Multiplayer Sad State of Affairs

[Howlune]

21 hours ago, Grandpa Minion said:

You are definately right about that. A19 and prior we could get 40+ players on a server- Now in a20 we are lucky to get 25 on without the server crashing. Has anyone figured out why this is? I personally think its just another way of them wanting to kill multiplayer.

I dont think its them wanting to *kill* multiplayer, they just have different priorities and large population was never something they have beholden themselves to, unfortunately. And despite all the big servers dying off because of it, the game remains at 15k+ currently playing on steam, so theres no alarms going off for them anytime soon.

[Grandpa Minion]

36 minutes ago, Howlune said:

I dont think its them wanting to *kill* multiplayer, they just have different priorities and large population was never something they have beholden themselves to, unfortunately. And despite all the big servers dying off because of it, the game remains at 15k+ currently playing on steam, so theres no alarms going off for them anytime soon.

dont kid yourself. Guaranteed those 35000 players from 5 months ago most of them where multiserver players! I mean anyone with common sense would tell you- losing half of your population base is not good. "maybe we should look into why?"

[Boidster]

5 hours ago, Grandpa Minion said:

Guaranteed those 35000 players from 5 months ago most of them where multiserver players! I mean anyone with common sense would tell you- losing half of your population base is not good.

 

I do not think those numbers mean what you think they mean. The game got a surge for A20 (December '21) and has since reverted to the mean. ~30K active players is kinda where 7D2D lives most of the time. There is no massive exodus from the game.

 

[Fanatical_Meat]

20 minutes ago, Boidster said:

 

I do not think those numbers mean what you think they mean. The game got a surge for A20 (December '21) and has since reverted to the mean. ~30K active players is kinda where 7D2D lives most of the time. There is no massive exodus from the game.

 

Regardless whomever was playing who now is not playing, still bought the damn  game. Them deciding to no longer play does not cost anyone income because 7D2D is a one time purchase. There are no subscription fees or server hosting fees.

[RyanX]

On 5/22/2022 at 8:41 PM, Boidster said:

 

I do not think those numbers mean what you think they mean. The game got a surge for A20 (December '21) and has since reverted to the mean. ~30K active players is kinda where 7D2D lives most of the time. There is no massive exodus from the game.

 

It also shows that this last update really didn't do anything to increase interest in 7D2D.  People just logged on to see what they did for a bit then were like "meh".

[Howlune]

On 5/28/2022 at 5:40 AM, RyanX said:

It also shows that this last update really didn't do anything to increase interest in 7D2D.  People just logged on to see what they did for a bit then were like "meh".

The game being 22-23k active online players on average is not a negative. While it sure felt like there was an exodus with the sheer amount of large pop-servers that got killed off by 20.4, the harsh truth is it didn't even dent the game. The devs do not need to improve netcode or help large servers for their game to continue to be considered a "success", so as much as we wish we could play the game the way we did, I don't see any any real improvements being made until after the devs have finished with content and possibly even ship the game officially. Our playstyle is not a priority plain and simple. It's disappointing... saddening even, but it is what it is.

 

EDIT: Apologies for the necro. I haven't signed in for a while and this showed up first in notifications.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Howlune
Didn't realize I necroed this on accident. (see edit history)

[RyanX]

On 6/25/2022 at 6:52 PM, Howlune said:

 

EDIT: Apologies for the necro. I haven't signed in for a while and this showed up first in notifications.

Before I even start, when I use the word "multiplayer" I mean more than 20 people, and up to about 40-50 people on a single server.

 

Funny thing is, I haven't signed in for quite a while (quit playing when I tried to find a MP server in the new browser and it was ridiculous) and this was on my notifications also.  But realistically, multiplayer is finished and I think we are resigned to it.  I might check back in later to see if they fix the server browser, but as it stands now, the group I play with has moved on.  We got our money's worth and the devs made a boatload of money, and really, they are finished also.  This isn't the labor of love it once was and it's being milked for all it can until it's dead.  I don't fault anybody, though.  In fact, more power to them.  I think you and I (along with many others before us) have reached the "acceptance" stage of grief.  Multiplayer has been killed, we raged, denied, all that stuff....it's time to find something else.  I'll check back in from time to time, like once or twice a year and see if they fix it, but I don't expect that they will and it's likely to get further away from MP as has been the trend for the last couple of alphas.  There really hasn't been any other discussion of MP because they all left already and it's just us few stragglers. 

