(Rant) This game has never been as anti-multiplayer as it is now.

[JCrook1028]

2 hours ago, meganoth said:

If this were a cash grab move it would have released as stable before the steam sale.

Steam sale came out a day after stable release.

[Roland]

3 hours ago, pApA^LeGBa said:

I know their focus isn´t PvP and that it actually was released on accident and kept by popular demand, but TFP should simply be completly silent about it until they actually work on it tbh.

Their focus isn’t 50+ player PvP but 8 friends competing against each other is supported. As the OP stated, his complaint isn’t for 8 player max PVP but for lack of support for 50+ Players and nowhere does TFP advertise or bait and switch people in by falsely showing the game being played by 50+ players. 
 

Also, PvP wasn’t released on accident. There used to be three modes of the game. Open world, Arena, and Horde. Arena was a dedicated PvP mode and the other two could be played either cooperatively or PvP. 
 

They aren’t going to remove the ability to PvP completely because some people want it perfectly to their taste or not at all. 
 

They aren’t going to remove the PvP label as long as the game allows players to compete against other players. 
 

They aren’t going spend development time on support for populations > 8 players. 
 

They will continue to not advertise that the game supports 50+ players at once. 
 

I play 3 player multiplayer co-op on a dedicated server that my brother is renting and the game runs great for us.  

[Roland]

1 hour ago, JCrook1028 said:

Steam sale came out a day after stable release.

It doesn’t matter when stable is released. People who don’t understand the stable label always get upset when stable releases and the game still has bugs. 
 

Stable simply means they feel the game is ready for the larger masses of people in early access to play and report bugs. The game is still early access and in development. There will be a 20.1 and 20.2 and 20.3 etc to continue to handle bugs and optimize. 
 

Stable happens because internally they’ve branched to the next alpha and they want the latest-experimental to be available for whatever fixes they will include in A20.1

 

As of today they are already at least 5 builds into A21 and most of the changes will be copied over to latest_experimental to be opted into for those who want to help before it turns into A20.1

 

That is what they always do. Stable does not equal “all done”. I’m not saying you believe that— just using your post to point out the obvious misunderstanding that some people on this thread have about what shifting the game from experimental to stable actually means. Of course they also don’t understand what “8 player max” seems to mean…

[SnowDog1942]

14 minutes ago, Roland said:

Of course they also don’t understand what “8 player max” seems to mean…

What does it mean?  Can you please explain?

[DiegoLBC1]

1 hour ago, SnowDog1942 said:

What does it mean?  Can you please explain?

If you learned math and how to count, “8 player max” means that the game supports a maximum of 8 players in coop (PvP/PvE). Anything above that is at your own risk. 

Roland said above: "Their focus isn’t 50+ player PvP but 8 friends competing against each other is supported."

Edited December 23, 2021 by DiegoLBC1 (see edit history)

[Howlune]

It's very telling that many of these replies are are so saturated with sarcasm towards the point that some of us are trying to make clear. Multiplayer or not, the game is so hugely CPU intensive that it effects all of us. It doesn't have to be big servers, it could be simply wanting more zombies to fight at the same time without the game eating more than 50% CPU.

 

In regards to the netcode, as a previous post said, one guy from china was able to make an entire alternative to use that makes even huge player populations possible as evidenced by european servers like PoBx. I do not want to say the name of the tool here though, because it effectively reroutes client connections to god knows where and is extremely sketchy if not illegal. But the point is that it's entirely possible.

 

Earlier in the games life, these 50 player servers were more achievable... but as the game got updated, things got... worse? Why is every single thing that happens shared with every client on the map at once? Why is the client flooded with so much extra and often unnecessary information? These are things that literally the entire playerbase would benefit from being fixed.

 

No, we don't want a battle royale. I regret mentioning DayZ and Rust because now I feel as a few of you have only painted what were asking for as some sort of trend following. We want 7 Days, otherwise we wouldn't be here. A lot of us understand the hurdle it is to develop this game, but a lot of us also see some extremely questionable lines of thinking that we can't help but point out. I don't know how anyone can defend them rushing stable just to meet the winter sale deadline while massive issues even they're aware of persist. Come on man....

Also, I don't know who in their right mind hosts an 8 player PvP server. That line should just be removed.

[Z-B]

I just love when people come to complain that this game is bad at being what TFP have repeatedly stated that it is not and was never intended to be.

