Roland
-
Posts
14,272 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
393
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Articles
A20 Bugs
A21 Bugs
Bugs V1
Events
Posts posted by Roland
-
-
I assume you are estimating the percentages but yes, it is intended that not all zombies will be able to successfully path to you but that there will be a degree of randomness of some stopping their pathing and going into area destruction mode. If you damage them it will usually switch them back to pathing towards you.
0 -
Are you saying there was a wall with resources on it that you could just take rather than going out and mine for it and this mod was done to preserve the world from becoming swiss cheese?
0 -
2 hours ago, eventhorizon said:
The "Learn by looting" mechanic sounds awfully familiar...
Oh, yeah, because this did it first.
This has been stated several times now. You aren't shocking anyone.
Khaine, himself, weighed in and gave his feedback based on his experience developing this aspect of his mod. I'm super interested to see if TFP ultimately follows in his footsteps even further or if their version of it will avoid the pitfalls Khaine ran into or if they will come up with some different solution if one is needed. At any rate, we are all pretty well informed around here but maybe you can get some gasps and sputters on Facebook or reddit....
1 -
2 hours ago, AmishMan53 said:
I can't wrap my head around the argument that a computer that meets the specs having the issues i presented, that anybody could consider that playable. That being said.. i still play it. Horde nights suck, but when i'm out in the middle of nowhere building a base or looting some areas it's not really that bad. Wasteland at night sucks too tho. My zombie count was actually brought lower to 6. The only setting that was raised upwards was loot quantity, at 150%. To be clear, ALL of my video settings are either at medium or lower, quite a few even turned off. By the term alpha, i do understand this can be expected. Cuz alpha has meaning, it's the stage of adding stuff, beta is technically optimization phase and ironing out bugs, and full release is when the devs think it's ready to be judged by the public.
I guess my argument boils down to the idea that your experience is not universal. The game is currently playable by a lot of people with a wide range of specs. We can’t know the settings and circumstances that everyone is using that makes the game unplayable to them but I will concede that the game may not be playable for you. I think we both agree that it isn’t ready yet and needs more work.
2 hours ago, AmishMan53 said:My goal was to present reasonable fairness towards the complaints of another person as people were attacking him for his complaint.
heh…people weren’t attacking him for his actual game related complaint. It’s nice of you to back him up though. I’m always happy to see kindness in the forum.
2 hours ago, AmishMan53 said:I think it's fair to throw the "it's an alpha" argument out the window at 5 years, let alone 9.
And why is that?2 hours ago, AmishMan53 said:"Patch notes won't be released for A21 until experimental releases". This thread isn't where this conversation started.. it got moved out of the dev diary thread. And patch notes are announced when they are confirmed as per the note at the top of the A21 Dev Diary, and only confirmed things get listed their.
I was talking about the dev diary and not this thread. My reply to you was moved here as well. It isn’t the place to look for patch notes. They aren’t listed there. The list at the start is a confirmed features list and not a change log. Optimizations aren’t going to be listed there and neither are bug fixes that have happened. It is simply a list of confirmed features and changes relating to gameplay or content.
As I said if you want patch notes then look at the patch note report for each version once it releases. A21 patch notes with bug fixes and optimization changes won’t be listed until A21 experimental is released. The most recent patch notes we have are for A20.6 and they are in the A20.6 Stable thread
0 -
I'll just say that @faatal has been busy in a very exciting way and if he cares to comment about what he has been doing lately I'd be happy to add something to front page.
8 -
52 minutes ago, AmishMan53 said:
What is your benchmark that this game is playable? I don't have a high-end machine.. all the high-end machine talk was in reference to beelzebubs issue with the game. That being said, GTX 1060 6GB with Ryzen 5 2600 and 16GB of RAM, which each piece (and things unmentioned) meet the steam page recommended specs.. i shouldn't have terrible fps issues on medium settings, especially since i've heavily customized the settings to be closer to low settings, keeping some things like FOV to the medium setting. For the majority of the time, the game is playable.. but for horde night to have FPS sit consistently below 30fps on my machine, dipping often into 10-15fps.. that's unplayable. Repairing traps and walls is difficult at that framerate, never mind the idea that i should be also shooting/smacking zombies.
As I said, there will always be people that claim the game is unplayable for them even after it is released. I wasn't taking issue with your claim that the game is unplayable by your own standards. I'm sure it is. I have no idea what all your settings are. Have you turned up the number of zombies alive at one time from the default of 8 to higher than that? Maybe that is part of the cause for such low framerates on horde night. But I don't know.
My point was that the game is not going to be much different than it is generally after it releases. Release day is not going to be some huge miraculous turning point. I'm sure they will continue to find optimizations and make gains in performance but there will be negative reviews after release that the game is not playable from perspective and expectations of some people. That is guaranteed. Regardless, the game has been and is being played for thousands of hours by thousands of people, hence my remark that it is already currently playable-- from a general perspective and not necessarily from any one person's perspective. You, personally, may feel that the game is not playable by your own standards and in that sense I can't argue with that for you.
1 hour ago, AmishMan53 said:Minecraft is a terrible example for this particular comparison's sake, as it's not exactly pushing graphics. It probably pushes memory and cpu harder then the graphics card. Additionally, It had just a little over 2 years from public alpha/beta phase to full release. Honestly, if minecraft was sold to me in alpha and stayed in alpha for 9 years, still having fps issues while shoveling out a 3rd rework to some in-game system.. i might just start expecting circles from Mojang.
I wasn't comparing Minecraft to this game on graphics or time spent in early access. My entire point was that Minecraft today from a playability standpoint is not a whole lot different than it was before it was released. On the day it released there was not some kind of quantum jump in performance and graphics over what it had been before it was released. Maybe I'll be wrong and one of the programmers will find that secret key to turn that will change everything. I'll be glad to be wrong in that case. I just think its best to keep expectations realistic. Every game I have followed that came out of early access had plenty of bad reviews from people who thought that Day 1 of official release was going to mean something grander and more glorious than it turned out to be and quite a few who actually accused the developers of failing to actually finish the game that they were now calling finished. Heck, we already get that now with people who get hung up on the phrase "stable branch" and what their personal expectations of that would be.
1 hour ago, AmishMan53 said:You seem to be lumping anybody who complains with a "complain crowd" and think everyone who complains is the same with your final full paragraph. Reporting experiencing bugs is often encouraged by developers, and depending the level of frustration a bug can cause it can often come across, or even be, complaining.
Interesting. My final paragraph had nothing to do with people complaining. It had to do with people's expectations and was a warning to not let them become unrealistically too high. Again, maybe I'm wrong and we will all be pleasantly surprised at the huge difference that the 1.0 designation will make. I have no issue with you complaining about 15 fps on horde night. You should complain about that. My post was not in any way trying to shame or dissuade people for complaining about their issues let alone trying to lump all people who have various complaints into the same type of complainer.
1 hour ago, AmishMan53 said:i didn't come here to do any complaining or reporting or anything.. just came to check and see if their were mentions of optimizations (which of course, i'm sure they are always optimizing some.. but very notable bug fixes and optimizations likely would make it into patch notes).
Patch notes won't be released for A21 until experimental releases. They won't be posted in this thread in any case. There are patch notes listed for each of the 20.x updates in their relative threads that you can peruse although major optimizations that are risky to save games are not going to show up until the next major update anyway.
0 -
17 hours ago, AmishMan53 said:
but still i want a playable game more then anything and that's looking further away if the devs keep retouching on things over and over again
You said some other things I was tempted to respond to but this took the cake so I’ll limit my response to this.
The game is already playable and has been playable for 9 years now. I’m just not sure what magical switch people are thinking is going to get flipped in the game when the devs say, “Okay, it’s now 1.0 so let’s remove the Early Access label. Full release is here”
You know, I played Minecraft during its open beta while it was in early access and it played pretty much the same after its “Full release” as it did before. In fact, it still does. Yes, it has gotten quite a bit of new content since it released officially but it still plays pretty much the same.
