November Round-up

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I didn't get on gta 5 day one and everything turned out fine.

But, do they not have proper servers organised yet?

 

Well I would argue that gta 5 is not an mmo, and it had four years of development before you ever touched it. It's not really a comparable situation...

 

Who knows about the state of the Standalone's servers? All I know is that they have been testing, presumably to ensure stability. The server monitors and steam database reflect this. So my hypothesis is that we will see more testing activity when the weekend is over, and sometime after that (probably within the next week or two) we are going to see the public alpha launch.

 

This is just my speculation based on what I've seen from the dev team, rocket, and the test server activity.

[Andy Red 25]

If the zombies no longer zig zag around dodging bullets like they are fucking Neo then I will be happy.

Lmao I can't agree with you more!

It would also be good if when your trying to melee attack a zombie it doesn't keep popping at a different side of you every second and that when you do hit it with your axe the server actually tracks that you've sliced it's guts out.

[soapmak3r 677]

I just wonder why there was 3 of the same bullets when 1 is good enough?

Half life 3 confirmed! :'(

[dvsilverwing 241]

Because of numbers, man! Something close to half a million people are probably going to try to play it on day 1. The servers have to be able to handle it. That's why they have to test the game internally to ensure the network architecture is stable and reliable, ect. The gameplay has to be at least as stable as the mod version, otherwise people are going to bitch and moan and call rocket a liar because at the end of the day 90% of people don't seem to understand what "Alpha" means. The devs want things to at least work before they unleash a product to people who are probably going to treat it like a finished product anyway.

 

There is absolutely no way to replicate the scenario, they will either sink or they will float. You cannot "test" the servers for a release day with 20 testers, you cannot "test" the servers for a release day with 100 testers, you cannot "test" the servers for a release day with 1,000 testers, they just aren't on a large enough scale to match the load that will be caused on the initial release. Although there are quite a few exceptions, most people on this forum are competent enough to realize what to expect from the Alpha stage of the game.

 

Personally, I've participated in many Alphas, Betas, and Early Access games, of both open and closed varieties, the game itself looks completely playable from what little they've shown us, and that's what worries me. If the game is as playable as it looks, they've no reason to hide so much from us, I honestly believe that the game is a lot less finished than what they're showing us at this point, and I'm starting to think that it will be at least a few months before it's released. The "final lap" statement could very well just have been a way to try and keep the individuals still interested in the game to stick around, because I'm sure the numbers of people who actively follow development have dropped drastically over the past few months; people are just losing interest at this point.

 

Like most of the forum's posters I mean no disrespect when I say things like this, people only criticize because they want to see improvement. But honestly, I want to see some actual progress. For all we know, you've made very little progress at all in development save for a few things you've posted very tiny tidbits of information about. Transparency within the game's community is imperative in this very Indie-dominated generation of games, and there's very little transparency with this development team.

Edited November 3, 2013 by dvsilverwing

[mick17 93]

If we see a large scale test (50-100) and it goes well with no crashes, I would say a release on the 5th would be plausible. They may have even been waiting to do a large scale test until a set date due to the small amount of people who can test and not all could test until tomorrow or something. We shall see.

[Tempus (DayZ) 1062]

I try not to get too hyped, but I still want to be there when public alpha starts. A lot of people think the same, I guess.

 

So yeah, the servers got to be ready to handle that. I'll keep my fingers crossed, but all anticipation aside, I can hardly imagine the chaos of the first few days...

 

 

And when you think about that some 14 year old who was lucky to get in before yourself on the launch day, might take your server spot... yea, that's not going to be nice.

 

Hey, don't be an age-snob, there are a lot of awesome 14-year-olds I'd rather game with than some old assholes.

 

I don't say that because I'm that young, in fact I'm almost twice that old, but I don't want to turn into some grumpy "these young rascals" old dude. No reason to start that shit early. ;)

Edited November 3, 2013 by Tempus

[klesh 2423]

but I don't want to turn into some grumpy "these young rascals" old dude. No reason to start that shit early.

 

 

Give it a few more years; it happens.

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

There is absolutely no way to replicate the scenario, they will either sink or they will float. You cannot "test" the servers for a release day with 20 testers, you cannot "test" the servers for a release day with 100 testers, you cannot "test" the servers for a release day with 1,000 testers, they just aren't on a large enough scale to match the load that will be caused on the initial release. Although there are quite a few exceptions, most people on this forum are competent enough to realize what to expect from the Alpha stage of the game.

