Some Steam Charts

[Poojam]

You guys should add a Battle Royale mode where the radiation zone keeps shrinking. I'm halfway serious.

 

I think they could definitely do this, but I don't think it would be anywhere near as successful. First, they are unconcerned with supporting more than 8 players. Their resource allocation and game design are not based to support sufficient numbers of concurrent players for a, say, 50 or 100 person server to work. 40-45 is about max at this time, and it's pretty sticky at that population. The servers that can handle it are pretty expensive too, as they are resource hogs.

 

If you have that many folks on a server, and you get two guys running around with AK's in a small room, the FPS is very poor. It's not an enjoyable altercation. Because of the resource limitation, the game is severely gimped for attracting and retaining a PVP Battle Royale crowd. Many people have elevated this concern of server population for various reasons (large PVP servers, large PVE servers, awesome performance on solo/small servers etc), but TFP have indicated it's out of scope/impossible. I don't know enough about Unity to know if they are knowledgeable and averse, or just justifying their design decision as it corresponds to less hard (probably very hard) work/or a complete redesign.

 

I would be overjoyed if they came out and said "sorry, A17 took so long because we did a redesign and shifted to cloud-based servers that enable us to support 100's of players/NPC's/zombies as well as severely hinder hackers since the assets are no longer stored locally. You also don't have to rent $100/month servers now. We have plenty of room to grow. We also built a robust server and mod manager so you can have all the server tools you need and tweak things to your hearts content, and players will just be confronted with a download when joining the server. Steam workshop will be coming in A18, where the community can share or even purchase in-game assets (prefabs and vehicles)." If executed well, that would be a game revamp that would sell another 10 million copies. These are the types of updates that should be done in an ALPHA. NOT reskinning the world for the fifteenth time.

[LuckyStar]

Glad you mentioned The Forest.

 

Fantastic game!

 

Doesn't have replay-ability like 7DTD but soooo worth the money.

Have a lot of hours into that one.

[Darthjake]

I've played several of these games, my problem with Ark was the extreme survival curve at the start, and the slow grind of resources. I still play with friends but only on a private, modded server.

 

Rust would have been fun except for the people that found ways to screw with you even if you were on a PVE server.

 

The long dark was interesting but the sheer lack of resources, and my own difficulty navigating in the game hampered my enjoyment.

[JCrook1028]

Glad you mentioned The Forest.

 

Fantastic game!

 

Doesn't have replay-ability like 7DTD but soooo worth the money.

Have a lot of hours into that one.

 

We've got very different opinions of what makes a fantastic game. If it isn't replayable imo it's not only not fantastic but I won't buy it at all.

[Poojam]

Silly TFP would be multi-millionairs by now if they read the pimp dreams section 5 years ago ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?82-A-collection-of-features-for-a-better-post-apocalyptic-zombie-survival-simulation (end of post, "game modes" section)

 

It's tough to look at in retrospect, because the actual implementation matters. However, I think your theory is correct. They would have sold a lot more copies if they built a game that was centered around the more popular player interactions fostering a competitive environment.

 

There was a time in about A9 or maybe A10 where Madmole played with some friends, who were noobs. He got really frustrated, because they couldn't figure out how to play very well/make ammunition etc. Ever since then he's focused on simplifying the game and making everything you acquire or do more of a linear progression, because he thinks people need that to avoid getting turned off on the game. I think his friends were particularly annoyed by the crafting grid, which is understandable. It had a wonky sort of charm that was reminiscent of minecraft, but I get how it could be infuriating to learn for some people. It was also very bad for use with a controller setup, which is what they were really after. The recipes were just another skill that took time to learn though. In actuality, many of the people that used to play the game loved the complexity and free roaming nature of it. It felt like a true sandbox where you spent your time figuring out how to build, fight zombies, scavenge, raid, and fight your neighbor. Now you can still do that, but you have to do 100 days worth of farming, leveling, scavenging in a certain order to be efficient. Fighting people on an established server is retarded because the people that were already on the server will have 2.5x as much health, 50% more damage, and approx 100% of additional resistance from armor/damage mitigation. It's just pretty dumb, and no amount of work would make it mainstream competitive in this incarnation.

 

I honestly can't fathom why they can't just utilize greater zombie diversity, zombie damage scaling, higher level weapony, or simply calculate zombie damage (and/or player resistance to zombie damage) differently than player inflicted damage so that the force multiplier isn't totally out of whack in PVP while also supporting their durability progression goal in PVE. It just HAS to be this certain way, because I'm pretty sure that's simply the way they wrote it, and PVP must suffer for it. Because, like, "PVP is not the focus", or in other words, we don't really care.