[Boidster]

1 hour ago, Howlune said:

I don't know how anyone can defend them rushing stable just to meet the winter sale deadline while massive issues even they're aware of persist.

 

I absolutely agree with this and it's a good thing nobody is doing that. Also, thank you for keeping O.G. "begging the question" alive.

 

1 hour ago, Howlune said:

Also, I don't know who in their right mind hosts an 8 player PvP server. That line should just be removed.

 

It's an interesting position to take, that the people who who host servers of a size within the developer recommendations are not in their right mind. I presume the people who are trying to host 50-player servers, in spite of the developers specifically not recommending that, are the ones in their right mind? Does complaining to the developers that their game doesn't support the thing which they, the developers, specifically said it did not support increase or decrease the right-mindedness of these brave mavericks?

 

A thought experiment: would a person be in his/her right mind to try to run the game on a 1.9GHz CPU with 4GB of RAM and on-board Intel graphics? Why or why not?

[meganoth]

2 hours ago, Howlune said:

It's very telling that many of these replies are are so saturated with sarcasm towards the point that some of us are trying to make clear. Multiplayer or not, the game is so hugely CPU intensive that it effects all of us. It doesn't have to be big servers, it could be simply wanting more zombies to fight at the same time without the game eating more than 50% CPU.

 

I mainly replied to Obsessive's post which was (in my opinion) so misleading that I had to correct some things. I would welcome the game getting optimized.

 

2 hours ago, Howlune said:

 

In regards to the netcode, as a previous post said, one guy from china was able to make an entire alternative to use that makes even huge player populations possible as evidenced by european servers like PoBx. I do not want to say the name of the tool here though, because it effectively reroutes client connections to god knows where and is extremely sketchy if not illegal. But the point is that it's entirely possible.

 

Possible. But do you know whether some other features are compromised or lost with this change? Does it have no disadvantages? And would your description suffice for TFP to make the same optimizations? Just saying, things are seldom so one-dimensional that there is the one true path into neverending bliss.

 

2 hours ago, Howlune said:

 

Earlier in the games life, these 50 player servers were more achievable... but as the game got updated, things got... worse? Why is every single thing that happens shared with every client on the map at once? Why is the client flooded with so much extra and often unnecessary information? These are things that literally the entire playerbase would benefit from being fixed.

 

Though single-player was slowed down as well, so it probably isn't simply the netcodes fault and end of story. Well, if you know a specific instance of unnecessary information sent around, just make a bug report and see whether a dev thinks your idea is great or not.

 

2 hours ago, Howlune said:

 

No, we don't want a battle royale. I regret mentioning DayZ and Rust because now I feel as a few of you have only painted what were asking for as some sort of trend following. We want 7 Days, otherwise we wouldn't be here. A lot of us understand the hurdle it is to develop this game, but a lot of us also see some extremely questionable lines of thinking that we can't help but point out. I don't know how anyone can defend them rushing stable just to meet the winter sale deadline while massive issues even they're aware of persist. Come on man....

 

What massive issues? Im playing this supposedly totally bugged game quite well. I have even played it without problems when it was still experimental, before a lot of fixes. I can't speak for everyone though and I read posts from players having problems every day in the General Support forum. But would that be a reason to delay the stable in an EA game where one of the reasons for releasing IS to catch bugs ?

 

Lets be clear on the "questionable lines of thinking". Are you arguing they should have delayed stable because A) it doesn't work well with 20 or more players, or B) it has many bugs like the memory leak Obsessive was talking about ?

 

Obviously A would be strong tobacco since you know full well that 20 players are not supported. 

 

So it must be B. Do you really think a memory leak and player names with underscore not working is so bad it should delay the game being released to EA players? I played in A15 where minibikes were regularily in an error state where they just burned fuel and could not be interacted with. In stable. But I didn't mind. Better a buggy game in EA than a perfect nothing. You and Obsessive are here in EA and complain about bugs, but you never decide to just wait for the released game !?

 

So your theory is that stable was released for a winter sale? Where would those steam users on a hunt for winter sale deals get the information that a new stable is out? Surely the experimental weekend with all the streamers showing 7D2D was promotional and for sales. Getting a stable out a few days before Christmas, I don't see the big deal here, I don't think this will get massive sales.