 

Personally, I've participated in many Alphas, Betas, and Early Access games, of both open and closed varieties, the game itself looks completely playable from what little they've shown us

 

First of all, Dean Hall stated after the August dev-blog (which featured multiple people playing, ect. Which I presume you are saying "looks playable") that the game was in fact not playable and was having problems even allowing players onto a server. Clients were crashing, ect. Of course they are not going to show that in a dev-blog. It makes no sense to tell people about your game and show them all the things that are going wrong. You want to show people what's going right.

 

Second, of course they can't replicate the scenario of a full release. That's quite obvious. But if the net-code isn't even stable enough for a server to run a game for 24 hours a day with a full player roster, then how in the world is it going to support hundreds of thousands of people trying to play all at once? Not testing before the public launch is like not bailing water out of a boat just because you're surrounded by it. It really doesn't matter how many people total are trying to play the game. One server only handles about 50 clients each. It doesn't matter if there's 1,000 or 1,000,000 people, because each server only handles 50 of them, so it's really not relevant. The relevant task is ensuring that a server can support those 50 people at all.

 

As for transparency, I think you're simply asking way too much. People's expectations when it comes to games are extremely misinformed and tend to be very high. Anything the devs release gets picked apart and either criticized, argued against, or used by major media outlets to invent stories which aren't truly reflective of the situation. No matter what the devs do, they can't win with people. They release more content - "Oh the game looks like shit, blah blah blah" or "THE SA IS ABOUT TO RELEASE LOOK AT THESE PICTURES OF GUNS!"

 

Hence, they don't release any information until it's solid and truly reflective of what they want for the game. Besides, rocket explained his media silence, and it's pretty clear that he was telling the truth about being in the final lap. What more transparency do you need? You wanna watch them like on C-SPAN just sitting at desks, revising code, testing, doing boring development shit, all day long? I certainly don't want that. Some things need secrecy in order to become developed. That's just how games are. Bethesda never told anyone about Skyrim until it was something like 3 years in progress. Why does this team have to follow some kind of "transparency code" when others don't, and clearly doing so is detrimental overall because people on the internet are generally fucking stupid?

Edited November 3, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[klesh 2423]

Here is the Mosin:

 

Edited November 3, 2013 by klesh

[feanor12345 58]

Oh doesn't it look beatifull?

I really makes me wanna shoot zombies , i hope they will be so much of a threat , that  you will preserve your ammo for your own safety rather than hunting humans.

[dvsilverwing 241]

First of all, Dean Hall stated after the August dev-blog (which featured multiple people playing, ect. Which I presume you are saying "looks playable") that the game was in fact not playable and was having problems even allowing players onto a server. Clients were crashing, ect. Of course they are not going to show that in a dev-blog. It makes no sense to tell people about your game and show them all the things that are going wrong. You want to show people what's going right.

 

Second, of course they can't replicate the scenario of a full release. That's quite obvious. But if the net-code isn't even stable enough for a server to run a game for 24 hours a day with a full player roster, then how in the world is it going to support hundreds of thousands of people trying to play all at once? Not testing before the public launch is like not bailing water out of a boat just because you're surrounded by it. It really doesn't matter how many people total are trying to play the game. One server only handles about 50 clients each. It doesn't matter if there's 1,000 or 1,000,000 people, because each server only handles 50 of them, so it's really not relevant. The relevant task is ensuring that a server can support those 50 people at all.

 

As for transparency, I think you're simply asking way too much. People's expectations when it comes to games are extremely misinformed and tend to be very high. Anything the devs release gets picked apart and either criticized, argued against, or used by major media outlets to invent stories which aren't truly reflective of the situation. No matter what the devs do, they can't win with people. They release more content - "Oh the game looks like shit, blah blah blah" or "THE SA IS ABOUT TO RELEASE LOOK AT THESE PICTURES OF GUNS!"