In other words, there really isn’t much of a reason to want the devs to say, “We’re done” as long as they are continually working on it. I have yet to see any released game by any studio that doesn’t have people with high end machines complaining about the the difference between reality and their expectations.
When this game releases the oceans aren’t going to rise a bit, the lights in your house aren’t going to dim for a second or two. The game will largely be exactly the same as we have and there will be folks complaining that they are experiencing bugs and that they get drops in performance because that is the case for every single game out there.
The game is playable now.
1 hour ago, Xeen said:@The Fun Pimps
Does anyone care to comment on why the solar bank, and solar panel can't be crafted?
I know this has probably been asked and answered but I've not seen it.
Because it’s a looter shooter. Duh!btw…. 7 Brutus Denied 5
1 -
Whether it's cheesy or not pales before this important fact:
SpoilerMadmole double dips and likes it and sees nothing wrong with it. <shrug>
1 -
7 Brutus Denied 5
1 -
pure water
1 -
4 hours ago, Matt115 said:
Do you know that this game will have a sequel in future right? So that will affect me.
Why? well some things don't have be directly connected with offical stuff to influence about game series. So let's say that 7dtd became know as game with big servers. Devs see what people are talking/writing about 7dtd. So they can focus to make 7DTD2 PVPE game for bigger groups.
Why ? people would have opinion that "7dtd is like rust mixed with rust" - they will not know that more that 8% wasn't offical supported.
So to well get more buyier of 7dtd2 they can focus to created game for "50 players" groups but this will mean something will be "simpler".
If you focus more on X then there is less options to create something else - more players = less props. That's why big maps games are pretty poor about props - check Cod SP maps then MP then Warzone ---> less players more details because performance.\
Why i'm so sure about that?
Anything is possible I guess but what you describe isn't very probable with these developers. They built their game with the intention that people would modify it and change it and this can include making it into a large population multiplayer game. Just as they aren't suddenly going to make their sequel into Darkness Falls they aren't going to change it into a Rust clone just because it is a popular way of playing the game.
7 hours ago, Howlune said:Everytime I've seen your replies, you seem to treat the desire for higher player counts as an assault on the way you play this game.
The important thing is that the devs don't see it as an assault on the game they are creating. They have no problem with people stretching the game to fit how they want to play whenever possible. There is no animosity or intentional efforts from the dev side to stop people from doing large population servers. Hopefully, once they are done working on the netcode such servers will be possible again.
0 -
10 hours ago, Jugom said:
hey @Roland, one last question about jars that just came to mind.
what about the yucca and yucca smoothie recipes? will they use fresh water now? because that kinda sucks. at least for the regular yucca drink that you were able to get early on when in the desert.The yucca juice recipe requires water now.
2 -
7 minutes ago, Games'n'Grumble said:
@Roland, hi! I'm sorry for the obtrusiveness, but could you ask the developers if they have plans for this? It just seems to me that this question has been left 5 pages behind and will not be paid attention to, but it seems to me that it would be very useful for POI designers (if it hasn't been done yet, of course
)
You tagged the right person so he should see it regardless of the thread moving on. I’ll let him know someone asked him a question.
1 -
7 minutes ago, RyanX said:
I haven't played on an 8 player server per se but I've certainly been on many servers where 40 or so was allowed and the population was low. But even when there were 8 players or less it still bugs out a lot. In the past, when 8 players could play smoothly, server owners were able to play around with some of the code to lessen the amount of bugs and glitches to allow more players. I don't believe it really even supports 8 players now as it is claimed.
