Fox

The only other thing I can think of is to port forward in router settings. Otherwise, game / server glitch which is very unusual and the first time I read of this issue.

Do you have a VPN software enabled? Cloudflare WARP also fits in the VPN category and can dramatically increase PING times to 1000+. If so, disable them before launching the game. Also, what is your internet performance (Download, Upload and Ping to server)? You can find out at https://www.speedtest.net/ Who is hosting the game, what is their internet performance and PC performance? Do they have a VPN enabled by accident? PC performance isn't likely to be the issue, but it'd be nice to rule out anyway just in case. I'm fairly confident that Windows Defender isn't the issue here as I've personally never had an issue with it for any of my games (I never install 3rd party antivirus cuz they're all useless and just serve to get in the way). But I could be wrong as Microsoft is pretty good at being annoying.

That's different. What it is is that most games only benefit from 1 or 2 physical cores (and occasionally 2 virtual / hyperthreads). So essentially, gamers want the latest generation of CPU with the highest GHz. Physical core quantity usually comes second in priority, hence why most of us are happy with 4 - 6 physical cores. Streamers want the extra cores for recording / streaming, hence why they go with 8 cores. Of course, there are those who get max core count because they do more than just gaming... like editing / rendering, work stuff, etc... But comparing the cores to each other, they all pretty much perform the same ±1%

I could be wrong, but it does actually sound like you're talking out of your butt, lol. From my understanding, CPUs either work or they don't. If there's a major fault in the cores, then the computer would crash a lot or not run at all. Yes, some cores have the capability of being marginally faster than others (silicon lottery), but unless you're heavy into overclocking, the likely-hood of being able to see a difference between individual core performance is like being able to visually see the difference between 120Hz and 144Hz on a monitor. The difference is so tiny, you would only know it's there based on benchmark scores. PS: I hate how this forum no longer has an auto merge feature and doesn't allow me to edit an existing post to include an additional quote. I thought this new forum was supposed to be better... sure feels like a downgrade to me.

Joining a server is the same as playing solo (hardware usage wise, with the exception of internet bandwidth use / latency, etc). Hosting is kind of like running 2 games on the same CPU, ram and hdd + the internet bandwidth. So ya, joining a server wouldn't say anything other than whether or not his computer can play the mod at all at decent fps.

Or just disabled Hyperthreading in the bios (or whatever AMD calls it). That way you can still use EAC and don't have to fuss with Task Manager and hope that works. But I always thought that this game benefitted from 2 cores + 2 hyperthreads. I never experimented with that too much, but for many years, that's what I thought was happening. And it would make sense since it's common knowledge that most games out there only benefit from 1 or 2 physical cores.

GPU and ram don't make much difference in terms of performance with this game (at least not when it's high end like that). This game is heavily CPU bound and more importantly only benefits from 4 core threads. Hosting the game on the same PC you're playing on does hinder the game's performance since the cpu is being used to play and host at the same time (and on the same core threads). I'm curious if hosting a dedicated server on the same PC you play on would give better performance (aka separate process, so the cores being used would also be different). I imagine the results would be random, but on average better performing. Or you could just do what I do which is find a retired clunker of a PC and use that to host the game. Anything with 4 cores should do the trick for just 2 players (ssd still highly recommended). GPU not needed for hosting.

100% agree with that. Although I still stand by what I said about Win11. According to some tech channels, there's still some bugs to be worked out and broken / missing features, and the overhaul of everything familiar is always annoying to relearn in my opinion, and ya, the continued worsening of privacy is irritating (you're only capable of disabling so much and it's becoming less and less every time). Oh, I should probably add that while doing updates, it's probably best that you don't attach your Microsoft email account to your OS (even when it tries to force you into it... there's always a way around it, at least until you get Win11).

