WalkerDown

They will tell you that you shouldn't have run a business based on a alpha, that is partially true.. the other face is that without those servers (and many other server run by the community), BIS would have deployed THEIR own servers (for money), so instead of saying: "thanks to help us to debug this using YOUR OWN MONEY" .. they are making our life harder trying to fight a war they have lost already (we cannot run multiple servers today, because they have tried to block the pirate copies.. but have failed: pirates are still pirating, while legit users [uS] are paying the price).

There's no date in the first post.. i'm waiting for the fix (ironically for the fix of something that were working perfectly before...).

The problem is that the explanation isn't very clear.. it says that you must have UNIQUE STEAM ACCOUNT ... for each "client -server" -- and this is wrong, you don't need a unique steam account for each server, instead you need a separate server (physical or virtualized) for each instance, but then you can run an infinite number of servers with the SAME steam account (and the same game copy). Whatever.. it still sucks because ppl aren't going to install virtual crap on their machine (that sucks a portion of the server resources) just to run some arma server. PPl are mad not because it's alpha (and so you have to wait for the development time), but because it was working before! And they decided to stop it to deploy a stupid piracy protection (that is not working). Most of us are running 4+ servers on a box, it's not only about the "monster machines" or big communities (we're in the 70 euro range to run 4 instances or even less if paid in USD).

Again? BIS decided to put a "something" (alpha, beta, gamma, delta.. whatever) on STEAM <<< S T E A M ... are you so naïve to believe that GAMERS on steam thinks beyond those terms? No matter how logic it appears to YOU, we are talking about a bunch of persons that know how to turn on a PC (or better a console) to only play certain GAMES, they doesn't care at all at those developers stuff, they ONLY WANTS TO PLAY A GAME, and in the moment you give them "something", they expect to play that "something" as they play anything else (a finished game in example). Again, for the 100 time, this is steam not kickstarter, the audience is complete different. You're going to sell a prototype in a traditional car shop, then you're blaming the customers because they doesn't understand that the PROTOTYPE is missing the headlights.. saying they are "stupid" because they doesn't understand what "prototype" means.. and the word PROTOTYPE was so big, how they missed it? Nope: it's YOUR mistake to have chosen the wrong platform (or to be exact: the right platform on the paper, but the wrong platform if you look at the customers). People aren't "stupid", they just doesn't care.

Yes it should works, since i'm running the server and my own client (of course) from the same steam account but using obviously two PC's... but I still to not have got that sentence, what does he means with "each client needs unique steam account" then? The reality is that each dedicated client needs a unique environment (but it can be run by using steam in offline mode). Hum... Btw yes, we absolutely need the dedicatedserver to run multiple instances.. i'm already wasting my server by 2 weeks with this single instance s*it.

It wouldn't works, since you're running the stable branch (client -server). Unless you're prepared to pay for a new key for each server. From dwarden: ..does It sucks? Yes it does!

Any news on when this limitation (no multiple instances) will be fixed?

Nor only overestimated, they simply ignored it, and now they (in reality it's us, they are still ignoring it.. lol) are pointing it is... alpha.

That's why it is a BIS error: to have believed that the "majority" of ppl on Steam would have understood the difference, but the majority of Steam audience is about average gamers, not about "testers".

Yes, the "error" (if we could call it as an "error") has been to put this alpha on Steam. You may says it seems to repays initially (some incoming cash, buzz around your product) but the downside is that as soon the hype goes down, you must handle all the increasing user noises... especially when there's so much to moan about (see the previous points). No matter if you call it "Alpha", this is Steam.. it's not exactly a developer lobby or code experts or even amateur beta-testers, the majority is about normal players that sees into the "Steam early access program" the opportunity of playing a game before it is released. It may seems a good way to test a product, but it's not (because it's not controlled), it's just a way to trade your normal development process (and time) for money. If there's a good thing about it, is that after years we have realized that some of the old code (i'm referring to the multi-thread issue) is still here and so we had the opportunity to tell the devs: "hey! wth you're doing? after 4 years you didn't fixed this? move your a** and fix it before it's released!".

1) No contents yet; 2) Cheating (due to no anti-cheat yet); 3) Hacking (see above); 4) Very bad performances; 5) No "good" news from the release day (the ones who let you decide to "give a look"); All these reason are contributing to the current situation: the "hype" is over and the alpha emerges for what it is: just an alpha. If/when the above points will be addressed (beta? release?), we will finally have a stable/good userbase, until then forgets to have a fair amount of users aboard. My clan abandoned it too.. and we were playing ArmA for like 6 hours per day every single day! :)

The problem is that probably the "hackers" will hack exactly like today (as it happened with ArmA2), we're trying to avoid this situation.. what's why we're raising our voice TODAY.. before it'll be too late to fix anything.