This would need to be tested. I think it would make a great bug report. There is a difference between playing on a game that has been modified to work with 40 people but doesn’t run very well when only eight are online and a game that is vanilla and eight are online. Does the vanilla game with eight players have the same problem? If so, then it is a bug and should be reported. Using the bug report utility to bring up issues with the supported number of players is going to get more traction for netcode fixes because TFP are certainly obligated to fix what they claim to support and we are definitely entitled to a game that works with what is advertised as a default function of the game.
Testing the unmodified 8-player game and submitting bug reports for issues in that may very well be the path to improvements that might allow large player servers to be possible again.
0 -
2 minutes ago, Matt115 said:
I think 50 players MP would made 7DTD just "dayz" or "rust" copy - it's better to just focus on world/lore/number of zombie because well... games with lot of PVP players are usualy lack of NPC , lack of props etc. so hm... it's better to focus on smal number of players but create a lot of stuff in world
Sure, but TFP focused on those things in the past and the community was able to modify/fix the code enough to allow for 50 players to play together. Who cares if a mod makes the game play like Rust ir DayZ?
TFP is never going to officially release the game with the capability for 50 players if they can’t GUARANTEE game stability for that kind of load. But, once they’re done working on the netcode and cross-platform architecture it would be great if once again the community could get 50-player 7 Days to Die working again.
0 -
2 hours ago, RyanX said:
Hey buddy, where do you get off calling me a tool??!?!?!? I've been warned and had a post deleted for less than that!!!!!!
You are correct that Sylen went too far and broke the name-calling rule. I deleted his insult. When we delete rude posts or delete the rude parts of posts it is usually because someone reports it. So if your posts were deleted it was because they were reported.0 -
1 hour ago, RyanX said:
And @Roland what are you talking about honey vs. vinegar?
If you aren’t self-aware enough about your usual posting habits to understand the reference, I can’t explain it to you in a way that will help you.
1 hour ago, RyanX said:And there were no "mods" that allowed larger servers to work that I played, there were only "fixes" to try to make the game playable,
“Modding” stands for modifying. If people were “fixing” the code to make the game work for 50-player servers then, yes, you were playing a mod. “Mods” also signify playing any version of the game that is altered from the vanilla default version. The vanilla default version allows for a maximum of eight players. If you were playing with 50 players then you were playing a mod and not only that but it appears you purchased the game on the basis of an unofficial modified version of the game that had no guarantees of being able to work in perpetuity. 50-player 7 Days to Die was never ever a product that TFP sold. It was a product a modder cobbled together and you bought into with the hope but not the guarantee that it would always be possible.1 hour ago, RyanX said:Where in the last couple of posts did I say anything that was aggressive? I don't think anything I said was even remotely out of line or unreasonable.
Sure, you’ve been fine in the last couple of posts. Even a broken clock gets it right twice a day but I don’t trust that clock until it is keeping time consistently. If you are announcing a new trend of non-aggressive and chill posting then that is wonderful. If you’re just telling me your two most recent posts were nice then I’m glad you at least know how to post that way but I’m waiting to see what the future brings. Mind you, I’m not saying you have to agree. You can still criticize what you don’t like and advocate for the changes you want but without the vitriol, thank you.2 hours ago, RyanX said:It's like there's an "I'm offended" squad setup to point out how silly it is to even be talking about larger multiplayer, and that I'm an idiot for wanting it.
I definitely don’t think you’re an idiot for wanting it and I have no problem with you asking for it and hoping for it. But I think the reason you keep getting posts reminding you that 50 player compatibility is not supported is because you come across as demanding something you are entitled to have and sans the last two posts being quite rude in your demands.
I completely agree with the idea that 50-player compatibility would be great to have and I hope along with you that TFP is able to get the netcode and game features finished in such a way as to make that possible again.
1 -
2 hours ago, RipClaw said:
In A21, there are changes regarding drinkable water. There are no empty jars in A21 anymore. When you drink something, you don't get a jar back and you can't craft or find them.
But there are barrels that fill up with water from dew/rain* which can then be collected as jars of pure water so it is somewhat like what they are asking for.
