Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kzuy

Optimized

Recommended Posts

Why is 7 days to die so poorly optimized?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, it's been a while since I posted this.

a1dbd9c9875d1fc70ba8babda23a8915.jpg

 

 

Maybe because optimization comes AFTER the ALPHA development cycle, and this is still in ALPHA development.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you're getting at is it running slow for you or something else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
I'm not sure what you're getting at is it running slow for you or something else?

 

I dunno, a18 is running the best the game ever has for me, so I am pretty happy, mind you even in way past alpha's I still had 60 fps usually. Voxel games use massivly more resources than non-voxel games even if they look like crap. Even minecraft was known as a major resource hog and it looked like complete crap compared to 7dtd graphically. That said the devs of 7dtd do a bit of optimization every single alpha, my biggest complaint is the devs don't seem to have any idea what they want the game to be, as it often for the longest time changed drastically between each alpha. I sitll feel a16's skill system was the best overall it just needed some tweaks, like removing craft quality from being tied to a skill. The darkness falls mod has a great learn by doing system that also has a class system where each class gets unique bonuses and things only they can craft. It has learn by doing for: weapon types, athletics (running, jumping etc) and for mining tools. If we applied the a17/18 perks to it, as you leveled say sledgehammers, at 20 skill you get level 2 of the perk, (which is 3 stat in game in a17/18) which lets you craft tier 3 sledgehammers. This way is better because lets be honest it sucks that weapons are tied to stats. I like the pistol, but agility is mostly useless for me, so its a waste of points to get agi just for pistols. I mean WAY later, once I got str and fort done I may consider it as a after thought mainly as I don't have much else to use points on.

 

Op: whats your pc specs? Here's mine: i5-7500, 24 gb ram, geforce 1070 gtx. Pretty old by todays standards yet I can get 60 fps easly in 7dtd with a few effects disabled which you hardly even notice (lens flares as the player is not a camera, blur and motion blur as I hate the effects), at 1920x1080 res, with reshade on top of it.

Edited by Scyris (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my CPU is an i-5 a little behind yours. 32 GB of memory. a GTX 950 graphics card running at 1920 x 1280 resolution. I'm slowly increasing the graphics until I run into a performance bottleneck. Hasn't happened yet.

 

Expect the skills and perks system to change a lot with A19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even minecraft was known as a major resource hog and it looked like complete crap compared to 7dtd graphically.

 

They may both be voxel-based, but comparing the two on an appearance/performance scale is inappropriate. The platform-independence of Java applications comes at the cost of significant overhead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here, it's been a while since I posted this.

a1dbd9c9875d1fc70ba8babda23a8915.jpg

 

 

Maybe because optimization comes AFTER the ALPHA development cycle, and this is still in ALPHA development.

There is a really nice video on this page:

 

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stupid

 

It's BANG-ON !!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Guess we wait another couple years

 

10 years is not a long time for a game to be developed

Edited by Ac75 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
my CPU is an i-5 a little behind yours. 32 GB of memory. a GTX 950 graphics card running at 1920 x 1280 resolution. I'm slowly increasing the graphics until I run into a performance bottleneck. Hasn't happened yet.

 

Expect the skills and perks system to change a lot with A19

 

Yeah thats what I am saying. the game runs the best i've seen it run and I been around since a9 or 10 I think. Only problems I notice is in the snow and desert biomes, something to do with the new splatmap causes massive fps lag when you look at certain parts of the terrain. Toning down one of the settings in the graphics options helps with this, but it won't get rid of it entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here, it's been a while since I posted this.

a1dbd9c9875d1fc70ba8babda23a8915.jpg

 

 

Maybe because optimization comes AFTER the ALPHA development cycle, and this is still in ALPHA development.

 

Being part of a team of Indie game developers myself, I call BS on this. here really is no "Stages" towards this, you can improve the quality of the game on any spectrum to please and provide evidence towards community engagement and commitment towards furthering an end goal. For example when we Release a patch, we make sure the game is completely optimized for near enough 70% or more of our core audience's PCs before release, So we dont get bombarded with negative replies and disrespectful comments.

