If you don't decide to start addressing the issues in multiplayer games, then version 3.0 will mark the end of 7dtd.

[chin_alos]

I am a game server administrator from China. After the update of version stable2.6, I found that it is completely impossible to play multiplayer games normally

The problem lies in the multiplayer game panel where the game panel is completely occupied by malicious advertisements. After many updates, TFP shows no intention of making any changes. Take a look at the current multiplayer game link panel. Whether it's North America, Asia, South America, or other continents, they are all filled with malicious advertisements.

And more importantly, game optimization is increasingly disregarding the feelings of multiplayer gamers. In current multiplayer games, the number of resource packs for more than 10 players has become an astronomical figure. I don't think 7dtd normal gameplay requires such a large amount of data. In "7dt2", if multiplayer gameplay cannot be played normally, then the meaning of the end-of-days survival game is lost, and more players may choose to directly input dm cm and experience the fast-paced game, and then never open it again.

I hope to play a game where we all survive and build together while fighting off zombies, rather than a single-player doomsday simulator. I hope that before this game ends like "Seven Days of Blood Moon", you can make some changes.

 

[ALEXZANDER]

I am a game server administrator from China. After the update of version stable2.6, I found that it is completely impossible to play multiplayer games normally

The problem lies in the multiplayer game panel where the game panel is completely occupied by malicious advertisements. After many updates, TFP shows no intention of making any changes. Take a look at the current multiplayer game link panel. Whether it's North America, Asia, South America, or other continents, they are all filled with malicious advertisements.

And more importantly, game optimization is increasingly disregarding the feelings of multiplayer gamers. In current multiplayer games, the number of resource packs for more than 10 players has become an astronomical figure. I don't think 7dtd normal gameplay requires such a large amount of data. In "7dt2", if multiplayer gameplay cannot be played normally, then the meaning of the end-of-days survival game is lost, and more players may choose to directly input dm cm and experience the fast-paced game, and then never open it again.

I hope to play a game where we all survive and build together while fighting off zombies, rather than a single-player doomsday simulator. I hope that before this game ends like "Seven Days of Blood Moon", you can make some changes.

 

[Dark Sun]

From what I've heard, but don't take this as gospel, most people play solo. If what you are saying is correct (I don't play multiplayer, so I cannot verify), that is very unfortunate, but to say it will be the end of 7D2D is a bit of a stretch.

 

[chin_alos]

From what I've heard, but don't take this as gospel, most people play solo. If what you are saying is correct (I don't play multiplayer, so I cannot verify), that is very unfortunate, but to say it will be the end of 7D2D is a bit of a stretch.

Perhaps this is because these games cover different regions. However, in China, more people prefer multiplayer games.

Players can do things they like, such as building beautiful houses, collecting resources and making items, challenging expanded tasks that are more difficult than the original version together, or planting and trading.

Players can freely form small teams to cooperate and compete with each other. On a server, it is quite common for 40 players to be online simultaneously, at least this is the case on my server and my friends' servers.

 

[chin_alos]

据我所知（但别当真），大多数玩家都是单人游戏。如果你说的是真的（我不玩多人模式，所以无法验证），那确实很可惜，但说这就是《七日杀》的终结就有点夸张了。

然而，目前数据包体积过大以及多人游戏列表存在问题，导致许多玩家无法正常进行游戏。

我有一个超过3000名固定在线玩家的群组。大多数玩家对2.4版本之后的更新表示不满，但我无能为力。

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 9:51 PM

However, at present, the extremely large size of the data packets and the problems with the multiplayer game list have prevented many players from being able to play the game normally.

I have a group of over 3,000 regular online gamers. Most of the players expressed regret over the updates after version 2.4, and I have no way to change it.

 

[Vaeliorin]

On a server, it is quite common for 40 players to be online simultaneously, at least this is the case on my server and my friends' servers.

Yet the game only supports (and will only ever officially support) 8 players. Perhaps these issues wouldn't be so significant in such a situation?