 

"See, nobody really wants multiplayer."

 

 

[Matt115]

1 hour ago, RyanX said:

Before I even start, when I use the word "multiplayer" I mean more than 20 people, and up to about 40-50 people on a single server.

 

Funny thing is, I haven't signed in for quite a while (quit playing when I tried to find a MP server in the new browser and it was ridiculous) and this was on my notifications also.  But realistically, multiplayer is finished and I think we are resigned to it.  I might check back in later to see if they fix the server browser, but as it stands now, the group I play with has moved on.  We got our money's worth and the devs made a boatload of money, and really, they are finished also.  This isn't the labor of love it once was and it's being milked for all it can until it's dead.  I don't fault anybody, though.  In fact, more power to them.  I think you and I (along with many others before us) have reached the "acceptance" stage of grief.  Multiplayer has been killed, we raged, denied, all that stuff....it's time to find something else.  I'll check back in from time to time, like once or twice a year and see if they fix it, but I don't expect that they will and it's likely to get further away from MP as has been the trend for the last couple of alphas.  There really hasn't been any other discussion of MP because they all left already and it's just us few stragglers. 

 

"See, nobody really wants multiplayer."

 

 

Well - this is not about money but "vision" - they wanted to create "small game" for 8 people - This is MP too. and it was sure from begining. You played in more that 20 people but it wasn't "offical" feature. When i was 15 yo old i was playing in volleyball using metal bar ( this was used to put a carpet on and beat it using stick to clean from ashes)  as volleyball net.  this bar was removed because less people have carpets and they wanted to make something there. So it wasn't killed because well.. i think still a lot of people playing in 2-8. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Matt115 (see edit history)

[Rotor]

No habla!

[Melange]

1 hour ago, Rotor said:

No habla!

Not Spanish, it's Mandarin. And it seems your Spanish grammar is not quite up to par either, Senor Rotor.

 

Obviously @zmg522 doesn't know that the rules of this forum requires English. Give him a break. 

 

You'd be amazed how many Chinese speaking players are able to use online translators to understand this forum...and they do it daily.

 

But if you'll send me 400 yuan, I can hook you up with a server kit....☺️

 

 

[Hollowprime]

Yeah I haven't touched the multiplayer since A20. Used to play a lot of funny PvP servers where I'd construct nice defenses and zombie-to-player traps.

[Howlune]

3 hours ago, Hollowprime said:

Yeah I haven't touched the multiplayer since A20. Used to play a lot of funny PvP servers where I'd construct nice defenses and zombie-to-player traps.

Yes and unfortunately it's barely possible now, and every time I have been on these forums explaining in detail the state of things or how they could be improved, I am straight up bombarded by people who would have you believe the pimps can do no wrong nor have done any wrong. It simply comes down to the game running so much worse network wise than it ever has.

I had no idea things like turrets absolutely spam 1000s of netpackages to players a minute and havent been fixed since their inception, or why a player 4000m away from another player will still send them every sound, block damage, action, movement... just every type of netpackage there is despite the distance between them.

Its horribly managed and a huge community has been displaced because of it, and then were told that our concerns arent important because of the game's "vision".

Edited September 7, 2022 by Howlune (see edit history)

[meganoth]

13 hours ago, Howlune said:

Yes and unfortunately it's barely possible now, and every time I have been on these forums explaining in detail the state of things or how they could be improved, I am straight up bombarded by people who would have you believe the pimps can do no wrong nor have done any wrong. It simply comes down to the game running so much worse network wise than it ever has.

