Bye Servers, Welcome THE SERVER!

[zeeb 6]

Okay so my suggestion is kinda obvious, Since the map is as wide as 225km X 225km (from what I heard) It would be so much more awesome and so much more players if you ditched all the servers and just made ONE gigantic with maxcap 1000 players.

Imagine playing with 999 other players at the same time on a big ass map, instead of just 50 at the top. Now numbers is abit exhagerated but you get the idea.

I think this COULD give Day-Z lots of more players.

Yours, Demnish.

[wesley32 1]

Having 600 people running around cherno/elektro alone doens't seem playable to me. I think servers capped at 100 would be nice. The game should still feel like a zombie apocalypse.

[pogoman979 4]

Oh my gosh of course! Why didn't anyone think of it before??!!! Why have we been limiting ourselves to only 50 players this whole time??? I can't even think of a reason!!!

[Skeffington 1]

I think on top of this, we should be given atleast 100 bots that we can control, similar to the mount and blade series.

[zeeb 6]

I have never played Day-Z, just stated an idea I came up with, if this aint possible or seem retarded to you already playing Day-Z please tell me why.

[Skeffington 1]

I have never played Day-Z' date=' just stated an idea I came up with, if this aint possible or seem retarded to you already playing Day-Z please tell me why.

[/quote']

Ignore the forum trolls. Basically, the server would shit on itself in an infinite shit cycle. Reading rocket's posts, it seems like many minor tweaks result in terrible performance, and 1000 players would require a lot more resources. ARMA3 is reported to handle 100-200 players, but even then the current game is just a huge deathmatch and would be fairly frustrating with 20x the players. Plus, depending on where it would be hosted, it would be unfair toward people living far from the server due to terrible ping.

[pogoman979 4]

you should probably play the game before suggesting things then :P.

The servers can barely run with 50-60 players, so suggesting one server with 1000 is rather amusing

[Wüstenfuchs (DayZ) 105]

As an idea I think one large server (or a few large ones) would be awesome. The map is big enough to handle easily 200-300, or even 1000 players.

However, I think the ArmA 2 technical limitations make this impossible. It seems that the CPU and bandwidth requirements increase exponentially when adding more players, and the 50-60 player servers are already in the limits.

[thygrrr 1]

The map is 225 square kilometers, i.e. 15 km

long and 15 km wide.

10 miles by 10 miles for you 'mericans. 225x225 km would be 50,625 square kilometers instead.

[Menny 116]

1000 players in the 255km² world would mean about 4 players on every km² according to simple math. Ofcourse you'll have certain areas with a higher concentration than others(Like Elektro or Cherno, or any other random village in this case). As you probably know, people are already complaining about the constant deathmatch going on. With a mathematical average of 4 players per km² this WILL get MUCH worse.

No, please, keep it at ~60.

[stevejeon 0]

Actually its base server metrics and CPU/IO limitations.

Note: this is a gross oversimplification.

At the minute we need a bare minimum of 2 very fast cpu's to co-ordinate AI and map activity between 50 players well and the server is going to be spitting out information based upon per 'scene' or per frame per user.

If you take a look at the server requirements you'll also see a bandwidth requirement of 3.5TB per month.

It works out to about 10~12Mb a sec per instance for 50 players just in server messaging non stop 24/7.

Now.

To scale up you need to account for server threading and its a law of diminishing returns.

1 CPU can do a lot of work, 2 CPU's have to spend some of their potential work co-ordinating things between themselves. The Arma server process starts to lose efficiency at 3 cos the time they spend talking to each other starts to exceed anything useful they can do.

This means your CPU's ability to talk to other CPU's will limit your player numbers and your bandwidth requirement will go through the roof.

Basically its not a linear relationship. If you double the numbers of players you quadruple both your server requirements and bandwidth for that individual instance.

For 1000 players on the same map those numbers get genuinely scary.