[RestInPieces]

It's tough to look at in retrospect, because the actual implementation matters. However, I think your theory is correct. They would have sold a lot more copies if they built a game that was centered around the more popular player interactions fostering a competitive environment.

 

There was a time in about A9 or maybe A10 where Madmole played with some friends, who were noobs. He got really frustrated, because they couldn't figure out how to play very well/make ammunition etc. Ever since then he's focused on simplifying the game and making everything you acquire or do more of a linear progression, because he thinks people need that to avoid getting turned off on the game. I think his friends were particularly annoyed by the crafting grid, which is understandable. It had a wonky sort of charm that was reminiscent of minecraft, but I get how it could be infuriating to learn for some people. It was also very bad for use with a controller setup, which is what they were really after. The recipes were just another skill that took time to learn though. In actuality, many of the people that used to play the game loved the complexity and free roaming nature of it. It felt like a true sandbox where you spent your time figuring out how to build, fight zombies, scavenge, raid, and fight your neighbor. Now you can still do that, but you have to do 100 days worth of farming, leveling, scavenging in a certain order to be efficient. Fighting people on an established server is retarded because the people that were already on the server will have 2.5x as much health, 50% more damage, and approx 100% of additional resistance from armor/damage mitigation. It's just pretty dumb, and no amount of work would make it mainstream competitive in this incarnation.

 

I honestly can't fathom why they can't just utilize greater zombie diversity, zombie damage scaling, higher level weapony, or simply calculate zombie damage (and/or player resistance to zombie damage) differently than player inflicted damage so that the force multiplier isn't totally out of whack in PVP while also supporting their durability progression goal in PVE. It just HAS to be this certain way, because I'm pretty sure that's simply the way they wrote it, and PVP must suffer for it. Because, like, "PVP is not the focus", or in other words, we don't really care.

 

I think these game modes described in that thread (or similar) could achieve some extra traction for the game because of the "short match philosophy" + the element of competitiveness, which people will often come back to.

 

Back when we were discussing if PvP has a place in the sandbox mode of the game, Gazz said that progression had to be much faster in order for it to have meaning. Which is correct, but as you said it is not a big deal to differentiate zombies from players. Perhaps they could add players to a different collision layer and calculate damage with damage/maxhp divisions instead of flat numbers for pvp, with only small differentiations of weapon damage, so that it's fair but not completely equal (keeping damage reduction), but I really have no idea. As for other problems like new player griefing etc, I think that there are a lot of sollutions with imposed game mechanics - Fallout 76 will tackle that pve+pvp that way as well.

[brockolious]

Just wanted to add that Subnautica had a remarkable 1.0 launch, as well. I couldn't flip through my YT feed without seeing Markiplier, IGP, Jacksepticeye, and tons more playing the hell out of it.

 

It seems to be rare that an EA game finally going 1.0 achieves a second injection of sales and concurrent players without the company funding a massive, massive marketing/online push. That has got to take some serious financial discipline/planning/investing if the devs are doing all that work without a publisher.

 

At least that's what I took from it.

[Gazz]

All of that was nit-picky, though. It's true that TFP could have made more money if they had done things differently. I won't refute that. I will say that I'm sure they know that and clearly are unconcerned. Some people aren't out to get all the money that they possibly can get. I know that some of you just can't fathom that.

I know it sounds crazy but the KS was literally to make the game that the bosses wanted to play but no one wanted to make. A game with actual gameplay - not just PVP - that could be played SP.

Also not just a theme park / sandbox where the winning condition (when you stop playing) is when you reach a critical level of boredom.

 

Should they have made yet another battle royale game (YABRG) instead?

I guess it would have been a lot simpler because then you don't need much more than moving and shooting.

[RestInPieces]

have made yet another battle royale game (YABRG) instead?

I guess it would have been a lot simpler because then you don't need much more than moving and shooting.

 

To be fair 5 years ago it wouldn't be YABRG. Anyway a small scale game mode with a few players competing like the ones I describe in the thread I linked, shouldn't be too hard to make in a map 1/20 the size of navez. I am a fan of the sandbox/survival part of the game myself, but these things can bring a serious boost to the game's coverage.

[Jedo]

To be fair 5 years ago it wouldn't be YABRG. Anyway a small scale game mode with a few players competing like the ones I describe in the thread I linked, shouldn't be too hard to make in a map 1/20 the size of navez. I am a fan of the sandbox/survival part of the game myself, but these things can bring a serious boost to the game's coverage.