 

Hence, they don't release any information until it's solid and truly reflective of what they want for the game. Besides, rocket explained his media silence, and it's pretty clear that he was telling the truth about being in the final lap. What more transparency do you need? You wanna watch them like on C-SPAN just sitting at desks, revising code, testing, doing boring development shit, all day long? I certainly don't want that. Some things need secrecy in order to become developed. That's just how games are. Bethesda never told anyone about Skyrim until it was something like 3 years in progress. Why does this team have to follow some kind of "transparency code" when others don't, and clearly doing so is detrimental overall because people on the internet are generally fucking stupid?

 

 

I apologize if I am taking your post the wrong way, but there's no reason to become so aggressive in your response. I'm not saying they have to follow some kind of "transparency code". I'm saying that people are getting discourged because they don't see anything happening, if they ARE making progress like they say that they are then show us something meaningful. At the moment keeping up with development is like watching a snail run a mile dash, and in the "final lap" of development that's not how it should be, we should be seeing a bunch of half-finished features coming together and forming the Alpha of the game, that's what a lot of people are excited for, what they're waiting for, and what they're expecting. What they're giving us is glorified concept art (not to say the pictures they're giving us don't look really nice, because they certainly do), and the game is in the FINAL LAP of development?

 

I also wasn't trying to say that you were wrong with your statement on the testing of the servers, I'm just saying that no matter how many small-scale tests they do it's still a whole different ball-game when it comes to the massive strain of the initial release.

Edited November 3, 2013 by dvsilverwing

[BlackFusion 7]

They could just release multiple servers with the cap being 22 players max. Then, there will be a test day and anyone who wants can join a server that has a larger player limit to test, not play, so don't say "Shit, ths g@me sucks man! 50 playors th3n cr@sh.. w0w.. so stupod".

Edited November 3, 2013 by BlackFusion

[HumanBeing25 299]

Just release multiple servers with the cap being 22 players max. Then, there will be a test day and anyone who wants can join a server that has a larger player limit to test, not play, so don't say "Shit, ths g@me sucks man! 50 playors th3n cr@sh.. w0w.. so stupod".

That's not going to happen.

[Owain1122 218]

"[–]rocket2gunsRocket [score hidden] 30 minutes ago*

DayZ will release once it provides the level of multiplayer performance and stability needed for us to have meaningful feedback from the experience. That isn't something that we just say is achieved, it actually has to be verified so that when we say it to you (by releasing) we have made, at the very least, a good faith assessment to confirm this.

The release date isn't a matter of deciding what day - its a matter of achieving an objective. The major obstacle in the way of that has been the network bubble.

I want to simultaneously derail the hype train and then recover it, in saying that we have finished making the network bubble. In fact, we have finished all major components required for an alpha release. However, we need to make sure they have integrated okay, and perform basic testing (a kind of acceptance testing) to ensure that we have actually achieved what we thought.

So please, please please - don't be hyped about a particular date, be hyped about our progress. Nobody knows the exact release date because there is not one. Once we have verified that we have achieved what we believe we have, and tidied up any integration issues, it will release.

permalink"

http://www.reddit.com/r/dayz/comments/1psi6v/some_extra_fuel_for_the_hype_train/cd5zlm6

[klesh 2423]

So please, please please - don't be hyped about a particular date, be hyped about our progress. Nobody knows the exact release date because there is not one.

Edited November 3, 2013 by klesh

[korrobravin 96]

"[–]rocket2gunsRocket [score hidden] 30 minutes ago*

DayZ will release once it provides the level of multiplayer performance and stability needed for us to have meaningful feedback from the experience. That isn't something that we just say is achieved, it actually has to be verified so that when we say it to you (by releasing) we have made, at the very least, a good faith assessment to confirm this.

The release date isn't a matter of deciding what day - its a matter of achieving an objective. The major obstacle in the way of that has been the network bubble.

I want to simultaneously derail the hype train and then recover it, in saying that we have finished making the network bubble. In fact, we have finished all major components required for an alpha release. However, we need to make sure they have integrated okay, and perform basic testing (a kind of acceptance testing) to ensure that we have actually achieved what we thought.

So please, please please - don't be hyped about a particular date, be hyped about our progress. Nobody knows the exact release date because there is not one. Once we have verified that we have achieved what we believe we have, and tidied up any integration issues, it will release.

permalink"

http://www.reddit.com/r/dayz/comments/1psi6v/some_extra_fuel_for_the_hype_train/cd5zlm6

 

 

Why do I get the feeling this is one of those, "We are secretly planning a date and you have probably guessed it but in case is all goes to hell we cannot confirm nor deny your suspicions." post?