 

[Riamus]

Considering people have been playing multiplayer in this game for years already, it's not remotely realistic to suggest that the game will die if they don't do something related to multiplayer in 3.0. And, as was pointed out, the game only officially supports up to 8 players at once. If you want to do more, that's your choice, but you're not likely to ever see any support for more than 8 players at a time and so will have to deal with the issues related to having more players at once.

As far as players not liking stuff after 2.4, you can always just run 2.4 on your server if most of the players prefer that version. You won't get new stuff, but you have a choice of what version people prefer... an older one that is more in line with what players want but without new stuff or a newer version that has new stuff added but also has stuff many players don't like. That, or look into mods to fix/change things. There are a lot of mods out there that can fix or change a lot of the things that people may not like in 2.5+. They won't help if you're doing crossplay with consoles, but if you just do PC, it's a good option. The only other thing is just accept that the game is still in development and changing and people will have to decide whether or not to keep playing the game. You'll lose some and gain some and who knows where the balance of that will fall.

 

[chin_alos]

Considering people have been playing multiplayer in this game for years already, it's not remotely realistic to suggest that the game will die if they don't do something related to multiplayer in 3.0. And, as was pointed out, the game only officially supports up to 8 players at once. If you want to do more, that's your choice, but you're not likely to ever see any support for more than 8 players at a time and so will have to deal with the issues related to having more players at once.

As far as players not liking stuff after 2.4, you can always just run 2.4 on your server if most of the players prefer that version. You won't get new stuff, but you have a choice of what version people prefer... an older one that is more in line with what players want but without new stuff or a newer version that has new stuff added but also has stuff many players don't like. That, or look into mods to fix/change things. There are a lot of mods out there that can fix or change a lot of the things that people may not like in 2.5+. They won't help if you're doing crossplay with consoles, but if you just do PC, it's a good option. The only other thing is just accept that the game is still in development and changing and people will have to decide whether or not to keep playing the game. You'll lose some and gain some and who knows where the balance of that will fall.

You're right. But precisely because we have extremely high expectations for this game, such remarks have emerged. As a survival and construction game that everyone loves to play, the player base in China is extremely large. I believe what needs to be done currently is to gradually optimize the multiplayer game environment.

The more players there are, the greater the demand, but this also means that players can encourage other players to purchase the game and prolong their online time. This might enable TFP to obtain more funds and influence, thereby better improving this game.

The 7 Days of Blood Moon has already demonstrated the influence of player demand.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

You're right. But precisely because we have extremely high expectations for this game, such remarks have emerged. As a survival and construction game that everyone loves to play, the player base in China is extremely large. I believe what needs to be done currently is to gradually optimize the multiplayer game environment.

The more players there are, the greater the demand, but this also means that players can encourage other players to purchase the game and prolong their online time. This might enable TFP to obtain more funds and influence, thereby better improving this game.

The 7 Days of Blood Moon has already demonstrated the influence of player demand.

I have no idea what TFP plans to do with the game, but the recent acquisition on the business end of things was by a company known only for a MP/MTX "live service" game. Blood Moons was TFP's and iLOGIKA's independent shot at such a game. Perhaps needless to say, it failed, and it would appear the plan is to make up the financial losses, among others, by turning 7 Days itself into just such a game. While I certainly hope it's not come to that, it follows from the "business sense" (or lack thereof) of the industry at large. So, while I'd expect the multiplayer to receive some serious attention, I'd also expect the "malicious advertisement," as it were, only to get worse.

So much for expectations. Only time will tell precisely how (and how much) 7DTD will change from the charming, old school zombie game (and business model) that's been enjoyed by "fans" for 12 years as the result of a business acquisition. Everything is possible and nothing is predestined. So, we'll see how it goes. I wouldn't plan on the acquisition "marking the end of 7 Days" though, any more than it "marked the end" of Dead by Daylight. I'd be skeptical of the name, Behavior Interactive, though. Some are so invested, they think they're "supporting the devs" by purchasing microtransactions -- insubstantial pixels, really -- galore.