 

Please, please, PLEASE, stop comparing alpha releases that take hard work and effort to polish, To FTP's half-baked patches where theres no polish. They really are the difference between the sun and moon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is alpha, the developers are more than justified with having debug code in the game that might slow you down that will help them fix problems that they could encounter. They're probably gathering statistics on what people do that could be slowing the game down also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Being part of a team of Indie game developers myself, I call BS on this. here really is no "Stages" towards this, you can improve the quality of the game on any spectrum to please and provide evidence towards community engagement and commitment towards furthering an end goal. For example when we Release a patch, we make sure the game is completely optimized for near enough 70% or more of our core audience's PCs before release, So we dont get bombarded with negative replies and disrespectful comments.

 

Basing your development around avoidance of negative input may make you and your community feel good, but how can you be sure what you're doing is really beneficial in the long run? The more time you spending optimizing each patch for the sake of the 70%, the longer the 30% have to wait for you to finally optimize for them.

 

But I'm sure you did a rigorous cost-benefit analysis to arrive at that 70% target, and keep detailed metrics so you can know how meeting it is affecting your release timeframe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Being part of a team of Indie game developers myself, I call BS on this. here really is no "Stages" towards this, you can improve the quality of the game on any spectrum to please and provide evidence towards community engagement and commitment towards furthering an end goal. For example when we Release a patch, we make sure the game is completely optimized for near enough 70% or more of our core audience's PCs before release, So we dont get bombarded with negative replies and disrespectful comments.

 

Please, please, PLEASE, stop comparing alpha releases that take hard work and effort to polish, To FTP's half-baked patches where theres no polish. They really are the difference between the sun and moon.

 

Being the lead designer on a game I can say that yeah, optimizations come AFTER implementation. You can't optimize every placeholder (whic htakes time and resources) if they are planned to be replaced later on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like saying that the game is in "Alpha" Is just a lazy cop out at this point, it's been in "Alpha" for years. How about they move it to beta and straight up make 90% of thier focus bug fixing and optimization already. The game is already lots of fun to play, I think that after they drop the vehicle mods in they should move to BETA!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel like saying that the game is in "Alpha" Is just a lazy cop out at this point, it's been in "Alpha" for years. How about they move it to beta and straight up make 90% of thier focus bug fixing and optimization already. The game is already lots of fun to play, I think that after they drop the vehicle mods in they should move to BETA!

 

This isn't true at all though. 7 years in development is an industry standard for building something less complex than 7 Days, from a AAA team with ten times more developers.

 

How about you compare apples to apples next time. This isn't CoD where they just re-bake the same code every year and release DLC as a new title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel like saying that the game is in "Alpha" Is just a lazy cop out at this point, it's been in "Alpha" for years. How about they move it to beta and straight up make 90% of thier focus bug fixing and optimization already. The game is already lots of fun to play, I think that after they drop the vehicle mods in they should move toBETA!

 

Wow! Intelligent life!

 

youre not incorrect here

 

its s a shame how some instantly, after 6 or 7 years now in development, always resort to insulting other people about what they don’t Monique about game development when in fact, this game is incredibly unique in that regard

 

some still seeit as a prime opportunity to demean others tho and sadly looks like there’s no end in sight to that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this moment, 4201 games are in Early Access on Steam. Guess how many are longer in Early Access than 7dtd.

 

 

8

Now do a quick math to find out how many games are less long in EA.

 

 

4192

Percentages..?

 

 

99.78% are less long in EA

0.22% are longer in EA

But hey, if you think anything is unusual here: You're stupid.

 

 

lol

 

And source btw.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haven't read the whole thread but I just wanted to say that so far I am VERY HAPPY with how A18 runs.

Previous alphas were a lot more laggy and low fps. This Alpha actually runs very well on my i7 3400, GTX 960 and 8Gb RAM.

This with about the same settings as before I can have more zombies on horde night without it stalling or anything.

My graphics settings aren't even that low so I have no idea why it wouldn't run smoothly for anyone else.

Unless you HAVE to have everything maxed, play on a huge map with custom POI's etc, etc.

This coming from Mrs Complain, so.., yeah.., Maybe it's just you... :p

Credit where credit is due, I notice a HUGE improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the state of the content and functionality I'd hazard that the game is in Beta.

 

I think this game does so much, combining soo many types of games into one, that it is incredibly cutting edge. People don't realise the impact of combining a fully destroyable world, physics, crafting, and all the AI and statemanagement going on in the game, into a single game.

 

This game is pushing some boundaries and that's why it is taking so long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where possible they already optimize. And doing a hell of a good job at that, considering they are practically shooting at moving targets still.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 years in development and no optimization makes no sense, whether you want to quote "industry standards" or display posters calling us all idiots or not. Lack of zombies, slow downs and all manner of nastiness could have been solved with optimization. Even once a year would have been more useful than not.

