PC (Rant) This game has never been as anti-multiplayer as it is now.
- Thread starter Howlune
- Start date
pApA^LeGBa
Well-known member
Where did i say that development is finished?
Last edited by a moderator:
unholyjoe
QA
you must have used invisible ink in between the lines... people swear i wrote stuff when i didnt and i even have to go back and do a double take just to make sure.... people read between the lines what they want to see in there all the time
sdjgfedghfuady
asjkdfhsdbf
there there is a clear between the lines message for them to decipher
mr.devolver
New member
When you pointed out at the development of PVP, you used past tense like if they were already finished developing, so I wanted to make sure we are on the same page here. With that problem sorted out, I think we can both agree that while the development is still going on, anything can happen including improvements to the PVP.
you must have used invisible ink in between the lines... people swear i wrote stuff when i didnt and i even have to go back and do a double take just to make sure.... people read between the lines what they want to see in there all the time
sdjgfedghfuady
asjkdfhsdbf
there there is a clear between the lines message for them to decipher
There's only one character between those two lines and that one is an empty space character, so the message is clearly that you're speechless.
It is multiplayer. Stop the false advertising of dismissing co-op as not being multiplayer.
PvP is not well supported except in small scale scenarios with friends. You really can't use it in anonymous open server setting and yes, that means at the moment PvP should be called a limited functionality.
I'm shocked !!!
. No, not really. 
. THIS GAME IS IN EARLY ACCESS, wait for the finished game if anything in that paragraph gets you on the barricades.Multiplayer is working quite well. I have no problems on my private **multiplayer** co-op server.
Why should drones not fit into a single (and **multiplayer** except for PvP) voxel playground with zombies ? Are you just listing random features you don't like now ?
This is actually a valid complaint I would agree to. TFP have neglected the support part of their game too much. For example it should not happen that worlds from previous alphas can be loaded in current alphas and make the game act volatile. And if the game supports open servers then security has to be a higher priority than it seems to be.
Whoah!!! A new system has bugs ? In EA, in a version just called "stable" to differentiate it from experimental ? Yes, this is heavy sarcasm speaking here. Haven't you noticed that EA is specifically used for finding bugs through player participation ?
As for releasing a stable for Christmas, that is very common for EA games to give the fans something to play. Factorio did it as well. The release was much too late to participate in any christmas sales. If this were a cash grab move it would have released as stable before the steam sale.
JCrook1028
New member
Roland
Moderator
Their focus isn’t 50+ player PvP but 8 friends competing against each other is supported. As the OP stated, his complaint isn’t for 8 player max PVP but for lack of support for 50+ Players and nowhere does TFP advertise or bait and switch people in by falsely showing the game being played by 50+ players.
Also, PvP wasn’t released on accident. There used to be three modes of the game. Open world, Arena, and Horde. Arena was a dedicated PvP mode and the other two could be played either cooperatively or PvP.
They aren’t going to remove the ability to PvP completely because some people want it perfectly to their taste or not at all.
They aren’t going to remove the PvP label as long as the game allows players to compete against other players.
They aren’t going spend development time on support for populations > 8 players.
They will continue to not advertise that the game supports 50+ players at once.
I play 3 player multiplayer co-op on a dedicated server that my brother is renting and the game runs great for us.
Roland
Moderator
It doesn’t matter when stable is released. People who don’t understand the stable label always get upset when stable releases and the game still has bugs.
Stable simply means they feel the game is ready for the larger masses of people in early access to play and report bugs. The game is still early access and in development. There will be a 20.1 and 20.2 and 20.3 etc to continue to handle bugs and optimize.
Stable happens because internally they’ve branched to the next alpha and they want the latest-experimental to be available for whatever fixes they will include in A20.1
As of today they are already at least 5 builds into A21 and most of the changes will be copied over to latest_experimental to be opted into for those who want to help before it turns into A20.1
That is what they always do. Stable does not equal “all done”. I’m not saying you believe that— just using your post to point out the obvious misunderstanding that some people on this thread have about what shifting the game from experimental to stable actually means. Of course they also don’t understand what “8 player max” seems to mean…
SnowDog1942
Navezgane's Perv
DiegoLBC1
New member
If you learned math and how to count, “8 player max” means that the game supports a maximum of 8 players in coop (PvP/PvE). Anything above that is at your own risk.
Roland said above: "Their focus isn’t 50+ player PvP but 8 friends competing against each other is supported."
Last edited by a moderator:
Howlune
New member
It's very telling that many of these replies are are so saturated with sarcasm towards the point that some of us are trying to make clear. Multiplayer or not, the game is so hugely CPU intensive that it effects all of us. It doesn't have to be big servers, it could be simply wanting more zombies to fight at the same time without the game eating more than 50% CPU.
In regards to the netcode, as a previous post said, one guy from china was able to make an entire alternative to use that makes even huge player populations possible as evidenced by european servers like PoBx. I do not want to say the name of the tool here though, because it effectively reroutes client connections to god knows where and is extremely sketchy if not illegal. But the point is that it's entirely possible.
Earlier in the games life, these 50 player servers were more achievable... but as the game got updated, things got... worse? Why is every single thing that happens shared with every client on the map at once? Why is the client flooded with so much extra and often unnecessary information? These are things that literally the entire playerbase would benefit from being fixed.
No, we don't want a battle royale. I regret mentioning DayZ and Rust because now I feel as a few of you have only painted what were asking for as some sort of trend following. We want 7 Days, otherwise we wouldn't be here. A lot of us understand the hurdle it is to develop this game, but a lot of us also see some extremely questionable lines of thinking that we can't help but point out. I don't know how anyone can defend them rushing stable just to meet the winter sale deadline while massive issues even they're aware of persist. Come on man....
Also, I don't know who in their right mind hosts an 8 player PvP server. That line should just be removed.
In regards to the netcode, as a previous post said, one guy from china was able to make an entire alternative to use that makes even huge player populations possible as evidenced by european servers like PoBx. I do not want to say the name of the tool here though, because it effectively reroutes client connections to god knows where and is extremely sketchy if not illegal. But the point is that it's entirely possible.
Earlier in the games life, these 50 player servers were more achievable... but as the game got updated, things got... worse? Why is every single thing that happens shared with every client on the map at once? Why is the client flooded with so much extra and often unnecessary information? These are things that literally the entire playerbase would benefit from being fixed.
No, we don't want a battle royale. I regret mentioning DayZ and Rust because now I feel as a few of you have only painted what were asking for as some sort of trend following. We want 7 Days, otherwise we wouldn't be here. A lot of us understand the hurdle it is to develop this game, but a lot of us also see some extremely questionable lines of thinking that we can't help but point out. I don't know how anyone can defend them rushing stable just to meet the winter sale deadline while massive issues even they're aware of persist. Come on man....
Also, I don't know who in their right mind hosts an 8 player PvP server. That line should just be removed.
Boidster
New member
I absolutely agree with this and it's a good thing nobody is doing that. Also, thank you for keeping O.G. "begging the question" alive.
It's an interesting position to take, that the people who who host servers of a size within the developer recommendations are not in their right mind. I presume the people who are trying to host 50-player servers, in spite of the developers specifically not recommending that, are the ones in their right mind? Does complaining to the developers that their game doesn't support the thing which they, the developers, specifically said it did not support increase or decrease the right-mindedness of these brave mavericks?
A thought experiment: would a person be in his/her right mind to try to run the game on a 1.9GHz CPU with 4GB of RAM and on-board Intel graphics? Why or why not?
I mainly replied to Obsessive's post which was (in my opinion) so misleading that I had to correct some things. I would welcome the game getting optimized.
Possible. But do you know whether some other features are compromised or lost with this change? Does it have no disadvantages? And would your description suffice for TFP to make the same optimizations? Just saying, things are seldom so one-dimensional that there is the one true path into neverending bliss.
Though single-player was slowed down as well, so it probably isn't simply the netcodes fault and end of story. Well, if you know a specific instance of unnecessary information sent around, just make a bug report and see whether a dev thinks your idea is great or not.
What massive issues? Im playing this supposedly totally bugged game quite well. I have even played it without problems when it was still experimental, before a lot of fixes. I can't speak for everyone though and I read posts from players having problems every day in the General Support forum. But would that be a reason to delay the stable in an EA game where one of the reasons for releasing IS to catch bugs ?
Lets be clear on the "questionable lines of thinking". Are you arguing they should have delayed stable because A) it doesn't work well with 20 or more players, or B) it has many bugs like the memory leak Obsessive was talking about ?
Obviously A would be strong tobacco since you know full well that 20 players are not supported.