I've also had the sense far more people have been playing it single player than multiplayer, though TFP would have the statistics on that. I think antisocial media skews views of the game. To watch YouTube, the game is all about building a better mouse trap when I've heard people say they're playing it as everything from a tower defense game to a homesteading sim. So much for antisocial media.

 

[chin_alos]

I have no idea what TFP plans to do with the game, but the recent acquisition on the business end of things was by a company known only for a MP/MTX "live service" game. Blood Moons was TFP's and iLOGIKA's independent shot at such a game. Perhaps needless to say, it failed, and it would appear the plan is to make up the financial losses, among others, by turning 7 Days itself into just such a game. While I certainly hope it's not come to that, it follows from the "business sense" (or lack thereof) of the industry at large. So, while I'd expect the multiplayer to receive some serious attention, I'd also expect the "malicious advertisement," as it were, only to get worse.

So much for expectations. Only time will tell precisely how (and how much) 7DTD will change from the charming, old school zombie game (and business model) that's been enjoyed by "fans" for 12 years as the result of a business acquisition. Everything is possible and nothing is predestined. So, we'll see how it goes. I wouldn't plan on the acquisition "marking the end of 7 Days" though, any more than it "marked the end" of Dead by Daylight Behavior Interactive, though. Some are so invested, they think they're "supporting the devs" by purchasing microtransactions -- insubstantial pixels, really -- galore.

I've also had the sense far more people have been playing it single player than multiplayer, though TFP would have the statistics on that. I think antisocial media skews views of the game. To watch YouTube, the game is all about building a better mouse trap when I've heard people say they're playing it as everything from a tower defense game to a homesteading sim. So much for antisocial media.

This is where the problem lies. Your summary is very insightful. The fundamental reason is the type of this game. So let's review the development history of this game.

First of all, 7dtd has a PvP function, and this function was implemented quite early. If this were a single-player game, implementing the PvP function would not make sense. And as an 8-player game, the importance of PvP is not significant either. The large map and the small number of players make the sense of crisis not obvious. I don't understand the meaning of such a design.

Another problem for the tfp team is the difficulty setting. Let's not talk about the mod mode for now. Adding more stages or more terms in the game cannot prevent players from trying to complete this game quickly. I believe everyone has tried various gameplay methods. Difficulty cannot be the reason for players to stay in this game, just as I said before. If players get bored, then they might use dm cm to destroy the game. As a survival game, this is fatal.
Last point: After being acquired by the behavioral interaction company, I was worried that the decision-making power or influence of tfp might be weakened. Especially after they forcibly pushed forward the "Blood Moon Seven Days" project, this major failure would have a significant impact on the subsequent development direction decisions.

I don't deny the excellence of 7dtd, but I'm concerned about how many people will continue to be involved in the development of this game. Therefore, I hope tfp can attract more players, obtain more funds, have more advertisements and communities, and receive better evaluations, thereby proving its correctness. This is not a bad thing.

Post automatically merged: Today at 2:37 AM

I have no idea what TFP plans to do with the game, but the recent acquisition on the business end of things was by a company known only for a MP/MTX "live service" game. Blood Moons was TFP's and iLOGIKA's independent shot at such a game. Perhaps needless to say, it failed, and it would appear the plan is to make up the financial losses, among others, by turning 7 Days itself into just such a game. While I certainly hope it's not come to that, it follows from the "business sense" (or lack thereof) of the industry at large. So, while I'd expect the multiplayer to receive some serious attention, I'd also expect the "malicious advertisement," as it were, only to get worse.

So much for expectations. Only time will tell precisely how (and how much) 7DTD will change from the charming, old school zombie game (and business model) that's been enjoyed by "fans" for 12 years as the result of a business acquisition. Everything is possible and nothing is predestined. So, we'll see how it goes. I wouldn't plan on the acquisition "marking the end of 7 Days" though, any more than it "marked the end" of Dead by Daylight. I'd be skeptical of the name, Behavior Interactive, though. Some are so invested, they think they're "supporting the devs" by purchasing microtransactions -- insubstantial pixels, really -- galore.