Trying to cram more and more content in has slowed, reduced numbers and frustrated players. "industry standard" quotes dont make it right, nor do they preclude people asking the question about optimization. How many zombies around when bandits and npcs come in? How will that affect framerates without any sort of optimization? All valid questions that buyers have a right to ask!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All valid questions to ask, but the answer remains the same; they're still in the phase of adding features, that's called alpha. They can't stop adding features, "go beta", for what is essentially legal reasons; they made promises in their kickstarter and they'll have to meet those or risk getting into trouble later.

 

While still adding features, optimizing any single aspect is a risk; the implementation may get discarded due to future issues, the optimizations themselves can actually conflict with coming features etc etc.. f.e. they overhauled water a couple times, and it still doesn't work. Wasted efforts a plenty. Optimizing the amount of time used for optimization needs to be a thing... and it's not like the game doesn't run on anything, there's some issues here and there, but overall it works.

 

When you run into issues, make bug reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At this moment, 4201 games are in Early Access on Steam. Guess how many are longer in Early Access than 7dtd.

 

 

8

Now do a quick math to find out how many games are less long in EA.

 

 

4192

Percentages..?

 

 

99.78% are less long in EA

0.22% are longer in EA

But hey, if you think anything is unusual here: You're stupid.

 

 

lol

 

And source btw.

 

Let's look at the oldest ~10% (433) of that list. Of those, only 50 have more than 1k reviews. Only 13 have more than 10k reviews, 11 of which are net positive:

 

 

Project Zomboid 20k

7 Days to Die 77k

Stranded Deep 23k

Shellshock Live 15k

BeamNG.drive 28k

Empyrion - Galactic Survival 15k

The Isle 18k

Squad 33k

Scrap Mechanic 26k

Golf with Your Friends 18k

Factorio 57k

 

 

Seems to me that 7DtD sticks out in a remarkably positive way. Funny how the same data can lead to very different conclusions...

 

Granted, I'm not a statistician so my "results" could be as misleading or as meaningless as yours. It seems to me that really interesting numbers would require asking questions like:

 

How many EA games released more than a few years ago still receive regular updates? How many former EA games have significant numbers of reviews complaining that the game left EA too early? How does the progress of 7DtD compare to that of other developmentally comparable games that started out in EA?

 

Unfortunately, you'd need to pay someone to compile the data necessary to answer these questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Basing your development around avoidance of negative input may make you and your community feel good, but how can you be sure what you're doing is really beneficial in the long run? The more time you spending optimizing each patch for the sake of the 70%, the longer the 30% have to wait for you to finally optimize for them.

 

But I'm sure you did a rigorous cost-benefit analysis to arrive at that 70% target, and keep detailed metrics so you can know how meeting it is affecting your release timeframe...

 

"Basing your development around avoidance of negative input"

There's no negative input because the game is optimized to function properly, Keeping consumers pleased and excited for future releases. We make sure were communicating and giving hope to the 30% of people we did not reach out to. (Mainly the bugs are fixed later on)

 

"but how can you be sure what you're doing is really beneficial in the long run?"

Because what is the point of planning to fly, when you cant even get off the ground? This is the oldest flaw in any long-term investment, its also the easiest to avoid. Plan from getting from A To B first, NOT A-Z. Having a rough view of what direction your going is a much safer and strategic plan.

 

"But I'm sure you did a rigorous cost-benefit analysis to arrive at that 70% target"

Or you know, you could just go onto the Review pages and read the reviews? Its not rocket science to work out what people do and do not like. I just checked up on the reviews and filtered the most upvoted. 7 out of 10 of them are negative, Mocking the game for its poor optimization and lack of clear direction.

 

FTP have no clear direction with this game, that's not a controversial statement from a viewer's perspective. They are facing a consistent war with their own ideas and public opinion and have no clear idea which one is more valuable. Each patch for a long while now has added/replaced/removed chunks of the game and to this day, they are still trying to fix this. To say there is going to be core audience once this game is complete...is heavily optimistic. I am the last person in my group of friends who thinks this game has a chance of succeeding.

 

"and keep detailed metrics so you can know how meeting it is affecting your release time-frame"

What release timeframe? The game is public, and monetized! Its not between friends or in a testing region. When you make a game public, you begin building a reputation. If your game is finished but your reputation is aids, you aint selling no game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...