- Windows 10 / 11 / future 12 has all become a service, not a product... therefore it should be safe to update it without issues (just avoid any update relating to Windows 11 as that version is still pretty bad). - Update your GPU drivers from nvidia website, (do not use Microsoft update drivers as those are junk and will likely reduce performance / features). - V-sync might still be enabled within Nvidia control panel (not just in the game), so make sure you disable it everywhere. It's an annoying feature... like Microsoft Edge. - When I asked about your ram overclock settings, I didn't mean to overclock it past the advertised speeds of the ram, what I mean is motherboards all default the ram speeds to 2100MHz to ensure maximum compatibility / stability so you can use the computer with any stick of ram. So if you bought performance ram, then you'd need to go into the BIOS and make sure to set it to the advertised ram speeds in order to get the performance you paid for. Ram speed does matter a bit in gaming. Maybe not as much as this particular issue you're having, but maybe it has some influence. Just trying to narrow the field more. - If you have a large amount of junk running in the background (Chrome, Antivirus, Firewall, VPN, etc), then that would hinder performance too. - You have a near identical computer as me, so if you did everything correctly, then you should be seeing 70+ fps on max settings at any given time. Although, I never play with mods, so going back to what I said before, it could just simply be due to the mod(s) not playing nicely with your setup.

What's your CPU specs exactly? Are your ram overclock settings correct in the bios? If you have a 60Hz tv, then cap your fps to 60 to prevent visual screen tearing but don't use v-sync as that often just gets in the way of performance anyway. What resolution are you running the game at, because that matters a lot too?

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So you modded the game and are now having issues playing online. Can you see the possible problem yet? We can't really give much support for a modded game as some mods break things or fight other mods or just kill the game performance in general... so try without mods and see if the problem persists.

Why is the game folder even called that and located there in the first place? Sounds suspiciously like piracy to me.

ssd or hdd? And Dynamic Resolution is in game settings. And close chrome... what reason could there possibly be for keeping it open with that many tabs and junk running in the background?

I don't understand how an ISP can control your port forwarding since it's your router that controls that part, unless you're just using their junk modem / router they supply to you in which case, there's often a way to get in there and make some basic changes.

I just thought it might have been an automated message to a bunch of game forums and then the phishing scam message comes later... (I've seen it happen here at least a dozen times over the years) but given how long it's been so far, it appears I'm probably wrong. They usually send out all their scam messages within the first hour or 2.

Sounds suspiciously like a bot post to me (especially since I can't even identify the game it's talking about)... we'll know for sure if it posts ads or phishing links soon enough.

I just visited Rumble and noticed how tiny their website is. Their best videos only have around 300k views... that's literally nothing compared to Youtube (they have videos with 5 billion views). They also lack literally any of the content I'm into. So that website has nothing I want / need. And don't kid yourself into thinking Rumble won't do the same things Google did with Youtube if given the chance. They're all hungry for money and won't stop at nothing to get it. The only reason they're the way they are now is simply because they can't possibly get away with it in their current state. Yes, Youtube / Google sucks and they're just a corporate / greedy / robotic hypocrite, but unless someone with many billions of dollars can take on the massive risk of challenging Youtube (and probably fail and lose many billions in the process), I think we're all stuck with it for a very long time. Back on topic, this game has been public and spread around to billions already. Getting more exposure is really not that big of a deal at this point IMO. The only time getting exposure will matter again is when the game goes gold as there are a minority out there that do have patience for things like that. Also, I've always found that this game looks horrible in videos. I don't know if it's just the uploader's video settings or record settings, etc... but it never looks nearly as bad when I play the game myself. For those who just like watching for entertainment purposes, there will always be videos available no matter the monetization issues presented because fans of the game will play with or without money being made and there's also ways around the issue like making tutorials with zombies disabled so it can be monetized. Also, there's always Twitch if you're ok with living by their schedules or other websites when all else fails.

If you're on a really tight budget and live in a big enough city, go with used parts if you can. Just be careful about GPU crypto miners. It they're selling a bunch of used GPUs, they're probably a miner. Do not buy a pre-built system, 95% of them are all garbage. Building your own system is and always will be far cheaper than buying a prebuilt anyway. Also, I recommend against laptops as they almost always struggle with heat and therefore have issues with gaming (not to mention heavily overpriced for what little performance they offer). If you can manage: Ryzen 2500x, or 2600, or 2600x, etc (or Intel equivalent) or better (avoid AMD APUs (xxxxG series) as they lack gaming performance), B450 motherboard (or Intel supported board), 8 - 16GB of ram (16GB recommended for stability), any ssd, and either a GTX 1060, or GTX 1660, or RTX 2060, or RTX 3060, etc (or AMD equivalent or better). Make sure the computer case has proper airflow, never get sucked into that clear glass front and side panel nonsense as most of those all have terrible airflow. A system like this should be able to get you medium graphics settings or better at 45+fps. The only reason I don't recommend a Ryzen 1600x or a B350 motherboard is because it's first gen which is a pain in the butt with ram support.

