Alpha Test?

[-Robert- 0]

NOTE: "Too long did not read" people, skip to bottom.

So I commonly see "it's an alpha, bruh" thrown around a lot, used as an awful excuse for, well, everything.

I get that, by definition, DayZ is an alpha-level quality release.

The only thing I'm confused about is the "test" part. Any alpha test I've participated in (read: tester, logger, worker. not playing) had means of testing nearly every component or feature that was added. DayZ does not.

Presently, 90% of the population test 5% (running around, inventory, getting killed, respawning) of the game. Indeed, I pulled that figure out of my ass, but I'd bet money it's fairly accurate. The problem with so many whiners, is that DayZ, in all its hardcore difficulty, glitchy glory, is emulating how the game will eventually be intended to play, forcing people to get all angsty about problems they will encounter. I get pissed, only because I am legitimately testing all I can, only to have hours of time building up a character (to actually be able to actively test) wasted on some insane bug. I am not mad because of a sense of entitlement to a stable-ish game - I am mad because I'm volunteering my time to try and help make DayZ better, and I'll likely get curb-stomped for it.

My point is, this is an alpha test, bound for many global wipes, so why not give us the ability to actually test items and features that only <10% of the population can manage to even reach? Think of it. The way things are right now (more ass-found figures), only the top 2-5% can actually test NVGs (read: test, not just play with), 20% can test vehicles, and so on. Especially after the latest hotfixes, people now just commonly die within minutes, much less spend the hours/days trying to meagerly survive, unable to actually test things.

Yes, people should test the hardcore survival aspect of the game. I love testing it. How is anything else ever going to be tested? Other alphas, and even betas, give you tools to modify your char, spawn items, etc. to create/test scenarios that will be encountered in the live/production state of the game. Obviously, these perks won't be carried over, but at least now you can give everyone the chance to test everything, and find all the bugs they otherwise cannot, and don't get found until it's way too late.

Solid example: I should be able to spawn a rangefinder, and make myself invincible, so I can test zombie aggro, tell the ingame range, and make notes. Instead, I have to care about wasting hours of play-test time to simply get to that position.

In closing, DayZ is not yet at the point where people should get butthurt about character power, or egos over items, deaths, kills, etc. It is in too raw of a condition to be so difficult to be allowed to test.

[Mysticales 118]

I used to like servers like UO where it was true debug like on, could console spawn anything. Would need only a couple like that. Rest people NEED to test how hard the game is.. by the hard way.

[deepfried 95]

THe counter to your point is the sheer weight of numbers of testers.

Lets say for arguments sake that there are 100,000 people who have played or are playing DayZ.

Thats still 5000 people "testing" NVG by your 5% statistic, sure only a certain proportion will report back in any way but even so.

[-Robert- 0]

I disagree on the "need" part. It should be a choice.

[dissaifer 3]

You do make some valid points, but there are very few players that are actually willing to do real regression testing.

This is more of a free for all play testing and develop. In a way, both methods have their advantages. Your method tests direction functionality and generally this is easy to test.

The method that is currently being used, appears to be working. Usually, this type of testing is for beta players - but there are instant feedback about functionality, play-ability, and design choices.

I doubt at the stage we are at now, any of this would change, due to the popularity. As for people complaining, that is really maturity issues and best ignored.

[-Robert- 0]

THe counter to your point is the sheer weight of numbers of testers.

Lets say for arguments sake that there are 100' date='000 people who have played or are playing DayZ.

Thats still 5000 people "testing" NVG by your 5% statistic, sure only a certain proportion will report back in any way but even so.

[/quote']

The counter-counter is that those numbers are irrelevant.

Firstly, even my statistic was speculative.

And to piggy-back on your own point, an extremely small amount of people are testing - they are trying to play it like it's a completed game.

Anyhow, trying to say that with high enough numbers, even a tiny amount of people should be sufficient enough to actually test/report is a broken argument. Why is it okay that even a percentage of a percentage are testing, as opposed to the full many-thousands of players?

---

You do make some valid points' date=' but there are very few players that are actually willing to do real regression testing.

This is more of a free for all play testing and develop. In a way, both methods have their advantages. Your method tests direction functionality and generally this is easy to test.

The method that is currently being used, appears to be working. Usually, this type of testing is for beta players - but there are instant feedback about functionality, play-ability, and design choices.

I doubt at the stage we are at now, any of this would change, due to the popularity. As for people complaining, that is really maturity issues and best ignored.

[/quote']

I agree on the first part - I am one of those who enjoy regression testing - I just don't think it should be the only method in such an insanely difficult, unfinished product. That should be saved for the beta-phase.

Second part - I disagree, as this isn't a free for all. In order to actually test anything, you mostly have to play on rails. That is, you have to abide by a certain mindset and path of gameplay to have any success.

Third part - What method is working?

Last part - I agree completely.

[deepfried 95]

' pid='147440' dateline='1340140279']

Why is it okay that even a percentage of a percentage are testing' date=' as opposed to the full many-thousands of players?

[/quote']

Because this is a public alpha... we're not all paid in-house testers. The game has been released to the public just as much for the public to have fun with it as it has for any testing objective. .

[-Robert- 0]

' pid='147440' dateline='1340140279']

Why is it okay that even a percentage of a percentage are testing' date=' as opposed to the full many-thousands of players?

[/quote']

Because this is a public alpha... we're not all paid in-house testers. The game has been released to the public just as much for the public to have fun with it as it has for any testing objective. .

You're using a good debating point, using backwards logic.

This is a public alpha. We're not all paid in-house testers. The only reason alpha quality software is ever released publicly... is for more help testing (read: not playing), and for free! Standing by the point that more people playing/testing makes it fine to restrict the ability to actually test features, is not sane.

Considering the shock that the DayZ popularity has brought to BIS/Rocket/etc, I highly doubt they released it as an alpha for mostly non-testing players.