But even though I think your theory is weak it is a possibility, maybe it is one of the reasons, who knows. So what? Everyone of the current players who has been waiting for a stable is now thankful for it being out for the holidays. Ask them, most of them won't complain that they can try out the new version. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Howlune said:

Also, I don't know who in their right mind hosts an 8 player PvP server. That line should just be removed.

 

Sure. I don't need that line. Lets remove it. Make a bug report and tell them to remove it. While at it, remove the line about 7D2D being the only true survival RPG, that is probably wrong as well (for a sensible definition of "true", "survival" and "RPG" 😉)

 

But lets be frank, this is not really what you want, right? You want the game to be optimized, not some lines on the sales page changed.

 

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by meganoth (see edit history)

[Howlune]

7 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 You and Obsessive are here in EA and complain about bugs, but you never decide to just wait for the released game !?

 

 

Its been in EA for 7 years. I don't think anyone would want to hold their breath for a final release at this point, cause who knows how far out there it could be. One of my points on handling more players was hanging on the fact the game's performance got worse with time, not better. But you guys are right, no matter what I say is shot down by the fact TFP have zero interest in what brings a pretty hefty chunk of players to this game.

 

22 minutes ago, Boidster said:

It's an interesting position to take, that the people who who host servers of a size within the developer recommendations are not in their right mind. I presume the people who are trying to host 50-player servers, in spite of the developers specifically not recommending that, are the ones in their right mind? Does complaining to the developers that their game doesn't support the thing which they, the developers, specifically said it did not support increase or decrease the right-mindedness of these brave mavericks?

 

A thought experiment: would a person be in his/her right mind to try to run the game on a 1.9GHz CPU with 4GB of RAM and on-board Intel graphics? Why or why not?

I never said the host of a 50 player server has the right mindset, I'm just not understanding how 8 player PvP even works in a fun or engaging way. At the same time, an absolute majority of people play this game making pretty POIs in singleplayer and not even really playing the survival aspect at all.. so I guess I really have none of it figured out and trying to will just subject me to condescending posts on these forums.

[meganoth]

4 minutes ago, Howlune said:

Its been in EA for 7 years. I don't think anyone would want to hold their breath for a final release at this point, cause who knows how far out there it could be. One of my points on handling more players was hanging on the fact the game's performance got worse with time, not better. But you guys are right, no matter what I say is shot down by the fact TFP have zero interest in what brings a pretty hefty chunk of players to this game.

 

I'm quite sure they will release it and probably in the next 2 years. Early Access has not been long enough on this planet for people to really judge how long successful games can be in EA and whether this is good or bad.

My theory is that the more successful a game is the longer it can stay in EA and the bigger it will get. The original scope of 7D2D was tiny compared to what it is now.

Factorio was 7 years in EA development. Nobody got nervous or thought it wouldn't eventually be released and eventually it did get released.

 

There probably will be more cases of this while many failed EA games have somewhat short development time simply because money runs out.

 

[Roland]

4 hours ago, Howlune said:

I don't know how anyone can defend them rushing stable just to meet the winter sale deadline while massive issues even they're aware of persist. Come on man....

 

"Stable" is really an unfortunate label that I wish they would not use. They should just call it the main branch and the experimental branch period. The main branch is what Steam pushes out automatically to everyon who has their settings put to auto update. The experimental branch is what players must choose to opt into.  All of this is early access and therefore not stable in the way that you are expecting it to be.

 

Did they rush to get A20 switched over to the main branch in time for the Steam Winter Sale? Yes and no. It was a goal to get the update on the main branch before they closed for the Holidays and, of course, to be in a good position for the sale. When the game switches to the main branch everyone who has the game installed is going to get notified that it updated. There are going to be a good chunk of people who have loved the game but who have moved on and haven't been following and when they get the notification that 7 Days just did an update they are going to check in and play it and they may have friends who they will now want to get into it and with it being on sale it is the perfect time. So, yes, having an update in time for the sale is great for increasing the reach of the game. Nobody is denying that this was their goal.

 

However, rushing makes it sound like they were trying to get it done and bug free in order to move the game to main branch and that just isn't true and has never been true. In fact, the game used to not even make use of the experimental branch. Whenever the game updated it just went right onto the main branch. The experimental just gives a buffer so that if any glaring issues crop up they can get those handled and have fewer issues once it is on the main branch.  So, what we have now is a series of gradually increasing pools of players that makes the updates a lot more smooth for the largest number of players-- but, and this is important, all of this is under the umbrella of "still in development". Even the main branch is still early access and the game is still in alpha and regardless of it being on the experimental branch or the main branch, there are going to be bugs and the devs are going to be working on getting them fixed.