 

Why are some people so concerned to bring "a serious boost to the game's coverage" for TFP? Somebody who is concerned with this, please answer.

[RestInPieces]

Why are some people so concerned to bring "a serious boost to the game's coverage" for TFP? Somebody who is concerned with this, please answer.

 

I bought some TFP stocks some time ago...

 

Seriously though, it's just a hobby of mine, thinking of ways to do stuff like these ;p

[Jedo]

Do you do the same for Bethesda, Rockstar, or EA? What about for Apple, Microsoft, or Google? Just trying to understand.

[RestInPieces]

Do you do the same for Bethesda, Rockstar, or EA? What about for Apple, Microsoft, or Google? Just trying to understand.

 

Yes, sometimes. Should have seen my windows 10 UX feedback, what a nightmare. For EA though? These guys have already sold their soul to the devil.

[OldManBrian]

I know it sounds crazy but the KS was literally to make the game that the bosses wanted to play but no one wanted to make. A game with actual gameplay - not just PVP - that could be played SP.

Also not just a theme park / sandbox where the winning condition (when you stop playing) is when you reach a critical level of boredom.

 

Should they have made yet another battle royale game (YABRG) instead?

I guess it would have been a lot simpler because then you don't need much more than moving and shooting.

 

I was joking about the battle royal thing! Every game maker out there is just adding "hot feature X!" to their game, rinse and repeat.

 

You guys are the only ones making something worth playing on the long term in my opinion, where as everyone else is just interested in the latest gaming fad to maximize revenue. I honestly couldn't care less about "hot feature X" PvP, and anyway there's TONS of choices out there for those that are focused on it.

 

Singleplayer, PvE, and CO-OP is where it's at for me. This is the ONLY game that has gratifying building mechanics, interesting randomly generated maps with TONS of POIs, vehicles, gratifying looting mechanics, tower defense mechanics, as well as RPG and questing mechanics.

 

It's my perfect game!

[Poojam]

Why are some people so concerned to bring "a serious boost to the game's coverage" for TFP? Somebody who is concerned with this, please answer.

 

Go look at the OP

[Poojam]

I was joking about the battle royal thing! Every game maker out there is just adding "hot feature X!" to their game, rinse and repeat.

 

You guys are the only ones making something worth playing on the long term in my opinion, where as everyone else is just interested in the latest gaming fad to maximize revenue.

 

Seems like you're trivializing competitive player vs player games. I can assure you that the people playing them having been doing it for a long time, and will be doing it for a long time after this game is antiquated and forgotten. Would sure be nice if they got 'dem some o that pee vee pee elements, so they might have a chance to create a community into the forseeable future. No community, no one plays it, and the ONLY people that are happy are the solo'ers/small co-ops. Congratuations 10,000 people of the many millions that bought the game, you got what you wanted.

 

 

This is the ONLY game that has gratifying building mechanics, interesting randomly generated maps with TONS of POIs,

 

Completely agree.

[Poojam]

I know it sounds crazy but the KS was literally to make the game that the bosses wanted to play but no one wanted to make. A game with actual gameplay - not just PVP - that could be played SP.

Also not just a theme park / sandbox where the winning condition (when you stop playing) is when you reach a critical level of boredom.

 

Should they have made yet another battle royale game (YABRG) instead?

I guess it would have been a lot simpler because then you don't need much more than moving and shooting.

 

Doesn't sound crazy at all.

 

I'm not just advocating for a simple theme park/sandbox. Some progression is okay, just not this much. I'm advocating for design decisions to be made that understand there are an awful lot of people (myself primarily - just to be clear) that want this game to have some support for a competitive environment between players.

 

Take a look at this thread. There are dozens of ideas that can be used to achieve these goals. The implementation of many of them would have negligable impacts on PVE/Co-OP experience as well. Some are suited better for an isolated game mode, but many are capable to be introduced in this build environment. For example, can we make sound travel more than 250 meters for guns and power tools so that players can actually hear each other? This seems to literally affect nothing with regards to zombies and a coop experience. We're all wandering around in the dark trying to hunt each other with dowsing rods, so to speak.

https://7daystodie.com/forums/showthread.php?86578-Lets-help-TFP-improve-PvP

 

I tested it with a friend. You can see someone and shoot at them with a sniper rifle, but they can't hear the sound. That's how wrong this is.

[Jedo]

Go look at the OP

 

I did. When I read the stuff Roland posted, I think, "Interesting," and I move on with my life. When these concerned people look at it (you?), they think, "I need to fix...something." Why does one want to fix whatever they think there is to fix? (Why they think there is something to fix is a different matter entirely.)

[OzHawkeye]

Seems like you're trivializing competitive player vs player games. I can assure you that the people playing them having been doing it for a long time, and will be doing it for a long time after this game is antiquated and forgotten. Would sure be nice if they got 'dem some o that pee vee pee elements, so they might have a chance to create a community into the forseeable future. No community, no one plays it, and the ONLY people that are happy are the solo'ers/small co-ops. Congratuations 10,000 people of the many millions that bought the game, you got what you wanted.

 

 

 

 

Completely agree.

 

You're assuming there that the vast majority (in fact, by your numbers something like 99.99% of the playerbase is PVP'ers).

 

I STAGGERINGLY highly doubt that.

[meganoth]

Congratuations 10,000 people of the many millions that bought the game, you got what you wanted.

 

Concratulations on making up statistics out of thin air.

 

I tested it with a friend. You can see someone and shoot at them with a sniper rifle, but they can't hear the sound. That's how wrong this is.

 

It is a sensible suggestion to change that. And I think it will be. But we should never forget, it is our own choice playing an EA game, we have "signed the waiver" not to expect a finished and fully working game.

[RestInPieces]

I did. When I read the stuff Roland posted, I think, "Interesting," and I move on with my life. When these concerned people look at it (you?), they think, "I need to fix...something." Why does one want to fix whatever they think there is to fix? (Why they think there is something to fix is a different matter entirely.)

 

Because if forums were filled with people that said "Interesting" and moved on with their life, they wouldn't be any forums. Didn't you comment on what building perks could do the other day? One could say "why do you feel the need to fix anything about building, it's fine the way it is".

 

It's just feedback and discussion, nothing wrong with it.

[Jedo]

Because if forums were filled with people that said "Interesting" and moved on with their life, they wouldn't be any forums. Didn't you comment on what building perks could do the other day? One could say "why do you feel the need to fix anything about building, it's fine the way it is".

 

It's just feedback and discussion, nothing wrong with it.

 

As Roland has demonstrated before, there's a difference between giving feedback on mechanics and trying to fix TFP's business model/plan. You don't see a difference between saying, "A good building perk might be X," and "TFP needs to hop on the Battle Royale train so that they get more players"? (Don't get hung up on the examples.)

 

Besides, I'm not advocating an end of discussion. I'm trying to understand this desire to fix TFP.

[RestInPieces]

As Roland has demonstrated before, there's a difference between giving feedback on mechanics and trying to fix TFP's business model/plan. You don't see a difference between saying, "A good building perk might be X," and "TFP needs to hop on the Battle Royale train so that they get more players"? (Don't get hung up on the examples.)

 

Besides, I'm not advocating an end of discussion. I'm trying to understand this desire to fix TFP.

 

How would someone not working in TFP "try to fix their planning" in the first place? It implies that they are taking some action to do it, which is impossible, so the correct wording would be "giving feedback about TFP's planning".

 

(Edited to answer your question in a better way): And someone would give feedback about TFP's planning for the same reason someone voices their opinion about the e.g. building perks. Because he thinks it will improve the game. And my question is, why not?

[Jedo]

I think we've drifted a bit here. I started asking why people are trying to boost TFP's coverage (whether that is through marketing or adding in more elements that have mass appeal). It isn't just idle discussion of features that people would like. I would boil this down to a concern to make sure that TFP sells more copies of the game or keeps people invested in the game for years to come.

 

Why?

 

(You, RestInPieces, made it seem like an idle hobby. Ok. If that's the reason for most discussions like that, then I can chalk it up to a difference in interests. If there's a different reason--one more targeted or intentional--then I want to know that reason.)

[Poojam]

I think we've drifted a bit here. I started asking why people are trying to boost TFP's coverage (whether that is through marketing or adding in more elements that have mass appeal). It isn't just idle discussion of features that people would like. I would boil this down to a concern to make sure that TFP sells more copies of the game or keeps people invested in the game for years to come.

 

Why?

 

(You, RestInPieces, made it seem like an idle hobby. Ok. If that's the reason for most discussions like that, then I can chalk it up to a difference in interests. If there's a different reason--one more targeted or intentional--then I want to know that reason.)

 

Re-read the last sentence from the OP.

 

"Interested to hear analysis and see more comparison charts with games that have done better or worse than 7 Days to Die and why you believe that to be the case. "