Edited November 3, 2013 by KorroBravin

[SalamanderAnder (DayZ) 1747]

I apologize if I am taking your post the wrong way, but there's no reason to become so aggressive in your response.

 

I wasn't trying to be aggressive towards you. I'm simply explaining why a certain degree of media silence is necessary for a game developer. It's hard to imagine having more information on the game, when we just got a quote from Dean himself.

 

 

Why do I get the feeling this is one of those, "We are secretly planning a date and you have probably guessed it but in case is all goes to hell we cannot confirm nor deny your suspicions." post?

 

Because that's the smart thing to do? It's better to let people down before the fact than after the fact.

Edited November 3, 2013 by SalamanderAnder

[klesh 2423]

Why do I get the feeling this is one of those, "We are secretly planning a date and you have probably guessed it but in case is all goes to hell we cannot confirm nor deny your suspicions." post?

Because you have lost your grip on reality.

[Grabarz (DayZ) 95]

"[–]rocket2gunsRocket [score hidden] 30 minutes ago*

DayZ will release once it provides the level of multiplayer performance and stability needed for us to have meaningful feedback from the experience. That isn't something that we just say is achieved, it actually has to be verified so that when we say it to you (by releasing) we have made, at the very least, a good faith assessment to confirm this.

The release date isn't a matter of deciding what day - its a matter of achieving an objective. The major obstacle in the way of that has been the network bubble.

I want to simultaneously derail the hype train and then recover it, in saying that we have finished making the network bubble. In fact, we have finished all major components required for an alpha release. However, we need to make sure they have integrated okay, and perform basic testing (a kind of acceptance testing) to ensure that we have actually achieved what we thought.

So please, please please - don't be hyped about a particular date, be hyped about our progress. Nobody knows the exact release date because there is not one. Once we have verified that we have achieved what we believe we have, and tidied up any integration issues, it will release.

permalink"

http://www.reddit.com/r/dayz/comments/1psi6v/some_extra_fuel_for_the_hype_train/cd5zlm6

He didn't even say what that basic/acceptance test included, how complex, how long and when it will be...seems to me like he's trying to win some time.

Sounds like tons of stability problems to me.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Grabarz

[Owain1122 218]

I think he's either genuinley saying that it's not quite ready, or he's wanting to release it on november 5th and he's trying to provide a soft launch. I belueve he said he wanted to release during a triple A release and doesn't COD: Ghosts release this tuesday?

[SJKSJK 225]

"[–]rocket2gunsRocket [score hidden] 30 minutes ago*

DayZ will release once it provides the level of multiplayer performance and stability needed for us to have meaningful feedback from the experience. That isn't something that we just say is achieved, it actually has to be verified so that when we say it to you (by releasing) we have made, at the very least, a good faith assessment to confirm this.

The release date isn't a matter of deciding what day - its a matter of achieving an objective. The major obstacle in the way of that has been the network bubble.

I want to simultaneously derail the hype train and then recover it, in saying that we have finished making the network bubble. In fact, we have finished all major components required for an alpha release. However, we need to make sure they have integrated okay, and perform basic testing (a kind of acceptance testing) to ensure that we have actually achieved what we thought.

So please, please please - don't be hyped about a particular date, be hyped about our progress. Nobody knows the exact release date because there is not one. Once we have verified that we have achieved what we believe we have, and tidied up any integration issues, it will release.

permalink"

http://www.reddit.com/r/dayz/comments/1psi6v/some_extra_fuel_for_the_hype_train/cd5zlm6

Fucking painful.

Edited November 3, 2013 by SJKSJK

[ZlobaRUS54 441]

Damn, whats with your reading comprehension people. THERE IS NO RELEASE DATE. It's NOT DONE yet. They must run more tests and then work on some minor issues. Noway it's releasing on Tuesday.

Edited November 3, 2013 by ZlobaRUS54

[DemonGroover 8836]

Well he is obviously talking in code and a secret website that gives out alpha keys is embedded within Rocket's post.

[Owain1122 218]

It's still got at least another week or two, I'm just hopeful haha

[klesh 2423]

he's wanting to release it on november 5th

Never once has Nov 5th been mentioned. That date is 100% conjecture from the community.