So it must be B. Do you really think a memory leak and player names with underscore not working is so bad it should delay the game being released to EA players? I played in A15 where minibikes were regularily in an error state where they just burned fuel and could not be interacted with. In stable. But I didn't mind. Better a buggy game in EA than a perfect nothing. You and Obsessive are here in EA and complain about bugs, but you never decide to just wait for the released game !?
So your theory is that stable was released for a winter sale? Where would those steam users on a hunt for winter sale deals get the information that a new stable is out? Surely the experimental weekend with all the streamers showing 7D2D was promotional and for sales. Getting a stable out a few days before Christmas, I don't see the big deal here, I don't think this will get massive sales.
But even though I think your theory is weak it is a possibility, maybe it is one of the reasons, who knows. So what? Everyone of the current players who has been waiting for a stable is now thankful for it being out for the holidays. Ask them, most of them won't complain that they can try out the new version.
Sure. I don't need that line. Lets remove it. Make a bug report and tell them to remove it. While at it, remove the line about 7D2D being the only true survival RPG, that is probably wrong as well (for a sensible definition of "true", "survival" and "RPG"
)But lets be frank, this is not really what you want, right? You want the game to be optimized, not some lines on the sales page changed.
Last edited by a moderator:
Howlune
New member
Its been in EA for 7 years. I don't think anyone would want to hold their breath for a final release at this point, cause who knows how far out there it could be. One of my points on handling more players was hanging on the fact the game's performance got worse with time, not better. But you guys are right, no matter what I say is shot down by the fact TFP have zero interest in what brings a pretty hefty chunk of players to this game.
I never said the host of a 50 player server has the right mindset, I'm just not understanding how 8 player PvP even works in a fun or engaging way. At the same time, an absolute majority of people play this game making pretty POIs in singleplayer and not even really playing the survival aspect at all.. so I guess I really have none of it figured out and trying to will just subject me to condescending posts on these forums.
I'm quite sure they will release it and probably in the next 2 years. Early Access has not been long enough on this planet for people to really judge how long successful games can be in EA and whether this is good or bad.
My theory is that the more successful a game is the longer it can stay in EA and the bigger it will get. The original scope of 7D2D was tiny compared to what it is now.
Factorio was 7 years in EA development. Nobody got nervous or thought it wouldn't eventually be released and eventually it did get released.
There probably will be more cases of this while many failed EA games have somewhat short development time simply because money runs out.
Roland
Moderator
"Stable" is really an unfortunate label that I wish they would not use. They should just call it the main branch and the experimental branch period. The main branch is what Steam pushes out automatically to everyon who has their settings put to auto update. The experimental branch is what players must choose to opt into. All of this is early access and therefore not stable in the way that you are expecting it to be.
Did they rush to get A20 switched over to the main branch in time for the Steam Winter Sale? Yes and no. It was a goal to get the update on the main branch before they closed for the Holidays and, of course, to be in a good position for the sale. When the game switches to the main branch everyone who has the game installed is going to get notified that it updated. There are going to be a good chunk of people who have loved the game but who have moved on and haven't been following and when they get the notification that 7 Days just did an update they are going to check in and play it and they may have friends who they will now want to get into it and with it being on sale it is the perfect time. So, yes, having an update in time for the sale is great for increasing the reach of the game. Nobody is denying that this was their goal.
However, rushing makes it sound like they were trying to get it done and bug free in order to move the game to main branch and that just isn't true and has never been true. In fact, the game used to not even make use of the experimental branch. Whenever the game updated it just went right onto the main branch. The experimental just gives a buffer so that if any glaring issues crop up they can get those handled and have fewer issues once it is on the main branch. So, what we have now is a series of gradually increasing pools of players that makes the updates a lot more smooth for the largest number of players-- but, and this is important, all of this is under the umbrella of "still in development". Even the main branch is still early access and the game is still in alpha and regardless of it being on the experimental branch or the main branch, there are going to be bugs and the devs are going to be working on getting them fixed.
For stability and polish the A20.0 is just not going to compare well to A19.6 but A20.6 will compare very favorably. But the game isn't going to be bug free during the journey to A20.6 and it isn't just going to remain in the experimental branch because some people think it isn't stable enough to leave it.
Honestly, they could have put A20 on the main branch back on December 6th and it would have been exactly like past alpha updates before they started using the experimental branch as a buffer. They still would have done the hotfixes they've done since December 6th but it would have affected everyone on the main branch. If they had done that you wouldn't have been accusing them of pulling a cash cow move by "rushing" some release right before a sale. But they did make use of the experimental branch but here we are at the exact same spot and because of the word "stable" and the fact that it happened the day before the sale you think they rushed something.