You can participate by asking Dwarden, it's closed but someway "public" (since there's no reason to restrict it to a certain number)... just be aware of the wanna kids-cops (see the first page of this thread), I've managed to get banned by one of my accounts from there (unfortunately david had to share the admin privs with other ppl.. and some of them are taking the "I've got powA" a way too serious) ! eheh :) Jokes apart.. you can go there and gets the dedicated server, btw it won't help the current situation, obviously neither the dedi supports multiple instances at the moment.

Yes, the next stable branch (not DEV) update, that should be out this week, will keep all the current (DEV) modification, so you'll be forced to run a SINGLE instance on the same machine. You cannot run multiple servers (nor client -server; neither by using the "private" dedicate server) anymore. This is all about this thread. :) ---------- Post added at 08:56 ---------- Previous post was at 08:50 ---------- Herm.. i'm not sure if you are updated, but we're using the dedicated server by a while already :) ...but this is not about the dedicated server, or to be exact it is related: we would have liked to have a working (multiple instances) dedicated server, BEFORE this restriction would have applied to the stable branch, especially because this "anti-piracy" thing is not working, so you can imagine the frustration of having a restriction applied for no reason... because they wanted to rush without thinking at the consequences affecting the legit users.

As I suspected you don't know what we're talking about (and we had two pages of posts...): Instead of applying a anti-piracy "experiment" that is not working (instead, it is damaging the legit users), they should have waited to fix the dedicated server (at least about the multiple instances part), BEFORE deciding to apply this heavy limitation. But they wanted to rush to apply a crap protection that is not helping anyone (nor them to sell more; neither us to run our servers), do not count the fact that they didn't informed anyone about this. Did you read about a SITREP? Did you read a official post here on the forum about the multiple server instances (default branch), do you don't.. until today. This is had nothing to do with the "alpha", we all know this is alpha. This is more about their decisions without thinking at the consequences. Makes sense? No? I don't know how to explain it better than this. And yes, at this point we can't do anything better than waiting for them to fix it, since they have broken it already. (PS: and no, they did not "removed multiple instances...".. they did something else, but it won't make much difference)

Not sure if we are talking about the same thing.. the multiple instance per machine were working, until the DECIDED to remove it.. it's not "it's ready because it's still alpha" .. all the servers you see until the last week online were run on the same machine, until they removed this possibility, so we all stuck with "powerful" machines with only one instance on them. It's not that i'm asking to "hurry" for something that wasn't ready.. i'm asking to FIX something that were working until "yesterday... ---------- Post added at 21:12 ---------- Previous post was at 21:09 ---------- You have blocked all of us by running multiple servers and you don't know when you're going to fix this? And for what? To try to block pirate copies.. but failing at doing so. The ones who are paying this decision aren't those "pirates".. but the legit users.

1) I'm not spreading no-sense, i'm saying (and i'm repeating): you cannot run multiple instances of the servers anymore because you wanted to introduce a anti-piracy protection (that, we must specifyc: DOES NOT WORKS), so i'm asking to revert back this modification or to correct it ASAP; 2) It must be my English, but I don't understand very well what you "added" to the fist post there, so please reply to some easy questions that can be understand by anyone (including me): - Are we be able to run multiple DEDICATED servers on the same machine without using any virtualization or other additional setup and without purchasing additional keys? - Are we be able to run multiple CLIENT -SERVER servers on the same machine without using any virtualization or other additional setup and without purchasing additional keys? - If we cannot do the above anymore.. WHEN the problem will be addressed? At the moment we are running a single instance per machine, so I want to know when we can run multiple instances without purchasing the game over and over again. Thank you.

Unfortunately it's not about the dedicated server.. but about the client run in -server mode as well, otherwise there wouldn't be problems (since the dedicated is "privately" distributed only to who wants to participate to the testing). If it was like this I wouldn't have said a word... but the story behind it is pretty different: they hurried to try to fight the pirated copies, applying a certain limitation (it was about the playerID.. details are not interesting at this point), unfortunately this attempt had the side effect of making the HC clients not working anymore, and (we discovered only "now") the other side effect of limit the number of server running on the same machine (notice the difference: HC client <> servers). The "fun" part (that isn't fun at all), is that the "piracy protection" have failed (in fact those crackers have circumvent this protection), and the legit users (as always) are paying the side effects for no reason. I'm criticizing also the fact the they repeated to us that "it is alpha" and so we cannot have a anti-cheat, etc; but hey, they run so fast to try to apply a anti-piracy .. so the "alpha" argumentation doesn't apply for them? They could have applied this limitation to the dedicate server only, or revert it after they have noticed the heavy limitation it is causing, but no they decided to continue with it.. so YES, it's BIS to limit us ... it's not because it's "not yet functionality" .. since it worked so far (on the stable branch we can still run multiple servers... but unfortunately due to script kid bug exploit we cannot use them anymore, if not passworded). What I am asking then? I'm asking them to STOP to apply random things that aren't helping them (because pirates are smarter than this), neither us (limiting the number of servers per machine means making who is supporting the community life much harder), but now they did it .. so the next question is: when it is supposed you're going to fix this bug please? For how long we have to pay for our server with a single instance on them? Thank you.