Have you tried the game with a frame rate limit of say 72fps yet? Lowering the frame rate cap also lowers the frame times and makes them more consistent so there's less frame jumps. Given that this game isn't a competitive shooter, I don't imagine you'd even notice the lack of fps anyway and your GPU would appreciate the reduced stress / heat too. I assume you have the game installed on ssd?

I already answered that part. Depending on bios version and game version (and maybe other factors), the game (client side) will either only benefit from 2 cores or 4 core threads total (but it spreads out to all cores for stability). Most games are either like this or worse (being single threaded only). This is apparently a game engine limitation. Also, generation of CPU matters more than core count and frequency. A first generation quad core cpu would be complete garbage compared to a 2022 generation quad core with the exact same frequency (and it's the same for both AMD and Intel). Things get optimized and improved on with every single new release of CPUs (usually around 10 - 15% each time). More info here:

512 max spawned doesn't mean that's what he gets (I imagine he just says that for clickbait nonsense)... it just means he essentially didn't really set a limit. The true limit is based on your game stage, so as you level up higher (and not die) the amount of zombies spawned during bloodmoon goes up. I very much doubt anyone has ever had that many zombies spawn at once without the use of cheats (or modifying the game stage files), and I'll bet their fps was terrible despite having the best hardware on the market too. Quantity of ram is meaningless to performance, unless you didn't have enough in which case you would maybe get issues like crashing or hitching (this only occurs if you have 8GB or less available for the game, though some have reported issues at 16GB due to their own bloatware running in the background). Using all resources is impossible for any and all games. The game will use as much as possible until bottlenecked by something, usually CPU since it only benefits from maximum 4 core threads client side (sometimes only 2 depending on game update and bios version, and I don't know how much server side benefits from as I've never been able to peg it to the max). So if you see an 8 core CPU reaching a total of around 50% usage and "spread out across all cores" for stability reasons, you'll know why.

50 zombies per player or on the map? I imagine 50 per player would put even my own computer down on it's knees begging for mercy. Here's what I usually set my config file as: "BloodMoonEnemyCount" = 8 -16 depending on number of players and skill level, more players usually means lower number cuz that's a lot of zombies spawning in at once. "MaxSpawnedZombies" = 64 I never go higher than that.

I've never felt the need to use any of those launch settings so I have no idea if they're just placebos or if they do much but it doesn't hurt to try. 20 - 40fps for the server is completely normal and as it should be. Is there any consistencies between all 5 players? Like, are you all using the same network / internet? What kind of hardware are you using? Did you set the server to spawn too many zombies or animals (because there's a reason why limits exist)? If playing on an old map, I think random corruptions might be able to cause performance issues too.

From my understanding, servers don't render fps, they just send and receive data and if they can't keep up, long delays with teleporting zombies happen, but at your end, you still see normal fps with the world and everything in it just not loading properly. That server, while definitely old, should still work ok in my opinion unless the server isn't able to benefit from all the threads (which is possible since the client side still doesn't). Also, it's a 10 core cpu (20 threads), not 40... unless a motherboard with 2 CPU sockets still existed in 2012 (I can't remember that far back). I also doubt the game is coded to even accept 2 physical cpus. A few years back, I hosted a server of only 3 players, but it was on an AMD FX 8320 (4 cores) which we all know to be a terrible cpu even for it's time and yet the server never had a single issue ever and the cpu never reached passed 40%. I imagine that Xeon is roughly a similar performance given the GHz but with 10 cores instead of 4, and the server hardware requirements really haven't changed too much over the years from what I've seen. But I could be wrong on that as it has been a year since I hosted the game. I also noticed no mention of hdd or ssd. If the server is hosting the game from an hdd, then you might have problems as hdd's are incredibly slow and struggle to keep up, if on an ssd (even if it's just sata ssd), then nvm.

That would explain why it sucks... lol jk