I know this has been discussed and talked about before, but the general consensus seems to be that official servers will change the game somehow, and be good to play on because they cost money, or something like that.
I think that whilst providing a stable means of generating money for the game, the servers will be really bad to actually play on, and the actual good servers will be non-official, community-run servers.
I think what the official servers will actually be like is very crowded and chaotic, and just like many servers in 3.0, the servers will be dominated by huge teams of chinese people that have huge bases and camp at military locations.
When UII is in its early-ish stages as well as further on, there will be many cheats, exploits, glitches etc, that people will use to their advantage, most prominently the huge clans. So they will probably be duplicating items, glitching through walls, and making playing the servers a nightmare for regular people/new players as the moment they enter the (very crowded) server they’ll be sniped from across the map by a flying clan member named with a duplicated OP sniper rifle or something like that.
I think the people that actually are willing to spend a lot of money on Unturned are the people in huge teams, which tend to be really toxic and very competitive players, who will probably work out a bunch of exploits, duplicate items, and be far more unfriendly than the majority of regular casual players who just play the game to be with friends and stuff like that. So I think that even with efficient moderators, official servers will be really unfriendly environments for regular players. With the inevitable glitches and stuff that the game will have in the early stages, the moderators will be forced to be stricter, which will make the servers even more unfriendly to casual players.
The servers aren’t expected to generate a stable source of revenue. The paywall is to support being able to host the servers, and whatever else falls under the server maintenance cost (e.g., maybe server staff teams if that’s a route we pursue).
Stricter in enforcement of removing cheaters/exploiters/hackers, or something else? Are we talking about more unique rules, like U3 servers that try to enforce anti-KoS policies, or the U3 servers that only allowing raiding on specific days/events?
I think it’d help if you provided a hypothetical rules/guidelines. I’m not sure how this specific point ties into server friendliness/toxicity. Maybe you’re trying to imply that server staff would have a harsher attitude, and be less enjoyable to talk with?
I think that server staff would have to be more attentive with that stuff, so they’d probably falsely ban people (as it would be hard to know who’s actually exploiting/cheating/etc) then people will get pissed off at them or just falsely accuse them of banning people unfairly, which will cause them to ban people for being angry/swearing, which will cause more people to be angry and say that they’re abusing or whatever, which will kind of contribute to the server’s toxicity and make it an unfriendly place.
I think for servers with so many people playing, moderators will kind of have to be strict and put lots of rules in place, which will be hard to enforce and cause a lot of arguments, which would spread around and probably cause people to dislike the moderators and not promote friendliness between moderators and players.
These clarifications definitely better help to clarify the point you were trying to make. I don’t necessarily agree with all parts of it, but it’s a good reminder that all servers need better tools in general. Better logs, more administrative tools, and perhaps alternatives to kicking/banning (e.g., mutes). Maybe a ban log.
Ideally, better tools/logging --> less need for direct interference. Inherit protections from exploiting/glitching, active maintenance, whatever else.
^^^ The above is just my personal opinion, but when server stuff is being more actively-developed again it’ll be relevant to bring up internally.
I’m more worried about people purposely searching for loopholes or ways to slander server (staff). Moderator conduct is more manageable, but reputation is hard to stabilise with how easily people want to cancel things or tarnish ideas/people
A lot of this is baseless in nature, like similar topics on official servers. Wait until they’re out. Right now you have nothing to support your opinions other than your feelings.
Besides, why would you assume that community run servers would have better staff? The official servers are, well, official, and therefore there is a much bigger need for the staff on said servers to be competent at their jobs - unlike on a community server.
Then set max players in a team 4 players or so and at early ages go only look people and monitor what they do. You have get thoes first cheaters and buggers
Obviously I don’t mean all community servers. I’m just saying that there will be free to play community-run servers that are a lot better, purely because people would play them less and they’d have small and dedicated teams of moderators.
I think simply because they’ll be large and popular, the servers will be chaotic and require large teams of moderators, and with large teams of moderators (and players) it makes communication and cooperation a lot harder.
When the game’s in its early stages, there will be a bunch of exploitable glitches just like there were in 3.0, there were items being duplicated and huge teams dominating servers because they could duplicate stuff. That was just an example of course, but I think there will definitely be some stuff like that.
oh boy I sure do love crazy claims with no evidence to back it up! Hypothetical scenarios that are yet to come true and calling it the future is so talk about!
As Molt has already said, server costs are to offset the cost of hosting said servers, not to directly fund Nelson. It’s also unlikely that the paywall will 100% cover these servers.