*I say “rain” in the abstract sense that the barrels fill up with water over time and not because they are reactive to weather. But thematically you’ll feel like some of that water you collect came from rain if it did rain even though you’d still get water even if it didn’t rain.
0 -
4 hours ago, RyanX said:
The game used to be able to handle the larger server loads, and now it can't. It could when I bought it, it's the reason I bought the game, it can’t now
That’s like someone who bought the game only because they could play a mod that later no longer works and the mod author decides not to continue. When people extend the game to do things that aren’t supported and you buy the game because of those capabilities, it is a very risky venture.
4 hours ago, RyanX said:I'm just one of the advocates who want to keep multiplayer on the forefronts of TFPs minds. I would like to continue to play the game I bought.
This I totally respect and admire. Just consider that as an advocate, honey works better than vinegar…I hope that the current issues are simply a temporary snag while the architecture of multiplayer is being worked on to handle cross platform play. I would be very happy for you guys if the capability for 50 player servers re-emerges even if it never is officially supported.
3 -
On 9/11/2022 at 9:42 PM, THE HOBO KING said:
Unfortunately, I (and, I imagine, others here) rarely hear anything in response to our concerns from Fun Pimps, save Roland tossing out the weary 'it's designed for 8 players!'.
Well, it is. Furthermore it is intentionally designed as such. The very nature of the game by contrast to the nature of Rust makes it necessary to be so. You misread my weary remarks as an attack. It isn’t. It is simply a statement of a reality people don’t want to accept.The game is not designed as a high population server game. That it was able to be juryrigged as such in the past has nothing to do with the reality of what this game is intended and designed to be.
I understand the need to mourn and express disappointment and I don’t begrudge that. There are things I wanted the game to have and do that it will never have or do.
Despite the game not functioning in the manner that you would like it to, the TFP devs do still care about their game and they do want it to be profitable and they do want their players to be happy and they are succeeding in these endeavors among those who play the game as it is designed.
1 -
1 hour ago, WaywardEko said:
So I'll say first --- I completely disagree w/ the original poster line of berating and language. I also understand the 'don't use Ultra preset' line. In my experience turning the preset all the way down to medium had only minimal impact. I typically run on high and drop to medium during horde night running a 3900x | 3080 | 64 GB RAM and still regularly experience single digit FPS during horde night with 4 or 5 folks playing.
I also do agree w/ your sentiment around graphic expectations and voxel-based games. For me I'm here for the mechanics and the gameplay. I don't need Ultra to have fun ... for me I just want a few more frames. We just reset season on my community server -- once I get a larger base going I'm going to get some logs files over per the recommendation from @Laz Man.I'll also say that my push on performance is always going to be from a place of wanting more people to play 7 Days to Die
I want it more accessible so the community grows!
-Eko
Absolutely agree that TFP should continue to optimize and do what they can within the constraints of getting this game finished. I’m certain they will continue to find ways to get better performance especially once the game is feature complete0 -
5 hours ago, Beelzebubs Ghost said:
Game has potential with the cities and whatnot - but even on a pretty capable gaming pc I can't go in with ultra settings without being lagged into oblivion and 100+ frames to 17.
Easy fix. Don't use the ultra preset. Turn down various settings until you reach the point of optimal gameplay performance for acceptable graphics. For high-end machines good performance can be achieved long before turning down the graphics makes the game unpleasant to play. I don't have nearly what would be considered top of the line and the game plays great and the graphics are definitely good enough to be enjoyable.
6 hours ago, Beelzebubs Ghost said:Devs have made a game then thought it cost effective not to put the work in unlocking more processing power and pandering to turnip PCs, which may have been a good thing 5 years ago but computing power gets better all the time.
There has to be a line drawn somewhere so they can get the game released. Those who buy games for top visuals over gameplay should probably steer clear of this game. It is a voxel world and is never going to be able to compete visually with games that are non-voxel. Just the fact that people who play the game often don't realize that the game is voxel is testament to how graphically advanced the game is for this type of game. For people who care more about gameplay than visuals this game works perfectly well since they will be willing to turn down the visuals in favor of performance and not get heart palpatations that their visuals aren't as ultra as they are for other games.