If you wanna pay for it, I'll build it after I've had a word with Tyan and got us a bargain price on an OC-192.

(Unless you wanna have clicky push button fights, same as eve 'o that is. TQ is a 'single' segmented SQL machine. Base architecture is completely different).

[thygrrr 1]

At 1600m view distance, that means if you are on an elevated position, with a field of view of 90°, you'd be seeing about 25 players or at least overlooking an area where statistically, 25 players are hiding.

It'd feel crowded.

[Katana67 2907]

Err... I get the sentiment behind this, but... unfortunately... not possible/feasible.

For one thing, server couldn't handle it methinks. When it goes down, -nobody- can play the game. Furthermore, your limit of 1000 players sort of shuts out the other 100,000 players or so who have a chance to want to log on at some point.

There would be tent cities ALL OVER. Covering every corner of the map. You couldn't enter a hedgerow without ten players also in it.

The map is far too small for MMO numbers, it would have to be made much larger to accommodate player counts above 100.

[aragos 1]

personally, I'd go the exact opposite route. Servers no bigger than 30 people. More Zeds, less humans.

[zeeb 6]

Well I think 100 would be perfect, there should be safe zones where pvp is off etc.

This is a survival zombie game, it should be atleast 100 survivors in that big of a map.

My opinion.

[dallas 5195]

On a map such as Chernarus and the current state of mistrust, I can't imagine more than 50-80 players.

[Zarlak 339]

I think 50 is perfect. Zombie survival films never have a person every 100 yards. I like being able to run for 10 minutes without seeing anyone. Base camps would just become pointless when there are 6x the amount of players on and someone stumbles on it every 5 minutes.

[Miragenz 71]

You run into players often enough as it is, 50 players are perhaps just not enough, but 100 would be max since players cant be trusted really, and you dont want to be running into players everywhere, its the feeling that the town you go into could have a player in a building somewhere, or that there is a player running in the woods you're running through, always keeping you alert.

It would be different if there would be a 90% chance there actually will be a player in the town and forest.

And even though the map is pretty big, everyone goes to the little towns and whatnot.

[sin@tra 0]

If the engine allowed it, I wouldn't mind ~200 players per server. Seems I never run into anyone unless I'm near some sort of building. Would be tense to see other players along the roads.

1000 players is probably too much. Even 200 could be pushing it.

[dale0404 16]

The most I have ever seen on an Arma 2 server was ~ 122 players concurrently. So it is possible for more than your generic 50 players on a server. Just not sure whether the server could handle it.

Btw, the server was used for TvT gameplay. This means that the server handled a lot less than what it is handling with the Dayz mod.

[punisher_1 3]

Heck I dont wanna play on a server with 50 people it gets crowded and all shooty shooty. With 100 or 200 it would be insane I also do not think there will be enough loot to keep everyone happy hence alot of player kills making it anothe BF3 / COD / MOH

[TheRaven 0]

This would be possible if the game had instances, Like EvE Online.

[zeeb 6]

Ive read through all post and I'm sad that only like 3 people saw through my words, I wasnt really meaning "1000" players..

The main idea I was stating was the idea of "one" big server or 5~ servers, to be filled with players, so that you will run into a survivor more often, the last hours of play time Ive ran into 3 players..

Shit guys, you have to learn to read between the lines.

[fackstah 31]

Okay so my suggestion is kinda obvious' date=' Since the map is as wide as 225km X 225km (from what I heard) It would be so much more awesome and so much more players if you ditched all the servers and just made ONE gigantic with maxcap 1000 players.

Imagine playing with 999 other players at the same time on a big ass map, instead of just 50 at the top. Now numbers is abit exhagerated but you get the idea.

I think this COULD give Day-Z lots of more players.

Yours, Demnish.

[/quote']

you realize that the map is 225 squared thus its 25 X 25 km wide and long so 999 people would mean alot of people per square kilometer rather alot of people for so little space

[Gaidoon 19]

This will make Cod seem like a picnic