I thought we had thoroughly and completely come to understand over the past 8 years that this studio doesn't rush anything....
The PvP experience could be vastly improved with relatively minor effort. Even just rubber-stamping solutions the community has already independently come up with, and including them as part of the official vanilla experience would help. The complete lack of attention, combined with the sales blurb, is just insulting. All of these apologists in this thread making excuses for lack of effort is embarrassing. This portion of the player base deserves attention.
From the time I bought this game (A15), the only thing that has kept me playing are the larger multiplayer servers (In the 25-50 player range). There were many active servers that ran well and I played them with my wife, and I played the larger PvP servers when I went solo. Sure there were issues, but at least they ran and you could see that TFP had these larger MP servers AT LEAST in mind.
Why the &*$^ are there player vending machines in game if you aren't going to support the player counts to make use of them? Along with all the other items pointed out earlier. I bought this game based on the fact that there were these larger servers and PvP available.
And stop focusing on the PvP arguments please, that's not what the main issue is...the main issue is server stability. The modders can make tweaks to damage and so on (although not ideal) but at this point we have lost the server stability we once had.
Here's what I think; I don't think TFP has the ability or talent at this point to fix it. The code has gone so far away from server stability at this point, that it's a lost cause. It would need to be a new game. It's been downhill since A16.4, the hosted servers have been clamoring for multiple Alphas for help and have been completely ignored. How many posts have been made about "Quit making pretty things and fix your game please"? And why would they do this hard work when they can just hire a few artists and ride their chairs into money land? I don't blame them, and we all might do better to stop pretending that this isn't the case. It's very sad, but in this day and age, any movie franchise or video game franchise that was once good ends up in the trash heap.
Why the &*$^ are there player vending machines in game if you aren't going to support the player counts to make use of them? Along with all the other items pointed out earlier. I bought this game based on the fact that there were these larger servers and PvP available.
Oh yes they have Roland. They put the elements in there and just abandoned them.
And stop focusing on the PvP arguments please, that's not what the main issue is...the main issue is server stability. The modders can make tweaks to damage and so on (although not ideal) but at this point we have lost the server stability we once had.
Here's what I think; I don't think TFP has the ability or talent at this point to fix it. The code has gone so far away from server stability at this point, that it's a lost cause. It would need to be a new game. It's been downhill since A16.4, the hosted servers have been clamoring for multiple Alphas for help and have been completely ignored. How many posts have been made about "Quit making pretty things and fix your game please"? And why would they do this hard work when they can just hire a few artists and ride their chairs into money land? I don't blame them, and we all might do better to stop pretending that this isn't the case. It's very sad, but in this day and age, any movie franchise or video game franchise that was once good ends up in the trash heap.
Last edited by a moderator:
giKoN
New member
This really shouldn't deteriorate into a discussion of PVP or not PVP, love towards PVP or not.
If servers want to run PVP, there are enough possibilities to modify the settings and balance in order for 7 Days to be an OK PVP game. It's a lot of work, but for those whoo want to play it that way, it must be enough given the TFP Focus. That should be fair enough.
What I think it comes down to, really is more the question as to why Dedicated Server Mode, while being officially supported and offered, does not receive any love in terms of updates. The netcode has stayed the same crucially for years (outside the netpackage encryption update), which of course will not get the game anywhere multiplayer-wise and thats the only reason as to why 8 players is supported the most.
Dedicated server mode effectively is several single players talking to each other through poor interaction with each other guided by an underpowered server instance. And nothing has been done there for Alphas. So the real question for me is, are there any updates on the horizon for this?
If servers want to run PVP, there are enough possibilities to modify the settings and balance in order for 7 Days to be an OK PVP game. It's a lot of work, but for those whoo want to play it that way, it must be enough given the TFP Focus. That should be fair enough.
What I think it comes down to, really is more the question as to why Dedicated Server Mode, while being officially supported and offered, does not receive any love in terms of updates. The netcode has stayed the same crucially for years (outside the netpackage encryption update), which of course will not get the game anywhere multiplayer-wise and thats the only reason as to why 8 players is supported the most.
Dedicated server mode effectively is several single players talking to each other through poor interaction with each other guided by an underpowered server instance. And nothing has been done there for Alphas. So the real question for me is, are there any updates on the horizon for this?