less dayz updates? more stable builds? tick tock cycles?

[macish 0]

Well maybe i am in a minority.. but i would be glad if there would be an actual slow down of new dayz versions.. one version hunts the next which gets followed by several hotfixes..

i can understand as a dev to release the cool new features as early as possible but maybe a tick tock mentally would be better?

like one week is being worked on bugfixes then a version is released, the next week is being worked on new features and this is released at the end of the second week and then a week of bugfixing follow etc.

maybe combine this with a really limited release to a handfull of trusty server admins (like 10-20 server to test things out) and the hotfix rush could be minimized..

this would get some calmness into the currently crazy release rushes

kind hard to find a proper working server with 5 different dayz versions released in short time with dozens of arma beta patches in the mix and sever admins who are not able to keep up with that and some not forcing the use of beta version and others still running "old" (like a day or two) versions of dayz..

not to mention if you rather stick to a "home" server or a few different ones.. due to location/ping/whatever

i really appreciate all the work that went and goes into this amazing mod.. but i think the current version overflow is just too much and explodes the server landscape into a huge fragmented pile.

just my 2 cents..

cheers guys

[nomorechillies 11]

i prefer more updates, than waiting 3 months for a big update. Small progress seems better imo

[macish 0]

well if you'd read what i wrote , my suggestion would be weekly new version , each version either with bugfixes or new features

not sure where your "months" are coming from.

[sp2468 3]

i do agree it would just be better than haveing new features on Monday and hot fixes Tuesday to Friday

[Badnik 0]

Macish, The problem I see with this, it that you're thinking like it's already a game in its later stages. when it gets to Beta release... maybe organising proper times for set releases would be good. but that's not what we need right now.

Right now is the pre-testing phase, meaning we do nuts at the game until it breaks, then they see what made the game break, then they patch it and see if that patch had any adverse effects, and if it does, then they try get that patched. Pretty much the reason we had five updates in the last few days. It's a reactionary process at the moment because they have to lay down the basics.

Right now it's all about the laying the foundations and the groundwork. Once that's running well, then more advanced content will be implimented, and that's when the game will move from Alpha version to a much more stable beta version, and that's when you'd want to stagger the updates. Because at that point, We're no longer playing the game to solve problems for the developer, but the developer is now adding content to the game to add to our enjoyment of the game. To make it everything it can be for the main release when and if that day does come.

[macish 0]

i understand your point question is if people really tested all 1.7.1.x versions.. which i doubt since they have been released so close to each other..

i understand the need for testing of special features but that was the reason of the (failed) limited release of 1.7 wasnt it..

i would like a stronger control over all this.. i fully understand a hotfix.. but a hotfix for a hotfix juust shows premature release of work in progress code.

i wish there would be some stability with versions and some stronger control over servers who run outdated data.. maybe even implement a check so that servers running older arma betas and dayz versions cant connect to hive.. because all thoose version releases are a reason the servers are completly mixed version shake.