacked items (self scripted or found). However, the rule set for server admins is very single minded in that we have no authority to do anything. So currently the power is in the players hands with us server suppliers in between a rock and a hard place.

The way they are thinking is that they wont give us the option to do anything so they can test what rules they need for both parties. Think of it as stress testing. After the standalone is out we will have clear cut rules to follow and hopefully they will provide server admins the ability to act accordingly without being scrutinized on every action.

Overall, your ideas are good but please be aware that some server admins are out to create an experience tailored for themselves and their friends. They are quite happy to ban people illegally, lock the server and exploit their powers for their own selfish reasons. The rules are in place to prevent this. So personally, I think that we should have to provide evidence in some form. There have been many occasions where I thought I was killed by a hacker but in reality it could have been a bug or unknown player.Banning people should not be an easy decision, otherwise many people would just ban players immediately and potentially get the name wrong.

For example, yesterday a hacker was griefing a few of us on US 571. We were refueling our helicopter and out of nowhere he appeared and started asking us to do strange stuff. I said hello to him and wished him a good day and we got back in the chopper to fly off. He proceeded to shoot the door gunner with a pistol. The gunner then unloaded on him, yet he did not die.

Oddly enough another player had crept up on him and started whacking him with an axe and he still did not die.We made several passes over him shooting him to no avail. Eventually we flew off so I could log in to the admin tools and kick/ban him. I would not have done this if one of the gunners had not been frapsing the entire escapade.

Edited August 21, 2012 by SumoS

[Treehead 11]

I am curious, then. If you as a server admin decided to password protect your server, what requirements would you have for allowing players onto your server? How would you decide who to give your password to?

How would a player like me be able to join your server?

I'd prefer whitelisting to passwording. Passwords go around like a STD. But the same day when PW or whitelists are allowed, I'm booking a new server.

I think I would make it similar to joining our MMORPG guild or our guilds forum: Start a new topic, introduce yourself, write a few sentences about yourself, give us at least your email address. If your introduction doesn´t sound like a spoiled ADHD brat, we give you a trial period in which we feel entitled to kick you for any reason, after that, we don´t care.

The most important part is not to grow too fast.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Treehead

[andreasb 45]

Andreas I agree with you mate. Many people feel the same way. The current rule set is very laissez-faire when it comes to how people play Day Z, in regards to duping/exploiting and hacked items (self scripted or found). However, the rule set for server admins is very single minded in that we have no authority to do anything. So currently the power is in the players hands with us server suppliers in between a rock and a hard place.

The way they are thinking is that they wont give us the option to do anything so they can test what rules they need for both parties. Think of it as stress testing. After the standalone is out we will have clear cut rules to follow and hopefully they will provide server admins the ability to act accordingly without being scrutinized on every action.

Overall, your ideas are good but please be aware that some server admins are out to create an experience tailored for themselves and their friends. They are quite happy to ban people illegally, lock the server and exploit their powers for their own selfish reasons. The rules are in place to prevent this. So personally, I think that we should have to provide evidence in some form. There have been many occasions where I thought I was killed by a hacker but in reality it could have been a bug or unknown player.Banning people should not be an easy decision, otherwise many people would just ban players immediately and potentially get the name wrong.

For example, yesterday a hacker was griefing a few of us on US 571. We were refueling our helicopter and out of nowhere he appeared and started asking us to do strange stuff. I said hello to him and wished him a good day and we got back in the chopper to fly off. He proceeded to shoot the door gunner with a pistol. The gunner then unloaded on him, yet he did not die.

Oddly enough another player had crept up on him and started whacking him with an axe and he still did not die.We made several passes over him shooting him to no avail. Eventually we flew off so I could log in to the admin tools and kick/ban him. I would not have done this if one of the gunners had not been frapsing the entire escapade.

That is one of my points, fraps shouldnt have been needed to ban him, its your server. Although fraps is good for proof.

Localbans should never ever need proof. If bans are shared, then yes. I really hope someone else makes a second hive, that would be the real experience for dayz admins.. Competition.

Edited August 21, 2012 by AndreasB

[SumoS 168]

That is one of my points, fraps shouldnt have been needed to ban him, its your server. Although fraps is good for proof.

Localbans should never ever need proof. If bans are shared, then yes. I really hope someone else makes a second hive, that would be the real experience for dayz admins.. Competition.

I feel we should be given the benefit of the doubt but I still think we need to be able to provide some form of evidence or at least a valid reason for banning someone. If you want to do this check out the private HIVEs. They run anti scripting commands and can ban people willy nilly.

We are more accountable so that whatever we do is not classed as admin abuse.

[Bushman (DayZ) 25]

If anything DayZ staff needs to give server owner power back to the owners... While I respect the rules as they are, I do not agree with them in any way.

A server admins should be able to:

- Kick players to make room for their own players

- have less than 40 slots.

- kick whoever they want for whatever reason.

Cant understand why DayZ staff has to be so controlling of the servers.. Yes, its connected to their hive, but still...If you dont like how a server runs, join another one.

This is exactly why you shouldnt have total control.

[danile666 6]

I will not be passwording my server if Rocket allows it, and it is a dumb idea to allow it. The heart of this game is the randomness of who you meet out there. If I password it and require people to submit an application I am hand picking who my opponents are, and likely trying to make them friendlies.

We do need more powers, the power to ban hackers, kick people in more broad circumstances, and to have more control over stuff on our server (think the server messages)...this would solve a lot of the problems because server admins are usually proactive in removing a threat against their investment.

[CaribeanSoul 10]

Hooray! Now we can farm all the gear from all the best locations with no risk of being shot at! We can just put all our tents in the big open fields around the airfield and save all that time hauling loot to our hidden camp! Or, even better, we can put tents full of medical supplies and ammo in all the major pvp areas so they're right there if we need to pop back to our server for a quick patching up and resupply. Heck since we can loot everything on the server now we can put tents with a full gear load-out all along the coast in case we get killed. And vehicles too so we can get right back to the battle-zone on our safe server and then pop back over to where we were fighting! There are so many possibilities!

Uh.... no.

I (as a server admin) would only support this if password servers were off the public hive. If you want to play by yourself in the corner, fine. But you shouldn't have your own special safe zone. That is really one of the worst ideas ever. I think it would almost completely ruin the game. Just plug the holes for the exploits/hacks ... and add some login/logout timers.

Edited August 21, 2012 by CaribeanSoul

[Azrail (DayZ) 211]

So he is going to allow password protected servers now? hmm.

as far as i got it from an interview on gamescom, once the standalone is taking off,

he is planning to hand the mod over into community's hands,

so people can develop their own stuff, like new maps and content etc.

and have it the way they want (1-100 players? passwords? running additional mods?)

i can see big profit in this as you can for example run DayZ together with ACRE,

which would make sense if you tweak them radio's in.

of course that only makes sense without a central hive, so every server has its own

database.

not sure how this will affect security on the standalone, because i figure the standalone

will actually contain a good part of the mod, and handing that to possible attackers?

we shall see.

in rocket we trust.

Edited August 21, 2012 by Azrail

[andreasb 45]

This is exactly why you shouldnt have total control.

I'd like to rephrase what I said about kick anyone for any reason. I wrote that in bit of a hurry.

I wrote it, but I did not mean for ANY reason. That borders to abuse.

If someone is harassing someone for any reason, I should be able to kick them.. Without reporting it (aka making a thread about it)

[andreasb 45]

Just plug the holes for the exploits/hacks ... and add some login/logout timers.

First part= YAY!

Second part = The fuck? Are you insane? The shocktimer is annoying enough.. Have you got any idea how long 5 minutes is when you want to play?

[pjok 1]

Our server would be password protected, however the password would be published for all registered members of our community. If the members decide to share this information with their friends is ok. This highly restricts who can enter our server AND gives us more control of whom we allow to play on it.

[KField86 237]

yuk, control freak much?

if i did it i would just let the pw fly, word by mouth style. friends inviting friends.

1 or 2 hackers might slip in but that would still be better than what it is today.

Don't care. I'd rather not let the hacker slip in than let him slip him and ruin legitimate players games. There's nothing controlling about that. Don't let how I'd run the process? Then join one of the other handful of locked servers that just give out the password based on a forum registration whitelist system, and then watch as your jaw hits the floor when you realize the amount of hackers on those locked servers aren't any less than the public hives. If a hacker wants in, he'll get in. The only way to prevent them, is to have a strict application process. That's what a COMMUNITY is FOR. You know, like the communities that existed when you were still in the womb? For games like Tribes 2, Call of Duty(The original), Medal of Honor, Return to Castle Wolfenstein, Everquest, DAOC, Ultima Online. Yeah. I don't think I need to say more. The communities policed those games, and they were successful because of it.

[TheDesigner 1197]

It is against rules to password protect your server. Head on over to my server it is managed daily by Heroes Fate a core group of players that have played games together for 8 years now. See you in game.

Read the damn OP before advertising your "unique" server.

[skuba 0]

im just wondering.. why dont we have pw protection if we want? we have to pay to have a server and if we only want to play with our friends, shouldent that be up to us? im just sayin, why should it not be allowed? so im really hoping this will fall threw but this post is from like 3 months ago so im guessing not :(