 

For stability and polish the A20.0 is just not going to compare well to A19.6 but A20.6 will compare very favorably. But the game isn't going to be bug free during the journey to A20.6 and it isn't just going to remain in the experimental branch because some people think it isn't stable enough to leave it.

 

Honestly, they could have put A20 on the main branch back on December 6th and it would have been exactly like past alpha updates before they started using the experimental branch as a buffer. They still would have done the hotfixes they've done since December 6th but it would have affected everyone on the main branch. If they had done that you wouldn't have been accusing them of pulling a cash cow move by "rushing" some release right before a sale. But they did make use of the experimental branch but here we are at the exact same spot and because of the word "stable" and the fact that it happened the day before the sale you think they rushed something.

 

I thought we had thoroughly and completely come to understand over the past 8 years that this studio doesn't rush anything....

[Rhaikh]

The PvP experience could be vastly improved with relatively minor effort. Even just rubber-stamping solutions the community has already independently come up with, and including them as part of the official vanilla experience would help.  The complete lack of attention, combined with the sales blurb, is just insulting.  All of these apologists in this thread making excuses for lack of effort is embarrassing.  This portion of the player base deserves attention.

[RyanX]

From the time I bought this game (A15), the only thing that has kept me playing are the larger multiplayer servers (In the 25-50 player range).  There were many active servers that ran well and I played them with my wife, and I played the larger PvP servers when I went solo.  Sure there were issues, but at least they ran and you could see that TFP had these larger MP servers AT LEAST in mind.

 

Why the &*$^ are there player vending machines in game if you aren't going to support the player counts to make use of them?  Along with all the other items pointed out earlier.  I bought this game based on the fact that there were these larger servers and PvP available.

 

On 12/22/2021 at 9:44 PM, Roland said:

 

It really is. They have never pretended otherwise. Those who wish to keep trying to shove a square peg into a round hole are welcome to do the best that they can but you have correctly identified the round hole that this game is meant to be.

 

 

Oh yes they have Roland.  They put the elements in there and just abandoned them.

 

And stop focusing on the PvP arguments please, that's not what the main issue is...the main issue is server stability.  The modders can make tweaks to damage and so on (although not ideal) but at this point we have lost the server stability we once had.

 

Here's what I think; I don't think TFP has the ability or talent at this point to fix it.  The code has gone so far away from server stability at this point, that it's a lost cause.  It would need to be a new game.  It's been downhill since A16.4, the hosted servers have been clamoring for multiple Alphas for help and have been completely ignored.  How many posts have been made about "Quit making pretty things and fix your game please"?  And why would they do this hard work when they can just hire a few artists and ride their chairs into money land?  I don't blame them, and we all might do better to stop pretending that this isn't the case.  It's very sad, but in this day and age, any movie franchise or video game franchise that was once good ends up in the trash heap.

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by RyanX (see edit history)

[giKoN]

This really shouldn't deteriorate into a discussion of PVP or not PVP, love towards PVP or not.

 

If servers want to run PVP, there are enough possibilities to modify the settings and balance in order for 7 Days to be an OK PVP game. It's a lot of work, but for those whoo want to play it that way, it must be enough given the TFP Focus. That should be fair enough.

 

What I think it comes down to, really is more the question as to why Dedicated Server Mode, while being officially supported and offered, does not receive any love in terms of updates. The netcode has stayed the same crucially for years (outside the netpackage encryption update), which of course will not get the game anywhere multiplayer-wise and thats the only reason as to why 8 players is supported the most. 

 

Dedicated server mode effectively is several single players talking to each other through poor interaction with each other guided by an underpowered server instance. And nothing has been done there for Alphas. So the real question for me is, are there any updates on the horizon for this? 

[RyanX]

31 minutes ago, giKoN said:

What I think it comes down to, really is more the question as to why Dedicated Server Mode, while being officially supported and offered, does not receive any love in terms of updates. The netcode has stayed the same crucially for years (outside the netpackage encryption update), which of course will not get the game anywhere multiplayer-wise and thats the only reason as to why 8 players is supported the most.