This occurs on every large server. It’s moreso an issue with the playerbase than the server. if anything, having official servers would be a perfect testbed to try out in-development features that promote random teamplay rather than everybody for themselves while massive groups dominate the server.
This will affect every server, and happens to most games. I fail to see how this makes official servers a bad feature. The paywall effect is supposed to discourage people from hacking, as they’ll most likely need an alt and payment for cheats. Exploits will be patched out in time and is once again an overall early game growing pain.
This happens on large servers of all games. Tryhards pay for advantages and queue with other tryhards to boost stats and dominate servers. Not at all a problem that’s going to solely affect Official Servers.
This whole post could be summarized by saying that Official Servers are going to be bad because when they launch (Unconfirmed if even a launch feature), the game will have growing pains regarding exploits, cheats, and toxic players, and therefore it’s not worth Nelson’s time.
I see Official servers as a place where, for a small one-time fee, you’ll get unlimited access to vanilla servers that’ll hopefully never be shut down (considering Nelson can upkeep them), something a lot of the community has been begging for considering the oversaturation of modded, p2w servers. It also has the usual benefits a paywall provides of being an extra line of defense against alts and hackers who don’t want to pay for access twice or more, and I feel that with the bonus of preventing f2p players, who’re generally immature and don’t understand the game as well, it’ll provide a better place for more mature, experienced players to relax and have a good time while they don’t want to deal with the chaos community servers have come to represent.
As Paladin said, a lot of these are hypothetical problems that you’re claiming are the objective truth, similar to other threads, calling something bad before the groundwork and details are even laid out is never a good idea. As Molt clarified, hypothetical rules and guidelines would do a lot to help you solidify your points, as there’s not a lot of meat on the bones here to go off of regarding problems that’ll affect Official Servers the most.
Nelson will probably add in a group limited somewhere, who knows. Future is too unsure for people to be guessing “oh fauk the chinese are coming”
This has absolutely no information backing it up, how do you know just because in it’s early stage people will easily discover glitches that’ll break the game, and not be patched with in a reasonable time?
Yeah my previous point applies to this too, if there isn’t a rule against it, and it actively benefits players, people who’ll pay for the server should expect it (being killed, for example)
assuming unturned II won’t have mechanics that discourage killing
Unless mods want to get high off of moderating and power trip throughout the server (which isn’t really possible because yarr and molt are pretty good) This just isn’t going to happen.
Strict with what? Not doing glitches? Being spied on? No one knows there being spied on via /spy I doubt nelson will simply just not impliment /spy and other commands to help check on players and see if there hacking. There’s also the free-cam mode admins have too.
Stutt how much thought have you put into this? I can assure you that everything you listed are problems that are not going to happen or are going to happen on a much smaller scale.
Official servers will not suck, no offence but you’re talking out of your ass.
I don’t know why these prediction threads are made when we know next to nothing about the features that’ll be in this game that connect with serverhosting and other stuff people predict about. So many assumptions being made, just wait for UII to go publics
You also could release server before actual game so people can play and you will discover glitches before you release actual game also you will see how game will work with lotnofnpeople and a lot of other adventages that you can take in it.
Don’t really believe in either side here. The “Attackers” is proposing that Official Servers will suck, and states some worries (not really the best reasons, but still worth bringing up), while the “Defenders” state the few facts we have, and also try to invalidate the “Attackers” arguments by saying “It’s the future, we have no idea what’s going to happen”. To both sides, don’t brush off the opposing side just because “It’s in the future, we don’t know what will happen” or “Mods are unfair”, if this continues to happen then this thread will just turn into a typical flamewar, where nothing ultimately comes of it besides a lock.
The one thing I want to mention is funding and server population. These servers are likely to see some players, but I honestly don’t think we’ll see many players opting to play on Official Servers over Community run ones. I worry that Official Servers will end up like Gold Servers, under used, and unpopulated.
Another worry is funding. The “Paywall” is currently the only fund, besides funds generated by microtransactions or 3.x, the later of which won’t last for very long post 4.x launch. If the Paywall is a “One-Time Only” purchase, than I can’t see the official servers being funded by that for long, If it’s a subscription, we’ll see some different results. Assuming the servers are active, and worth playing on over community servers (Pure Vanilla, unless mods are allowed on some servers, no P2W, No Advertisements, Fair Mods, Large Server Population) then a Subscription might work out, though you also need to factor in that a large amount of the Unturned install-base are children, not all of which will be able to pay for a subscription over a one-time purchase.
I don’t necessarily agree with all parts of it, but it’s a good reminder that all servers need better tools in general. Better logs, more administrative tools, and perhaps alternatives to kicking/banning (e.g., mutes). Maybe a ban log.