Concerning patches, content and PAIN: A new streamlined deployment method

[worbat 13]

Patches, we all love them, but also hate them for having horrible bugs however being an ALPHA this is to be expected.

So what can we do about it? The most recent hot fixes have sometimes contained content that has added more problems that it's fixed, so how do we fix this I hear you ask? Simple, we streamline the patch release process into a simple tiered structure. Let me explain, Stage one after each Content patch, look for super bugs that cause the game to be pretty much unplayable and release a hot fix in x amount of hours on the same day. This is to get the mod into a playable state so rocket can rest and read up on the most recent tear collection threads. Stage two release a bug fixing patch for the content patch release earlier, this should focus ONLY on bug fixing and bug fixing only, once done it's onto stage 3! Stage 3 is stage one, content.

Content -> Hotfix/if required -> Bugs related to content -> Hotfix/if required :repeat

We can make this even more precise by limiting each content patch to one new feature. "ONE FEATURE!" I hear you bellow out in rage, yes just one. This limits the amount of bugs created any new bugs that appear should be related to the new content added meaning squishing those bugs should be a faster task to complete.

We can add another stage to the patching process, to squish general bugs that don't seem related to content.

1 new item of Content -> Hotfix/if required -> Bugs related to content -> Hotfix/if required -> General bugs -> Hotfix/if required :repeat

Then again I know nothing about coding and only flow diagrams. So feel free to tell me I'm off my rocker and that only coding one new feature at a time is really boring and your still going to do what ever you want. That’s totally fine though, cause I haven't paid you a penny!

[TheGoldElite 0]

Sounds sensible to me :)

[walrus2517 27]

Congratulations! You win the grand prize for being the one millionth person to tell Rocket how he should alter his development cycle. :)

It's his baby. Let's leave it up to him.

[firespray 0]

Congratulations! You win the grand prize for being the one millionth person to tell Rocket how he should alter his development cycle. :)

It's his baby. Let's leave it up to him.

You sure contributed a lot to this thread.

Besides, I don't see anything wrong with his idea, he just recommends to put it in a streamlined process.

[relentless@clear.net.nz 12]

I say throw as much content and changes as possible, cause once it gets to beta you won't really get any more content.

You don't want to get to beta and sit there thinking hey this new game changing mechanic would be awesome..to bad its too late.

When you look at it, the people that this has supposedly impacted/ruined the most have only lost 3-4 days of playing the game. Imagine what these people must be like when they file insurance claims.

[detroilen 2]

Bad idea. This has already been proven a bad idea. Multiple tiny patches, servers patching all the time, game fails. The way big game companies do it is big patches and lots of content but they also test out the patches with huge teams of devs to find bugs before releasing. But even then some are missed. I personally think there should be test servers with the implemented patch where V.I.P. players(that donated to the cause) can try out the new patch and inform the devs about the bugs. Which can then be fixed and released to the public.

[Joyrider (DayZ) 0]

I think that Rocket needs to test some of his patches before he releases them instead.

Shouldn't he have a team of 5 or 10 people that he knows that would be able to test these patches for him? I mean, it honestly took me about 5 minutes before I realized that there were no food or water spawns in 1.7.1

Bad idea. This has already been proven a bad idea. Multiple tiny patches' date=' servers patching all the time, game fails. The way big game companies do it is big patches but they also test out the patches with huge teams of devs to find bugs before releasing. But even then some are missed. I personally think there should be test servers with the implemented patch where V.I.P. players(that donated to the cause) can try out the new patch and inform the devs about the bugs. Which can then be fixed and released to the public.

[/quote']

Or this.

[RachetSmurf 2]

Bad idea. This has already been proven a bad idea. Multiple tiny patches' date=' servers patching all the time, game fails. The way big game companies do it is big patches but they also test out the patches with huge teams of devs to find bugs before releasing. But even then some are missed. I personally think there should be test servers with the implemented patch where V.I.P. players(that donated to the cause) can try out the new patch and inform the devs about the bugs. Which can then be fixed and released to the public.

[/quote']

This is an early Alpha.. I don't think Rocket is even looking at future profit or anything right now. It's a project / experiment.. and while it's very popular.. it's in very early development. I think we're getting way ahead of ourselves right now.

---

I think that Rocket needs to test some of his patches before he releases them instead.

Shouldn't he have a team of 5 or 10 people that he knows that would be able to test these patches for him? I mean' date=' it honestly took me about 5 minutes before I realized that there were no food or water spawns in 1.7.1

[/quote']

Alpha... that's our job. We're the testers.. I think a lot of people need to read posts more and post less. These discussions have been done a 100 times. I've already stated this exact thing 20 times in 2 days.

Rocket should not have to post updates/hotfixes with the intent of pleasing us and making sure the game is stable for us. In an Alpha process.. they do a certain amount of self testing and then release to us the Alpha testers. We can test much faster and to a greater degree due to the amount of people playing. We're testing for them, not the other way around. If it was beta it would still be the same only a lot more stable. To many attitudes geared towards this being an end game product now.

[worbat 13]

I say throw as much content and changes as possible' date=' cause once it gets to beta you won't really get any more content.

You don't want to get to beta and sit there thinking hey this new game changing mechanic would be awesome..to bad its too late.

[/quote']

I don't see why you wouldn't get new content in beta. It's only when the game has gone "gold" that you really don't add new content yet games do it all the time. If your thinking of the big AAA "betas" those are glorified demos with a poor excuse for bugs.

Bad idea. This has already been proven a bad idea. Multiple tiny patches' date=' servers patching all the time, game fails. The way big game companies do it is big patches and lots of content but they also test out the patches with huge teams of devs to find bugs before releasing. But even then some are missed. I personally think there should be test servers with the implemented patch where V.I.P. players(that donated to the cause) can try out the new patch and inform the devs about the bugs. Which can then be fixed and released to the public.

[/quote']

I see where you are coming from, the system with 1.7? where only a few servers had that patch, as far as we, the users, could tell that worked okish. The issue still stands though with lots of content in one patch, to me, it would seem that it would be a lot harder to find out which feature is effect what code causing the bug.

The patches don't all have to come out all in one week either, the time frame would be rockets idea, this process would in theroy help squish big bugs.