I've also had the sense far more people have been playing it single player than multiplayer, though TFP would have the statistics on that. I think antisocial media skews views of the game. To watch YouTube, the game is all about building a better mouse trap when I've heard people say they're playing it as everything from a tower defense game to a homesteading sim. So much for antisocial media.

In fact, up to now I still haven't figured out whether they want to create a multiplayer game or a single-player game.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

This is where the problem lies. Your summary is very insightful. The fundamental reason is the type of this game. So let's review the development history of this game.

First of all, 7dtd has a PvP function, and this function was implemented quite early. If this were a single-player game, implementing the PvP function would not make sense. And as an 8-player game, the importance of PvP is not significant either. The large map and the small number of players make the sense of crisis not obvious. I don't understand the meaning of such a design.

Another problem for the tfp team is the difficulty setting. Let's not talk about the mod mode for now. Adding more stages or more terms in the game cannot prevent players from trying to complete this game quickly. I believe everyone has tried various gameplay methods. Difficulty cannot be the reason for players to stay in this game, just as I said before. If players get bored, then they might use dm cm to destroy the game. As a survival game, this is fatal.
Last point: After being acquired by the behavioral interaction company, I was worried that the decision-making power or influence of tfp might be weakened. Especially after they forcibly pushed forward the "Blood Moon Seven Days" project, this major failure would have a significant impact on the subsequent development direction decisions.

I don't deny the excellence of 7dtd, but I'm concerned about how many people will continue to be involved in the development of this game. Therefore, I hope tfp can attract more players, obtain more funds, have more advertisements and communities, and receive better evaluations, thereby proving its correctness. This is not a bad thing.

Post automatically merged: Today at 2:37 AM

In fact, up to now I still haven't figured out whether they want to create a multiplayer game or a single-player game.

It doesn't have to be either/or. It can be both-and, but I don't think the industry (or we) quite has/have a handle on that.

Ex. 7 Days once had an excellent balance for single player. Tier 5's and 6's were manageable for single player, without so much headache you didn't even want to bother. But, they were obviously not great for multiplayer, which saw players going through Tier 5 and 6 POIs like a knife through butter. TFP didn't like that. So, they made Tier 5 and 6 a challenge for MP, which actively turned off quite a lot of SP players.

FO76 has wrestled with this dynamic from the beginning. It's "solution" isn't perfect, but seems to work for most players. You can either play it single player, focusing on factions, quests or background lore, exploration and the like, or focus exclusively on its "MP content," e.g. events, "Expeditions" and the like. Not a perfect solution, by any means, but one that seems to work for most players.

Bridging that gap, between single player and multiplayer, is -- I think -- impossible. Either it's a single player or a multiplayer game or single player with a multiplayer mode, as it used to be. Precedent proves, imo, it can't be both at the same time.

 

[chin_alos]

It doesn't have to be either/or. It can be both-and, but I don't think the industry (or we) quite has/have a handle on that.

Ex. 7 Days once had an excellent balance for single player. Tier 5's and 6's were manageable for single player, without so much headache you didn't even want to bother. But, they were obviously not great for multiplayer, which saw players going through Tier 5 and 6 POIs like a knife through butter. TFP didn't like that. So, they made Tier 5 and 6 a challenge for MP, which actively turned off quite a lot of SP players.

FO76 has wrestled with this dynamic from beginning. It's "solution" isn't perfect, but seems to work for most players. You can either play it single player, focusing on factions, quests or background lore, exploration and the like, or focus exclusively on its "MP content," e.g. events, "Expeditions" and the like. Not a perfect solution, by any means, but one that seems to work for most players.

Bridging that gap, between single player and multiplayer, is -- I think -- impossible. Either it's a single player or a multiplayer game or single player with a multiplayer mode, as it used to be. Precedent proves, imo, it can't be both at the same time.

In fact, there are references in similar games, such as RUST. The balance for both single-player and multiplayer modes is also very good.

 

[InfiniteWarrior]

In fact, there are references in similar games, such as RUST. The balance for both single-player and multiplayer modes is also very good.

Keyword I think is "modes".