Well said.  And the server selection is more buggy than it's ever been in A20.  Trying to connect alone is a nightmare.  It's like the game has reverted to pre-alpha in every aspect except solo play.

[pApA^LeGBa]

19 hours ago, Roland said:

Their focus isn’t 50+ player PvP but 8 friends competing against each other is supported. As the OP stated, his complaint isn’t for 8 player max PVP but for lack of support for 50+ Players and nowhere does TFP advertise or bait and switch people in by falsely showing the game being played by 50+ players. 
 

Also, PvP wasn’t released on accident. There used to be three modes of the game. Open world, Arena, and Horde. Arena was a dedicated PvP mode and the other two could be played either cooperatively or PvP. 
 

They aren’t going to remove the ability to PvP completely because some people want it perfectly to their taste or not at all. 
 

They aren’t going to remove the PvP label as long as the game allows players to compete against other players. 
 

They aren’t going spend development time on support for populations > 8 players. 
 

They will continue to not advertise that the game supports 50+ players at once. 
 

I play 3 player multiplayer co-op on a dedicated server that my brother is renting and the game runs great for us.  

 

That´s it. From now on i will screenshot every information given by the team, q&a and the moderators, here and on steam. I am 100% sure that somewhere in the old forum one of you guys said that it was made possible to PvP due to an oversight and was kept due to popular demand.

 

I remember this particular fact exactly, due to something very remarkable that happened in RL right after reading that and talking about it on teamspeak. Don´t bother to ask, what happened has no place here.

Edited December 24, 2021 by pApA^LeGBa (see edit history)

[JCrook1028]

19 hours ago, Roland said:

It doesn’t matter when stable is released. People who don’t understand the stable label always get upset when stable releases and the game still has bugs. 
 

Stable simply means they feel the game is ready for the larger masses of people in early access to play and report bugs. The game is still early access and in development. There will be a 20.1 and 20.2 and 20.3 etc to continue to handle bugs and optimize. 
 

Stable happens because internally they’ve branched to the next alpha and they want the latest-experimental to be available for whatever fixes they will include in A20.1

 

As of today they are already at least 5 builds into A21 and most of the changes will be copied over to latest_experimental to be opted into for those who want to help before it turns into A20.1

 

That is what they always do. Stable does not equal “all done”. I’m not saying you believe that— just using your post to point out the obvious misunderstanding that some people on this thread have about what shifting the game from experimental to stable actually means. Of course they also don’t understand what “8 player max” seems to mean…

Did you even read the post I responded to? Your post is totally off topic to mine, 100%. Don't quote to me if you want to address someone else's issue please.

[meganoth]

11 hours ago, Roland said:

 

"Stable" is really an unfortunate label that I wish they would not use. They should just call it the main branch and the experimental branch period. The main branch is what Steam pushes out automatically to everyon who has their settings put to auto update. The experimental branch is what players must choose to opt into.  All of this is early access and therefore not stable in the way that you are expecting it to be.

 

Did they rush to get A20 switched over to the main branch in time for the Steam Winter Sale? Yes and no. It was a goal to get the update on the main branch before they closed for the Holidays and, of course, to be in a good position for the sale. When the game switches to the main branch everyone who has the game installed is going to get notified that it updated. There are going to be a good chunk of people who have loved the game but who have moved on and haven't been following and when they get the notification that 7 Days just did an update they are going to check in and play it and they may have friends who they will now want to get into it and with it being on sale it is the perfect time. So, yes, having an update in time for the sale is great for increasing the reach of the game. Nobody is denying that this was their goal.

 

Oh hum, I did 😉. But you make a good case for it being because of steam winter sale. Get out the pitchforks guys 😁

 

On the forum I can see dozens of guys waiting for a new alpha and patches and new versions. But when TFP finally does that (after a full year of waiting) the next batch of guys comes around and complains it is rushed! Sorry guys, TFP can't please everyone.

 

 

[Roland]

14 minutes ago, JCrook1028 said:

Did you even read the post I responded to? Your post is totally off topic to mine, 100%. Don't quote to me if you want to address someone else's issue please.

Uh…yeah. It was Mega who said that if it was a cash grab by TFP they would have switched the game to the main branch before the sale and you let him know that the sale did in fact start the day after. Then I quoted you and posted what I did about what the stable branch actually is. 
 

I went back and read and am not sure why you can’t make the connection between our three posts or even why you are even upset that quoted you. I even stated that I didn’t think you were making the mistake I was posting about. 
 