I had no idea things like turrets absolutely spam 1000s of netpackages to players a minute and havent been fixed since their inception, or why a player 4000m away from another player will still send them every sound, block damage, action, movement... just every type of netpackage there is despite the distance between them.

Its horribly managed and a huge community has been displaced because of it, and then were told that our concerns arent important because of the game's "vision".

 

Does it matter? The thing you really want is that the TFP developers improve the network. Acknowledgement from rando forum user won't help you a bit.

 

[Howlune]

9 minutes ago, meganoth said:

 

Does it matter? The thing you really want is that the TFP developers improve the network. Acknowledgement from rando forum user won't help you a bit.

 

I was using an opportunity to vent further despite running past relevancy to his comment.

[THE HOBO KING]

I think he's going with the slimmest-but-most-promising chance that a developer who loves the game and wants to see it grow will actually read these words and find a way of it.

 

Hello, I've played for several years and recently launched one of these servers geared towards high population and PVP. I'd like to add to these pretty much absolutely true opines, criticisms and suggestions given by those who host high-pop servers. A20.4 and since cannot sustain a population over 30 players without encountering serious issues, where previous to this at least another 10+ could be herded on. That particular update was a regression in user support. I see games like Rust able to handle 100-player populations that have an exponential amount of total users compared to 7 Days, a game I far prefer. I think high-pop servers are an obvious market that has unfortunately been even more lost to this game in the past year. A company that wants to make money and a company that wants to get more popular should grow wise to this concept. 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!'.

 

Furthermore, given the lack of product focus in this direction, some destructive elements have been introduced in the form of NAIWAZI, a much-improved version that fixes many banes of the "7 Days network", and thus engenders servers capable of sustaining a large population with relative ease. However, what it also does is bypass EAC. As a result, one finds that many of the top servers listed have a large population that will lure in the newer, unwise players, but ultimately are inundated by a raft of easy-to-deploy cheats and 3rd party software hax that EAC would easily detect and abjure. This rise in frequency of cheaters relative to server population means that a lot of your new players - some used to an experience like the aforementioned Rust and it's high-pop slot numbers - will encounter this destructive behavior and naturally be influenced by its pervasiveness during their experience with 7 Days to Die. This also means you will lose more honest players due to attrition. As a host, I now understand more than ever the rigorous demands it takes to keep this game clean of cheaters.

 

I think the non-response from Fun Pimps on these issues is disappointing and they should take a serious, evaluative look at resources to fix their code in order to sustain the fair, high-population servers we love and enjoy in many other modern games.

 

To the creators and curators, this game is very unique, and it is an experience worth sharing. I've enjoyed my time playing and I am enjoying my time as a host.

 

You can do so much better than this.

[bdubyah]

While I'm sure the netcode can be cleaned up, and they have said they hired someone to work on it, I just don't understand this constant "I know this game has only ever supported 8 players, but I want more because other game can" line of reasoning people keep spewing here. Could working on the netcode make more players possible? Sure, as it has before been possible. But when the focus has always been 8 players, putting time to purposely try and go above that will just take away from other areas. They've never even suggested they would raise their supported player count, so take it as getting lucky that more than 8 has ever worked at all. Maybe if you instead could show evidence of the netcode being crap or how tweaking it allows better gameplay, maybe you would get their attention. But constantly whining that even though you're aware of the supported cap but are ignoring it and crying anyway isn't gonna help much.

 

Comparing Rust and 7 Days is just dumb. They aren't even remotely close in terms of how they work. You just cannot compare a static world like Rust to a voxel game like 7 Days. What game have you played that has all the features and destructibility 7D has that has 50+ player caps?

 

Also, you've played for years, and known for years that 8 is and always has been the max supported and yet you buy a server trying to host a large PVP server? I just don't get the thinking there. That's like buying a sports car, knowing full well it is useless offroad and taking it there anyway. And then complaining to the manufacturer because it isn't as good as it could be. Should they redesign their car so it suits your needs, or should you go find a different vehicle?

[Melange]

3 hours ago, bdubyah said:

Should they redesign their car so it suits your needs, or should you go find a different vehicle?

I've found an in-game vehicle that's awesome. It's called a Marauder. Don't happen to to know who created it do ya?

 

I'm not much into PVP servers. But many folk are. And those who want more than eight players on a server in that environment have to turn off EAC, which yes, kinda kills the PVP experience. So, maybe the constraints are imposed by EAC and TFP is not to blame? Only askin'...

[meganoth]

4 hours ago, Melange said:

I've found an in-game vehicle that's awesome. It's called a Marauder. Don't happen to to know who created it do ya?

 

I'm not much into PVP servers. But many folk are. And those who want more than eight players on a server in that environment have to turn off EAC, which yes, kinda kills the PVP experience. So, maybe the constraints are imposed by EAC and TFP is not to blame? Only askin'...

 

Unlikely. Previous versions of 7D2D allowed more players and every recent alpha and the even the minor update to 20.4 reduced that number.

 

 

[meganoth]

9 hours ago, THE HOBO KING said:

I think he's going with the slimmest-but-most-promising chance that a developer who loves the game and wants to see it grow will actually read these words and find a way of it.

 

Hello, I've played for several years and recently launched one of these servers geared towards high population and PVP. I'd like to add to these pretty much absolutely true opines, criticisms and suggestions given by those who host high-pop servers. A20.4 and since cannot sustain a population over 30 players without encountering serious issues, where previous to this at least another 10+ could be herded on. That particular update was a regression in user support. I see games like Rust able to handle 100-player populations that have an exponential amount of total users compared to 7 Days, a game I far prefer. I think high-pop servers are an obvious market that has unfortunately been even more lost to this game in the past year. A company that wants to make money and a company that wants to get more popular should grow wise to this concept. 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!'.

 

Furthermore, given the lack of product focus in this direction, some destructive elements have been introduced in the form of NAIWAZI, a much-improved version that fixes many banes of the "7 Days network", and thus engenders servers capable of sustaining a large population with relative ease. However, what it also does is bypass EAC. As a result, one finds that many of the top servers listed have a large population that will lure in the newer, unwise players, but ultimately are inundated by a raft of easy-to-deploy cheats and 3rd party software hax that EAC would easily detect and abjure. This rise in frequency of cheaters relative to server population means that a lot of your new players - some used to an experience like the aforementioned Rust and it's high-pop slot numbers - will encounter this destructive behavior and naturally be influenced by its pervasiveness during their experience with 7 Days to Die. This also means you will lose more honest players due to attrition. As a host, I now understand more than ever the rigorous demands it takes to keep this game clean of cheaters.

 

I think the non-response from Fun Pimps on these issues is disappointing and they should take a serious, evaluative look at resources to fix their code in order to sustain the fair, high-population servers we love and enjoy in many other modern games.

 

There was a response. In another thread one of the dev-team (who normally doesn't post here) entered the discussion, asked for some information and (he or Roland) said that they hired a new programmer recently to improve the netcode.

 

Now relevant changes to the netcode to improve the situation are not something you put out as a bugfix into alpha20.6. Those are changes that need lots of time to plan, write and test them, and they have serious implications on security, so you want to make doubly sure you looked at everything twice before you send it out.

 

So any improvements will come with A21, not a second earlier. And since TFP are not very forthcoming with inside information it is not at all surprising to me that you don't hear anything from them. Maybe the improvement, if they come with A21, will be mentioned in a dev stream. But I would not be surprised if you just see some lines in the changelog pointing to the work once A21 is out.

 

 

9 hours ago, THE HOBO KING said:

 

To the creators and curators, this game is very unique, and it is an experience worth sharing. I've enjoyed my time playing and I am enjoying my time as a host.

 

You can do so much better than this.

 

[Matt115]

10 hours ago, THE HOBO KING said:

I think he's going with the slimmest-but-most-promising chance that a developer who loves the game and wants to see it grow will actually read these words and find a way of it.

 

Hello, I've played for several years and recently launched one of these servers geared towards high population and PVP. I'd like to add to these pretty much absolutely true opines, criticisms and suggestions given by those who host high-pop servers. A20.4 and since cannot sustain a population over 30 players without encountering serious issues, where previous to this at least another 10+ could be herded on. That particular update was a regression in user support. I see games like Rust able to handle 100-player populations that have an exponential amount of total users compared to 7 Days, a game I far prefer. I think high-pop servers are an obvious market that has unfortunately been even more lost to this game in the past year. A company that wants to make money and a company that wants to get more popular should grow wise to this concept. 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!'.

 

Furthermore, given the lack of product focus in this direction, some destructive elements have been introduced in the form of NAIWAZI, a much-improved version that fixes many banes of the "7 Days network", and thus engenders servers capable of sustaining a large population with relative ease. However, what it also does is bypass EAC. As a result, one finds that many of the top servers listed have a large population that will lure in the newer, unwise players, but ultimately are inundated by a raft of easy-to-deploy cheats and 3rd party software hax that EAC would easily detect and abjure. This rise in frequency of cheaters relative to server population means that a lot of your new players - some used to an experience like the aforementioned Rust and it's high-pop slot numbers - will encounter this destructive behavior and naturally be influenced by its pervasiveness during their experience with 7 Days to Die. This also means you will lose more honest players due to attrition. As a host, I now understand more than ever the rigorous demands it takes to keep this game clean of cheaters.

 

I think the non-response from Fun Pimps on these issues is disappointing and they should take a serious, evaluative look at resources to fix their code in order to sustain the fair, high-population servers we love and enjoy in many other modern games.

 

To the creators and curators, this game is very unique, and it is an experience worth sharing. I've enjoyed my time playing and I am enjoying my time as a host.

 

You can do so much better than this.

7dtd is  constructred for Max 8 players. If you create server with more people ---> nice but if doesn't works good it's yours problem.

7dtd isn't focused on high-populated PVP servers. it focused more on SP and Coop - PVP is just addition.

[RyanX]

On 9/12/2022 at 10:55 AM, Matt115 said:

7dtd is  constructred for Max 8 players. If you create server with more people ---> nice but if doesn't works good it's yours problem.

7dtd isn't focused on high-populated PVP servers. it focused more on SP and Coop - PVP is just addition.

We all agree this is true and it's been said ad nauseum. 

 

BUT...when many of us purchased the game (I think I did in A15) there were many multiplayer servers running higher player counts.  This attracted many, many of us to the game.  There are features which showed that the direction of the game was going towards higher player counts.  For example, why are vending machines able to be purchased by players?  This isn't an item that will be used on 8 player servers.  These are (or were) however used extensively on larger multiplayer servers.  There were many, many of these servers and, although buggy, were playable.  They have taken away even the ability to play this way.

 

It's one thing to say that this game isn't intended for larger multiplayer servers, but it's another to have supported this ability in the past and then to negate it.

[SylenThunder]

23 minutes ago, RyanX said:

We all agree this is true and it's been said ad nauseum. 

 

BUT...when many of us purchased the game (I think I did in A15) there were many multiplayer servers running higher player counts.  This attracted many, many of us to the game.  There are features which showed that the direction of the game was going towards higher player counts.  For example, why are vending machines able to be purchased by players?  This isn't an item that will be used on 8 player servers.  These are (or were) however used extensively on larger multiplayer servers.  There were many, many of these servers and, although buggy, were playable.  They have taken away even the ability to play this way.

 

It's one thing to say that this game isn't intended for larger multiplayer servers, but it's another to have supported this ability in the past and then to negate it.

And there is the rub.

 

It was never supported.  You can claim it was supported because there were larger servers out there, but it was never supported.

 

If you do some actual research, you will see where I have performed extreme hardware testing for most of the releases and clearly stated that 20 players is a hard cap to the capabilities of the client to support and retain stable data. With a server designed to run AI that is easily 10 times faster in both compute and storage bandwidth than anything provided by hosting companies I was not able to go larger than 30 players. 