It seems you don't even know what we are (and we were) talking about, on the 12th David announced the introduction of the restriction that would prevent the clients with the same playerID to join a server, this is why it affected HC clients. At that time none known that the secondary side affect was about the inability to run a second server (non-HC) as well, if not for the dedicated server. None notice about it, because in effect you were being able to run it! ...but ppl couldn't join those servers, until a the 23rd.. when the first users have noticed it, and so here we come today. So you may repeat this to the infinite, you couldn't change the facts, but mostly important: at this point none would care about the facts, coz the DEV branch is already here and we can't change it, i'm asking: - Is this supposed to hit the stable branch "as is" .. so we couldn't run multiple servers anymore? - If yes (as it appears to be), when (estimated) it will be fixed? So when we could be able to run our multiple servers again? If you didn't noticed, because of the script kid the current servers and users have dropped to the ground, and forcing server admins (who cannot apply a sort of virtualization to their machines) to run only a single server won't surely help to have different game modes, or to help the server admins (who are maintaining the community) to do their "job".

No, i'm not, David talked about the dedicate server and not about the client run in "-server" mode and I've the whole log to prove it... but the point is: why i'm still discussing this with you, since I don't even know who you are. Sorry guy, I've no time for this, i'm here to talk about the servers not to chit-chat with you (neither I think that this forum is interested of your problems). And? So because i'm talking about the problems and i'm not blind by a "fanboysm" I've deserved to be banned by a guy that I don't know of, when I've asked to be there to the channel owner? I've no time to play with you.. if you want to play "cop" it's your problem, I was there to discuss technical problems/limitations not to do the soap opera with you... if you have problems with me, feel free to contact me privately (but be advised: you'll be ignored). Now stop OT here. Returning to the topic: David, when it's expect us to run multiple servers again like previously? Are you working at it? A week.. a month? When? This will help us to decide whenever to "split" our machine or just wait. Thank you.

This is completely false, here's what David said on April 19th: He did not talked about the clients running -server mode. Not only this, a day after (April 20), a user claimed of having multiple dedicate servers (notice: we were still talking about dedicate servers, because none, neither David, ever mentioned the client -server mode) running on the same machine, so David come up again with this: So neither David was sure about this limination.. neither he known about what was happening, since the "limitation" doesn't causes any crashes: you can run multiple server, but the users "simply" cannot join the second onward (stuck on loading). And again never and ever he has mentioned the Client, he were always talking about the dedicate server. The April 23rd some ppl (fuzzy.bandit) starts to come asking why they started to have problems with multiple instances with the "client -server" from the DEV branch, and a guy (terox_) tried to "help" em, neither in this occasion David has come up to explain that the SAME limitation of the dedicated server were applied to the client -server. None were knowing of it.. until today, because since of the script kid attack, many (like me) have switched temporary to the DEV branch to run their servers.. to discover that they cannot run multiple server anymore. And to conclude: now this modification is going to hit the stable branch, and so everyone will be affected. I speak for myself, I "serve" the community like MANY others, providing free servers and neither asking for donations. If ArmA has anything good, it's about the community, If you're going to disrupt it, you're automatically going to disrupt the user-base. BIS is not providing any official servers, so all the servers you see online is from people that are running them with their own money. Not sure why and who you "helped" kicking me from a public channel to be honest... i'm glad you feel better now. :)

You cannot run multiple servers on the same machine, neither by copying the whole folder, this is going to impact severely those ppl that are running expensive servers capable of running more than a single instance. Please read here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?153993-No-more-multiple-servers-on-the-same-machine-WTF

Hello can someone point me to the developers answer to this? I'm sure that after two day a dev come up to give us a sort of explanation or to tell us what they are doing, but I didn't found any. Thank you.

Not only post, it's the most voted bug in their bug-tracker right now. I won't be surprised if a dev will come up (like it happened last time in ArmA2) to say: "sorry we won't invest time to fix this".. and close the bug... and see you to ArmA4 (probably still running on 2 cores as well..).

We know: lack of contents, bad performance, cheaters ... in general: alpha, but as of today, in the moment i'm typing this there's: 610 users online (to give you a comparison, 3 weeks ago they were around 5000 at the same day/hours). I guess BIS doesn't need many testers, but aren't we risk to have ppl abandoning the game too early? I mean for the time the game will be out many of those may be interested into something else if we let the hype dying like this. What about more contents, anti-cheat and better peformance "asap"?