<shrug>

[meganoth]

11 hours ago, Rhaikh said:

The PvP experience could be vastly improved with relatively minor effort. Even just rubber-stamping solutions the community has already independently come up with, and including them as part of the official vanilla experience would help.  The complete lack of attention, combined with the sales blurb, is just insulting.  All of these apologists in this thread making excuses for lack of effort is embarrassing.  This portion of the player base deserves attention.

 

Oh wow, handwaving about solutions and saying they are minor effort. How about listing them so we can talk about facts instead of all that mud flinging

 

I know about the old problem of seeing behind the world and devs having tried to fix some cases but always a new way coming up in old alphas. It doesn't look like a minor problem with easy fixes. 

 

There is one suggestion here about not sending updates to everyone from far away places. That seems like an interesting approach, but I'm not sure it is a minor effort and details are missing. It might work to make a bug report with this as a way to optimize the game or try to get it before the eyes of the relevant developer. Only someone with inside knowledge of the code base can really answer if this is an optimization without compromising something.

 

Another suggestion about not sending player locations to other clients logfiles seems obviously a good thing and relatively easy to do. Did anyone make a bug report without talking about 20 person PvP servers?

 

 

 

[Roland]

2 hours ago, RyanX said:

And stop focusing on the PvP arguments please, that's not what the main issue is...the main issue is server stability. 

 

2 hours ago, giKoN said:

This really shouldn't deteriorate into a discussion of PVP or not PVP, love towards PVP or not.

Sorry. PvP is easier to type than 50+ person servers- especially when I am certain that most if not all large population servers are going to be about more than everyone cooperating together against the environment. But it was an assumption, true. 
 

Keeping the conversation focused purely on player population no matter what type of gameplay those 50 people are going to engage in, then it merely becomes a matter of priorities. 
 

If the server code works well enough for 8 players or less to play and test the game and game breaking problems only occur once people start pushing past what is supported then working on that code is not going to be a priority. 
 

They’ll probably get to it and stabilize servers further and might even extend the supported player count. But it isn’t a priority right now since it meets their stated needs even if it doesn’t meet your stated desires to have 50 people on a server together all at the same time doing whatever activity 50 people do all together. 
 

 

 

[meganoth]

2 hours ago, giKoN said:

This really shouldn't deteriorate into a discussion of PVP or not PVP, love towards PVP or not.

 

Weell, it started as a discussion about PvP (and servers with more than 8 players specifically) with the initial OP. Not a bad post at all. But it set the topic and you can't fault anyone for answering to the topic of the thread.

 

 

[mr.devolver]

I don't have the exact numbers, but I feel like multiplayer was never the bigger part in my time spent in the game. I think the game has and always had so many multiplayer issues (mostly hackers) that complaining about not being able to play on servers with 50+ different players sounds really silly. After having negative experience in public multiplayer, I simply gave up on it entirely and started playing either solo or in small groups of people I trust.

[RyanX]

29 minutes ago, Roland said:

 

Sorry. PvP is easier to type than 50+ person servers- especially when I am certain that most if not all large population servers are going to be about more than everyone cooperating together against the environment. But it was an assumption, true. 
 

Keeping the conversation focused purely on player population no matter what type of gameplay those 50 people are going to engage in, then it merely becomes a matter of priorities.

25 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

Weell, it started as a discussion about PvP (and servers with more than 8 players specifically) with the initial OP. Not a bad post at all. But it set the topic and you can't fault anyone for answering to the topic of the thread.

 

 

 

 

 

No, it didn't start out as a PvP discussion.  The OP clearly states that while he runs a PvP server, it affects PvE as well.  You will find that MORE people want larger population PvE servers than they do PvP servers anyway.  There used to be queus to get in the larger multiplayer servers but that's been worn away over the last couple of alphas.   And it doesn't have to be 50 people.  40 can be good.  Heck 30 can be good.

 

It's better for you to say this is about "PvP" and "50+" because it makes it easier for you to attack the validity of what's being said.  In reality this is about server stability for a reasonable number of players to have a community on the server.  That and us trying to see if we can get our message to the devs that this is something the community wants.  I would seriously doubt that any moderator would relay that information to them based on the clear bias towards the MP community, especially since the argument is being consistently interpreted as "we want a 100 person Fortnite clone".

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by RyanX (see edit history)