Direction of development: rocket & co. please read!

[pantsd0wn 49]

First off, I really like the game, love the atmosphere and the potential here...I am a long-time S.T.A.L.K.E.R. fan and former modder for that game, and am attempting to re-kindle some of the sheer love of being in the game world as I did in that series of games.

Having said that, after having spent quite a few hours (about 80 so far) in the alpha (although not nearly as many as a lot of ppl around here), I feel I have to express my suggestion for the continued development of the game, and I hope (and I realize it is a long bet) that I can reach the developers themselves with this post...who knows?

Although I have not actually been through many patch updates yet since most of my game time has been in the last 3 weeks or so, I have been excited to see some significant devlopment occuring...BUT (and here is my point):

 

The reality is the gameplay feels very alpha...I have experienced many game-breaking bugs, melee is barely functional, zeds very much live up to their "placeholder" status, and so on. This is all OK since it is an alpha...alpha, alpha, alpha...I know. But the reason I lead out with this is that I find it a little discomforting that the latest development seems to be on relatively trivial things (weather and effects of weather on player, new small buildings, etc.) instead of core gameplay mechanics currently in the game.

 

It is singularly distressing to be preparing to deal with getting wet/cold and sick in the game, when zeds still walk through walls...it is just wrong.

 

When changelogs have more new elements than fixes for existing problems, something is potentially wrong at the uppermost levels of the development team. Ideas are being thrown about too wildly. Leadership and prioritization of resources are potentialy lacking. I could be wrong. Maybe there is a reason for working backwards...but I sure would appreciate someone in the know alleviating these very real concerns.

 

Again, as a developer of software solutions in teh business world, and as one who has been on modding teams as a hobby, I ask that Rocket and his team of developers fine-tune what they currently have in the game, rather than adding new mechanics to what can only be described as an ongoing mess of unchecked bugs as it is. At least in my world, the first rule of development is to make sure that what you currently have in place is working well, then when introducing new elements you can test how they affect what was previously working...this allows the developer to better identify and better fix anything that pops up. Can anyone please tell me why the development of this game is breaking that rule?

 

 

tl;dr: my post is two-fold I guess...first is to ask why is the focus of development on seemingly small details rather than fixing core gameplay?

Second, can you do something about that?

Thanks. And of course, the requisite "alpha, alpha, alpha" a few more times for good measure.
I think Rocket and co. have a great thing here. I would love to see it flourish. I would also love to play it and enjoy it!

[guppy22143 1081]

I believe that the bugs should be worked out in Beta release. :D

Correct me if I am wrong

[Nicko2580 398]

The reason it feels very alpha is because it's a damn alpha. They need to get everything into the game before they bugfix it... it's simple logic - every new thing they add is going to break something else, so why spend time fixing shit before everything is in? So they can fix it again when some new addition breaks it? 

No. You put the content in first, you get the core mechanics working (which they are, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to spend 80 hours playing) and then you debug like crazy before release.

Btw 80 hours is what some full triple A titles get in terms of gameplay. The fact that you can play 80 hours in an fucking ALPHA speaks serious volumes about the quality of what is there already.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Nicko2580

[djporternz 644]

The reality is the gameplay feels very alpha...

I'm... not... going... to... say... it...

 

Watch this:

 

 

TBH, your concerns about the direction of development are unfounded. What you are writing about as trivial and little things are some of the bigger problems for modders of the RV engine contend with. As someone who has tried with limited success to create a MP-capable weather sync system for ArmA3, I can tell you the engine actively fights you on this. If Dean and team have found a fix for this, brilliant! But it still needs testing, which is our main purpose here.

 

As to some of the issues with the Zs, this is an ongoing problem. It hasn't seen significant changes in the public builds as it is only a placeholder system ATM. It is intended to be completely rewritten at some point, and fixing the existing system would just be so much wasted development time.

 

We've got a long way to go. Wee've got at least 6 months before they are looking to include vehicles. That's a lot of time to fix bugs and reinforce the basic framework they'll be hanging everything else off of. A lot of the small things they are adding is simply because the framework already supports them.

 

These are the main talking points from the most recent Q&A streams by the Devs: http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/175596-summary-of-dev-qas-from-streams/. A lot of things in that list. It explains a lot about what is intended and what isn't.

[namco-4 50]

The reason that new Content is currently added more frequently than crucial bugfixes, is that the design team has literally nothing better to do.

While the programmer-team is working on, for example the zombie-AI, the Designers can create and configure Assets like clothing and new guns.

This game will most likely remain in its' Alpha-stages throghout the entire year, with core features being added and fixed/optimized over time.

(And yes, Weather is a core element, seeing as this is not only survival against Zombies/Players)

[Chaingunfighter 917]

The teams responsible for new content and for fixing the game are mostly separate. If they did not have the new content then honestly we'd just see the same changelogs with the new stuff removed,

 

When the modeling/texturing/animating guys decide to make something new, they should work on implementing and fixing that. They aren't responsible for the AI pathing of the zombies, nor for fixing the various bugs and glitches we find.

[pantsd0wn 49]

The reason it feels very alpha is because it's a damn alpha. They need to get everything into the game before they bugfix it... it's simple logic - every new thing they add is going to break something else, so why spend time fixing shit before everything is in? So they can fix it again when some new addition breaks it? 

No. You put the content in first, you get the core mechanics working (which they are, otherwise you wouldn't have been able to spend 80 hours playing) and then you debug like crazy before release.

Btw 80 hours is what some full triple A titles get in terms of gameplay. The fact that you can play 80 hours in an fucking ALPHA speaks serious volumes about the quality of what is there already.

As i said in my OP, I realize it is Alpha. Please don't troll.

It actually isn't "simple logic" to add new things in before fixing what in already there. I thought I made that clear. In fact, it defies logic. