7 Days to die random gen.. what happened and will they fix it?

[VelocityAus]

Here is why even the max radius 16k / 16k you only have 10 traders spawn could swear there way way more then that when you put map size 5 and it seems like there is wayyyy less towns these days like im talking there was over 50+ now there's maybe 20.

 

also 8k / 8k only spawns 7 traders.

 

I really really hate this current system where it tells which map your spawning doesn't feel like random gen anymore..

 

ill link the differences in images below between the max sizes..

 

 

[crazywildfire]

Well first it would help if this was in the PC section and not the console section.

 

They have said they still have work to do to rwg so some stuff might change a little. As far as map size they said why they changed default to the way it is. Once they get working on rwg maybe some of these things will change some for the default map. I'm sure once they fix some stuff then if you do make a larger map some of those things will iron out. I really don't know it is something i will have to see what they end up doing with it before make a complete judgment.

[SylenThunder]

7 traders should be more than enough for 8 people on a server. That's almost one trader per player.

 

As for the rest, we're in Experimental still. Be patient.

 

Personally though, I like the new layout a lot better than the previous one where you travel 800 meters and are in a completely different biome.

[Wulf]

I agree that the layout of towns is a problem, which i hope they will adress in this experimental.

 

Overall it makes me prefer the A16 RWG, even with its weird stuff like travel 800meters and you just went from a snow to a desert biome.

[Wigbert]

Needs some work but still fun stuff.

 

It would be nice to give users a little more control over the creation process in the future. Like tiered biomes vs Patches of biomes. In the future when the kinks get ironed out.

 

I keep waiting for somebody to pop the question.

 

When will the next patch be out?

 

[jdifran]

Kinyajuu did post that he's aware of the RWG issues and will be addressing them when he has time. Not sure if that means during experimental, some A17.x release, or A18. I hope it's sooner rather than later.

 

EDIT: Someone just popped the question.

[Royal Deluxe]

Seed "Astora" has 8 trader

(the blue marker)

[General Lee]

7 traders should be more than enough for 8 people on a server. That's almost one trader per player.

 

As for the rest, we're in Experimental still. Be patient.

 

Personally though, I like the new layout a lot better than the previous one where you travel 800 meters and are in a completely different biome.

 

Y'all really need to get past this notion of "only 8 players supported". It's a lot more fun when there are more than 8 people playing on a server, especially when more than 8 are logged on at the same time. We've been hearing it for a long time now, and at this point, it's starting to sound like an excuse of some sort.

[DragonFyre]

Y'all really need to get past this notion of "only 8 players supported". It's a lot more fun when there are more than 8 people playing on a server, especially when more than 8 are logged on at the same time. We've been hearing it for a long time now, and at this point, it's starting to sound like an excuse of some sort.

 

the same could be said the other way.

 

you might actually take the time to play the game the way it was intended by the developers instead of trying to make it an mmo that it isn't.

 

there is a reason you've been hearing it for a long time now

[SnowDog1942]

Y'all really need to get past this notion of "only 8 players supported". It's a lot more fun when there are more than 8 people playing on a server, especially when more than 8 are logged on at the same time. We've been hearing it for a long time now, and at this point, it's starting to sound like an excuse of some sort.

 

 

I tried to mod Zelda breath of the wild into an MMO and blamed Nintendo when they didnt support it.

 

They have been saying its single player for so long, its starting to sound like an excuse.

[LuckyStar]

I'm not too worried about RWG for the moment.

 

Looks to me like they got it working for the release and that's about it.

 

Since we already know for sure there's more work being done on it [Largest size doesn't work yet],

it's just a matter of being patient to see what TFP comes up with.

 

For now let's be grateful we've got something at all.

It's not fantastic and lacks replay-ability but for now it's working and it's fun.

[sadpickle]

Tiny towns are pretty lame but it takes so much longer to actually explore a POI, I can see why they would move in that direction.

[VelocityAus]

Y'all really need to get past this notion of "only 8 players supported". It's a lot more fun when there are more than 8 people playing on a server, especially when more than 8 are logged on at the same time. We've been hearing it for a long time now, and at this point, it's starting to sound like an excuse of some sort.

 

I still see this game not as an mmo but as the walking dead where there is heaps of survivors and you either trust them or not with full pvp. if people want to play differently i understand but don't limit the others that want this sort of thing because its not a few people its a lot and if it was a single player game i definitely wouldn't have even looked at it.

[General Lee]

the same could be said the other way.

 

you might actually take the time to play the game the way it was intended by the developers instead of trying to make it an mmo that it isn't.

 

there is a reason you've been hearing it for a long time now

 

The other way? I never mentioned MMO, or anything to do with MMOs. You absolutely missed my point. You also either assumed I've never played the single player game, or on a server with 8 people or less. I already did that, in several different alphas. I enjoy playing on servers with more than 8 people, regardless. I'll take that any day over single player or just a few people. Still sounds like an excuse, one we've been hearing for a long time.

 

I tried to mod Zelda breath of the wild into an MMO and blamed Nintendo when they didnt support it.

 

They have been saying its single player for so long, its starting to sound like an excuse.

 

This makes no sense whatsoever. You're comparing apples to oranges. Once more, I never mentioned anything about MMOs. Also, the game allows for more than 8 players to be connected to a server simultaneously, so when a server allows for more people to connect, it isn't modded. If it were, it would have been showing up in the modded servers list in the past. This isn't about modding anything, and comparing Zelda to this game is silly to begin with.

 

I still see this game not as an mmo but as the walking dead where there is heaps of survivors and you either trust them or not with full pvp. if people want to play differently i understand but don't limit the others that want this sort of thing because its not a few people its a lot and if it was a single player game i definitely wouldn't have even looked at it.

 

I wasn't talking about limiting anything. I'm talking about how anytime servers with more than 8 players come up in conversation, you always hear the devs, mods, or a bunch of sycophants talk about how the game isn't meant to support more than 8 players when it clearly can handle more just fine. The same bugs that come up in games with more than 8 players come up in games with just two, if not one. If they decided to limit servers to just 8 players, you'd definitely see a LOT of people stop playing altogether, and would certainly hurt sales. One might consider that a hint..."we only support 8 players, but we know better than limit the game to just 8."

[.Markus]

It would be too difficult for them to test and balance for 50 players, 40 players, 30,etc. That would be a lot for them to have to get set up and involve too many people having to be ready to test at all times. They can support 8 at a time because that's probably what is feasible right now.

[Kam R.]

It would be too difficult for them to test and balance for 50 players, 40 players, 30,etc. That would be a lot for them to have to get set up and involve too many people having to be ready to test at all times. They can support 8 at a time because that's probably what is feasible right now.

 

They could run a dedicated anytime server, just like any other private person can now and monitor it. Give access to 100 or so select players from all timezones and have a direct link to what really goes on in their game in public multiplayer – which is definitely a very prominent and popular form of 7dtd game out there, besides closed community/ group of friends kinda deals. This may not always be ideal for bug finding/reproducing, but sure as hell would give them a lot of insight on player behavior and economy.

 

On random gen: Only thing I really hope is that they don't ship A17 with the floating POIs. Everything else seems to be a matter of "can be modded" or "can improve with time".

[General Lee]

It would be too difficult for them to test and balance for 50 players, 40 players, 30,etc. That would be a lot for them to have to get set up and involve too many people having to be ready to test at all times. They can support 8 at a time because that's probably what is feasible right now.

 

Now this is something worth posting, thank you. I've seen decent hardware try to handle 50 players at one time, back during A16. It wasn't good, the lag could get pretty bad, pretty much unplayable. The game, however, CAN handle more than 8 players, that much is a given. 20-30 players max seems to be ideal. If nothing else, they should double the number of players that they claim the game supports, because in all my time playing on multiplayer servers, I've never seen 16 players bring a decent server to its knees. In the past, lot's of players using minibikes at the same time could cause issues, but with improvements made in A16 and A17, that is looking a lot more like a thing of the past. The only other major culprit that causes major issues, that I have encountered, would be people gravity mining, collapsing a large structure, or setting off an unreasonable amount of explosives at once.

 

Thanks for the simple, yet very insightful, reply.

[lazyknob]

The other way? I never mentioned MMO, or anything to do with MMOs. You absolutely missed my point. You also either assumed I've never played the single player game, or on a server with 8 people or less. I already did that, in several different alphas. I enjoy playing on servers with more than 8 people, regardless. I'll take that any day over single player or just a few people. Still sounds like an excuse, one we've been hearing for a long time.

 

 

 

This makes no sense whatsoever. You're comparing apples to oranges. Once more, I never mentioned anything about MMOs. Also, the game allows for more than 8 players to be connected to a server simultaneously, so when a server allows for more people to connect, it isn't modded. If it were, it would have been showing up in the modded servers list in the past. This isn't about modding anything, and comparing Zelda to this game is silly to begin with.

 

 

 

I wasn't talking about limiting anything. I'm talking about how anytime servers with more than 8 players come up in conversation, you always hear the devs, mods, or a bunch of sycophants talk about how the game isn't meant to support more than 8 players when it clearly can handle more just fine. The same bugs that come up in games with more than 8 players come up in games with just two, if not one. If they decided to limit servers to just 8 players, you'd definitely see a LOT of people stop playing altogether, and would certainly hurt sales. One might consider that a hint..."we only support 8 players, but we know better than limit the game to just 8."

 

I agree with you that the game is without a doubt more fun in my books with more than 8 players. This notion of 'funner' is undeniable.

 

But the fact has to be accepted that the developers are not willing to accept performance issues for any number greater than that. In fact, I was under the notion it wasn't to be supported for a count of more than 4.

 

There must be restrictions we aren't aware of in the back end of things whether it's to do with the engine or some other techno mumbo jumbo.

[Jugginator]

The only other major culprit that causes major issues, that I have encountered, would be people gravity mining, collapsing a large structure, or setting off an unreasonable amount of explosives at once.

 

Thanks for the simple, yet very insightful, reply.

 

Yeah I mean it can happen, but I understand why they don't claim the game can run with that many people. Like you said about that, it does cause severe server lag to everyone, and I've played on 20+ servers way in the past in 16 that specifically banned people for doing it, and minibikes. And even the strongest servers I've run across when peak player count occurs, have the falling through the ground/chunks not generating leading to a forced server restart. They just didn't design the game with many players in mind, which is fine. 8 seems fine, be really cool if they add in the npc system with factions; have two teams of 4 sided with different factions war with each other.

[.Markus]

They could run a dedicated anytime server, just like any other private person can now and monitor it. Give access to 100 or so select players from all timezones and have a direct link to what really goes on in their game in public multiplayer – which is definitely a very prominent and popular form of 7dtd game out there, besides closed community/ group of friends kinda deals. This may not always be ideal for bug finding/reproducing, but sure as hell would give them a lot of insight on player behavior and economy.

 

On random gen: Only thing I really hope is that they don't ship A17 with the floating POIs. Everything else seems to be a matter of "can be modded" or "can improve with time".

 

The sort of testing I'm talking about isn't really "playing the game" as such. It's getting everyone coordinated a certain way to test a certain thing and then poof we delete that and go on to the next unit test or case test. Over and over and over as a full time job by people who are trained to do such. It's about as far from playing the game as you can get. And it's really hard to set up unless you want to pay people full time money because it's a full time job. So they support 8 players and we can have more than 8 at our own risk.

[Bubbahotetp]

Seed "Astora" has 8 trader

(the blue marker)

 

Might be RNG doing exactly what RNG does, but if those clusterings happen often (I've seen those with my own two eyes) then RNG should get a nudge in the right direction with some limiting factors of how many traders can actually be in the same radius of each other. Works with trees. That last sentence was a joke.

[LordoftheMoo]

The sort of testing I'm talking about isn't really "playing the game" as such. It's getting everyone coordinated a certain way to test a certain thing and then poof we delete that and go on to the next unit test or case test. Over and over and over as a full time job by people who are trained to do such. It's about as far from playing the game as you can get. And it's really hard to set up unless you want to pay people full time money because it's a full time job. So they support 8 players and we can have more than 8 at our own risk.

 

That's what automation is for. There are tools out there that can do all of this, right down to sending packets that simulate specific activities (though writing this stuff can take time and does require precise knowledge of both the automation tools and the game's communications methods). So you could easily set up a test server that is automatically spun up through other tools using build-of-choice, then fire off the automation framework to use <pick a number> of clients doing <pick specific routines, random things, stand around do nothing> on that server, and determine how things went through specific test criteria. Doesn't need humans at all.

 

As for why the cap is around 8, I'm going to guess based on watching linux servers that the reason is more due to how the game threads various tasks and less with "a server can't do it". It seems that no matter how much we've thrown at a server, it never seems to use more than ~2.5 cores worth of available CPU. I admit I haven't split out to see how many threads are doing this, but it seems to cap at under 250%CPU for the one "main" dedi server process. Now, this might be intentional and it might be pinning internally in the code to keep things from spanning all of the available CPUs (there are reasons to do that) but I doubt it. At some point in the future they are going to spend more effort on the MP server side of things and I'm guessing that's when we can probably see that 8 go higher without issues. Also, keep in mind that you can have the fastest CPU on the planet, but if the disk drives aren't also really fast it's not going to matter. I've seen at times when we're all going in opposite directions into new territory that the I/O wait times can start climbing and become a factor, and we're running on an SSD. I can't imagine how it would be on a single spinning disk.

[Pizzalicious]

7 traders should be more than enough for 8 people on a server. That's almost one trader per player.

 

As for the rest, we're in Experimental still. Be patient.

 

Personally though, I like the new layout a lot better than the previous one where you travel 800 meters and are in a completely different biome.

 

editing for future reference