6 hours ago, Beelzebubs Ghost said:This game is being left in the dirt - and with all the HD modelling (which I do admit is rather pleasing, if not out of place at times) is a lot like the old saying - 'polishing a turd.'
The fact work won't be put in brings to mind two questions.
1. Wtf?
Nice. I guess the level of discourse you always expect in others doesn't apply to yourself. I'm not even sure what you are saying here. What does Wtf mean other than what it actually stands for? What is the opinion you are trying to convey? That the developers are being lazy? stingy? Are you expressing confusion about why they aren't putting work into this area?
Like all projects of this magnitude they must allocate resources and work to the areas they deem it best. They are putting work in but just not into this area for reasons already clearly explained by faatal and reiterated by myself. If your wtf somehow means something beyond what I've tried to guess, maybe you can put some actual words into your question rather than a silly acronym.
6 hours ago, Beelzebubs Ghost said:And 2. Why have such a good product (in the eyes of many, sentimwnt is slipping for me) and not put the work in to ensure people can play lower end but those (I'm not claiming any percentages, thanks) who can and do play games at higher end, can do so with this product without the lag fest which makes all the glorious fluff and the genuinely well done city layouts redundant...
The answer is simple. The people with higher end gaming machines can play with this product without the lag fest simply by turning down the settings until they reach the appropriate level for good gameplay. Their visuals will be better than those with lower end machines but TFP can't be held responsible for people who mistakenly think that they can just hit the Ultra presets button for every single game in their library and get the same exact results for every game. That's why the game offers custom settings so that adjustments can be made until the game plays great. I've found that mix of settings for my rig and with a midrange machine I'm confident that those with high range machines will be able to find it as well. I experience very little lag and my visuals are plenty good enough to be able to play and enjoy the world. They are not as good as videos and streams I see of others playing but I'm enjoying my experience.
6 hours ago, Beelzebubs Ghost said:people have certain expectations which in 2022/ coming 23, really should be met by TFP re: performance.
People just are uninformed about voxel vs non-voxel games. Among games that are 100% destructible and include block by block building and every structure in the world can be entered, explored, and modified by the player, 7 Days to Die continually exceeds expectations of those who are informed. It stacks up well with any other similar game. TFP is proud of what they have accomplished graphically and rightfully so. Optimizations continue and soon all optimizations will stop being for the purpose of adding new performance costly features to the game and be purely for making the finished product run better. There will always be people who are snobbish about their visuals in the games they play and who will turn their nose up at 7 Days to Die and not be convinced that it is worth playing because they can't get past how it looks. Even if TFP utilized more threads it would still be so.
7 -
57 minutes ago, Xeen said:
Recently I've been thinking that I'm beating a dead horse and that they will never even consider it and so I have given up on it.
Recently I've been wondering why when people are told, "No", they think that it was done without even considering the question. You should give up on it, btw, but not because TFP will never consider it. They have considered it, researched it, weighed it, cost-analyzed it, discussed and debated it, and then said, "No". It may have seemed like an immediate "No" from when you asked the question but the reason for that is that the possibility occurred to them long before you asked the question. It wasn't as if you asking the question brought the concept to their awareness for the very first time. They have had a long long time to figure out what works best for their goals and business.
It was a very well considered "No".
3 -
4 hours ago, RadekA20 said:
Well, when will the 21A come?
I don't know. Sometime in 2022 hopefully and we are quickly running out of months.
0
Companion animals > drones
in General Discussion
Posted
100% pathing is the reason. They had models for a companion dog but scrapped it when they started looking seriously at implementation due to the nightmare of pathing. The drone floats above and so 99% of pathing issues are solved right away. It really was a no-brainer especially since it was a (forgive the pun) a pet project and not even one of the original goals or stretch goals.