 

The problem here is that you assume. Simply because you saw it, and you want it.

That absolutely does not mean that it is supported.

And therein lies your issue.

 

Stop living a lie.

[Matt115]

47 minutes ago, RyanX said:

We all agree this is true and it's been said ad nauseum. 

 

BUT...when many of us purchased the game (I think I did in A15) there were many multiplayer servers running higher player counts.  This attracted many, many of us to the game.  There are features which showed that the direction of the game was going towards higher player counts.  For example, why are vending machines able to be purchased by players?  This isn't an item that will be used on 8 player servers.  These are (or were) however used extensively on larger multiplayer servers.  There were many, many of these servers and, although buggy, were playable.  They have taken away even the ability to play this way.

 

It's one thing to say that this game isn't intended for larger multiplayer servers, but it's another to have supported this ability in the past and then to negate it.

There never was features that show that's their intention - vending machines can be able to purchased by players but point was that is for "there are npc in the world and they can buy it - something to make world more alive". this is from 7dtd wiki

 

"Player-Rentable Vending Machines can be rented for a fee of 2500 Duke's Casino Tokens. The fee covers the renting of the machine for 30 days. During this time, the player can add items from their inventory to the vending machine. Prices can be increased above Standard price or reduced to as low as 20% of Standard Price. From Player-rented vending machines, other players may purchase the items that have been placed within. Sometimes, items are sold to NPCs. (NPCs in this regard exist only as buyers; they can neither be seen, interacted with, or otherwise dealt with.) Exact mechanics of this selling to NPCs are not known currently, but Price is said to have some effect. Note that upon expiration of a rent, all items still in the machine are lost! (This is as of Alpha 19.6, unconfirmed in further game updates.)"

 

So as you can read - it wasn't create for "bigger servers".

And they never supported bigger that 8 players servers.

But TFP member wrote few times they are focused on SP/coop.

 

46 minutes ago, SylenThunder said:

And there is the rub.

 

It was never supported.  You can claim it was supported because there were larger servers out there, but it was never supported.

 

If you do some actual research, you will see where I have performed extreme hardware testing for most of the releases and clearly stated that 20 players is a hard cap to the capabilities of the client to support and retain stable data. With a server designed to run AI that is easily 10 times faster in both compute and storage bandwidth than anything provided by hosting companies I was not able to go larger than 30 players. 

 

The problem here is that you assume. Simply because you saw it, and you want it.

That absolutely does not mean that it is supported.

And therein lies your issue.

 

Stop living a lie.

I see so many people that want 7dtd to became Rust or Dayz so... why they just don't go to play in this game xd

[Roland]

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.

Edited September 17, 2022 by Roland (see edit history)

[RyanX]

6 hours ago, SylenThunder said:

And there is the rub.

 

It was never supported.  You can claim it was supported because there were larger servers out there, but it was never supported.

 

If you do some actual research, you will see where I have performed extreme hardware testing for most of the releases and clearly stated that 20 players is a hard cap to the capabilities of the client to support and retain stable data. With a server designed to run AI that is easily 10 times faster in both compute and storage bandwidth than anything provided by hosting companies I was not able to go larger than 30 players. 

 

The problem here is that you assume. Simply because you saw it, and you want it.

That absolutely does not mean that it is supported.

And therein lies your issue.

 

Stop living a lie.

 

It was a bad choice of words when I said "supported".  You over-focus on the word "supported" and really snagged hard onto that.

 

What I should have said is:

 

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.

 

This last sentence can't be disputed.  Yes, it's early access, it's their game and they can do what they want with it.  I've heard about a thousand times "It's not supported above 8 players" and "It's early access, it was never guaranteed, it's not their vision" .  Those thoughts are overused and everyone knows  it already, so every other post does not need to say "It's not supported above 8 players" and "early access games can change any time".  No duh...we all know that.

 

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.