PC A17 How Long Would You Wait For A Pre-Generated Map to Build?

[Viktoriusiii]

Ideally the best solution IMO is to load say a 1km area around you once game knows where you will spawn, and then in the background slowly start to load all the terrain around you. So even if it takes 1-2 hours slowly your not seeing it happen or waiting for it.

this would definatly be a great idea...

it wouldnt effect multiplayer (the host can simply prerender it once and noone needs to wait)

And in singleplayer you will never get to the unrendered part before its finished loading.

 

[Roland]

Another solution is for TFP to create three random maps themselves and offer them as preloaded alternative maps to Navezgane. Then the new players have four maps to choose from that will load quickly. Creating additional maps would take a long time but there would be plenty of content for new players to get hooked so they too might be willing to wait in order to generate additional maps.

 

[Guppycur]

Both.

An option for the critically impatient that generates a quick and dirty version of what we have in a16, and an option for a newer, larger RWG that could take hours to generate but would take advantage of the new RWG features I believe Kinyajuu is working hard on. This is the one that would be used by server owners and whatnot, and of course the binary files would be available for download to the clients either on connection or through a 3rd party hosting service.

 

[SylenThunder]

oh-my-god ...
This is going to ruin MP servers. Our servers typically had 25 - 50 people on them at any given time (before a17 itch struck and people left)..

There is no way this is going to work out well for these types of servers, everyone is going to be so cramped together, hardly any of the map will be able to be refreshed, and resources will be even more fubar then before. (apocalypse realism ftl)

Yes, well those types of servers are vastly exceeding what the game is designed for.

The game was originally single-player. Now it is multiplayer supporting 8-player co-op.

To do anything else is not supported or recommended.

 

[KingSlayerGM]

Another solution is for TFP to create three random maps themselves and offer them as preloaded alternative maps to Navezgane. Then the new players have four maps to choose from that will load quickly. Creating additional maps would take a long time but there would be plenty of content for new players to get hooked so they too might be willing to wait in order to generate additional maps.

I like this idea

 

[Viktoriusiii]

Yes, well those types of servers are vastly exceeding what the game is designed for.
The game was originally single-player. Now it is multiplayer supporting 8-player co-op.

To do anything else is not supported or recommended.

doesnt mean they should remove the feature...

maybe make it optional...

like when Ark nerfed flyers because everyone used them...

you can't hook players on a premise and then completly change it...

I mean... you can... its TFPs game after all... but there will be (justified) backlash if you do... or even mods (most downloaded Ark mod is reverted flyers)

 

[Zombiepoptard]

doesnt mean they should remove the feature...maybe make it optional...

like when Ark nerfed flyers because everyone used them...

you can't hook players on a premise and then completly change it...

I mean... you can... its TFPs game after all... but there will be (justified) backlash if you do... or even mods (most downloaded Ark mod is reverted flyers)

have the option to make a big map that takes a long time to pre load

 

[SylenThunder]

Hook players on what premise? It's never been intended to have 20-50 people playing on a server. Ever.

Just imagine if they hard-capped servers to 8 players. What would you do then?

The point of the matter is that everyone hosting a server with over the supported player count is violating the feature of the game. (Guilty as charge too, because I set mine to 10 players.)

The backlash would only come from people who have no understanding of what the game is meant to be, and are trying to make it like all the other games they play. This isn't CoD, Battlefield, or Rust.

 

[landesmd]

Extra maps?

Another solution is for TFP to create three random maps themselves and offer them as preloaded alternative maps to Navezgane. Then the new players have four maps to choose from that will load quickly. Creating additional maps would take a long time but there would be plenty of content for new players to get hooked so they too might be willing to wait in order to generate additional maps.

Why make TFP do it? They have an entire community of people who I'm sure would be willing to create maps. They could take submittals for "Official" maps and once approved add them to the list. You could even make the approval process based on forum votes or something.

 

[Pizzalicious]

Hook players on what premise? It's never been intended to have 20-50 people playing on a server. Ever.
Just imagine if they hard-capped servers to 8 players. What would you do then?

The point of the matter is that everyone hosting a server with over the supported player count is violating the feature of the game. (Guilty as charge too, because I set mine to 10 players.)

The backlash would only come from people who have no understanding of what the game is meant to be, and are trying to make it like all the other games they play. This isn't CoD, Battlefield, or Rust.

SylenThunder then tell the server hosters to limit the servers they provide to nothing more than 8 player max. Why even have the option for larger servers if TFP refuse to support larger than 8.

 

[LuckyStar]

I'm not sure now is the right time to debate servers and multiplayer too seriously.

Discussions about it are good and provide inspiration but... we're just playing around here aren't we?

MM has mentioned that the very last they TFP will work on is multiplayer because it's such a huge project it will take the whole team.

We have no idea what that's going to look like.

Furthermore, before the game is "finished" there's a final sweep for efficiency.

We may very well see a smooth and speedy 7DTD that supports 12 people per server.

[i'm not saying that's likely but... it's definitely got a ...very slim... chance.]

~Lucky

Working-Castle-Tribute-to-A16-Plus-bonus-tips-video

 

[Viktoriusiii]

Hook players on what premise? It's never been intended to have 20-50 people playing on a server. Ever.
It has never been intended in Ark that flyers are the only way of transport, yet it happened.

Just imagine if they hard-capped servers to 8 players. What would you do then?

Mod it out and create a bad steam review (Ark temporarily fell down to 30%)

The point of the matter is that everyone hosting a server with over the supported player count is violating the feature of the game. (Guilty as charge too, because I set mine to 10 players.)

So just because we MIGHT experience a bug (personally never had a problem with 50 player+ servers) we should not be allowed to play that way? Why not simply create a warning "Warning: You exceed the max amount of players/mapsize. If you continue, the game might get buggy."

The backlash would only come from people who have no understanding of what the game is meant to be, and are trying to make it like all the other games they play. This isn't CoD, Battlefield, or Rust.

Players have their own minds. You cannot tell them how to play the game. If you want your game to be a certain way, but it has istablished its own rules on its own, then you can make "your way" the standart option and the "other way" a secondary option.

If you really think playing 7d2d on a big map with a lot of players makes it a "COD, rust whatever" clone... then you are blind.

7d2d is a great game. And I personally dont even interact with other players most of the time. I simply like the threat (and the possibility) of coming across others. I wanna show ppl my builds. I wanna be scared when looting a city because I dont know if I might get shot in the head...

How can you say that, because I like to play 7d2d like that, that I "dont understand how its meant to play".

Do you think Skyrim shopkeepers were meant to be blind when they had a bucket on their heads?

Do you think ANY gamedev writes on the cover: "PLAY IT THIS WAY OR YOU ARE JUST A COD FANBOY!"

No obviously not. Because that is not what a game is. Everyone plays it differently.

 

[The Batman]

Yes, well those types of servers are vastly exceeding what the game is designed for.
The game was originally single-player. Now it is multiplayer supporting 8-player co-op.

To do anything else is not supported or recommended.

Let's be honest. A lot of people play SP but the MP is what keeps servers and communities alive.

 

[pApA^LeGBa]

Why on earth is the RWG in A17 that effin small? Is this offical? Or do i get that image in the first post wrong?

How about to let the player deceide how big they want it and how long they are willing to wait for, instead of just making it incredibly small?

Willing to wait for longer instead of having to play on small maps.

 

[Viktoriusiii]

Why on earth is the RWG in A17 that effin small? Is this offical? Or do i get that image in the first post wrong?
How about to let the player deceide how big they want it and how long they are willing to wait for, instead of just making it incredibly small?

Willing to wait for longer instead of having to play on small maps.

You just don't know how the game is supposed to be played! And if they say the map is only 10x10 blocks battle royal, if you complain then you are a COD fanboy!

(sorry I wouldnt be so salty if that wasn't coming from a community manager...)

to give something of worth:

yeah... player descicion is always a good thing.

Especially since in multiplayer only the host has to wait. And I dont CARE if the host waits 20 hours... as long as the map is huge I'm in. But for singleplayer I dont want to wait more then 1-2 minutes. And I dont need that big of a map... 2x2 km would probably be enough in singleplayer... BUT since a lot of us actually play multiplayer (because nearly everyone goes into multiplayer if they have the option... because playing all alone vs interacting with others (pve) nearly everyone would prefer to be with others on a server.) having an option is really a must...

 

[Roland]

Willing to wait for longer instead of having to play on small maps.

OR we could play on small maps while we wait for them to make them larger....

 

[DiesFourth]

OR we could play on small maps while we wait for them to make them larger....

Thats the big question though, is this temporary ?

We all know not to panic over every little change in alpha but i cant seem to find any info if this is indeed temporary. Ofc im " assumeing " its for testing as a smaller area is easier to keep track of than a larger area. I also realize the devs dont need to tell us anything unless they see fit so i'll wait and not panic just yet.

I will say a few reassuring words would be nice though : ) But no matter the outcome the community will mod the game to whats desireable to its many different needs and play styles. I cant imagine all the devs want 8x8 maps to be the only option so we'll just have to wait to see what tye come up with as a final-ish solution.

As long as the dev team knows ppl are willing to wait and still request large if not massive maps then im happy to get that message across and see if it fits in with the devs direction and vision for this game upon release.

 

[Roland]

Instead of temporary let’s call it baseline. They are going to start from a size that they can support and then go from there. If they can support a larger size after optimizations they will do that and the current size will turn out to have been temporary.

They have repeatedly said that after optimizations they will test a larger supported player count than 8.

It’s the same deal. It all depends on what they can do. When the game goes gold it has to be rock solid. All the stuff we forgive them for because it’s alpha will become unforgivable. They will go as large as they can.

 

[DiesFourth]

Instead of temporary let’s call it baseline. They are going to start from a size that they can support and then go from there. If they can support a larger size after optimizations they will do that and the current size will turn out to have been temporary.
They have repeatedly said that after optimizations they will test a larger supported player count than 8.

It’s the same deal. It all depends on what they can do. When the game goes gold it has to be rock solid. All the stuff we forgive them for because it’s alpha will become unforgivable. They will go as large as they can.

whew........... panic averted lol

I searched these forums for info but must have used the wrong keywords. Well hopefully knowing some of the community doesnt expect large maps to insta-load will lessen the preassure on the devs

thanks for setting me straight.

 

[open6l]

Why on earth is the RWG in A17 that effin small? Is this offical? Or do i get that image in the first post wrong?
How about to let the player deceide how big they want it and how long they are willing to wait for, instead of just making it incredibly small?

Willing to wait for longer instead of having to play on small maps.

Well for one, the issue with 'letter players decide how big' is that TFP are the ones that have to support it and troubleshoot when things go wrong. A server owner hosting 50 players running into lag and then complaining or logging support requests isn't something TFP should have to deal with especially when there are limits in place to prevent that. Same with a server owner modding a map to 30k and running into the same issues. Yes it looks like 17 is going to have a much smaller map, but nothing to stop you from modding the xml (unless they shift to a hardcoded setting).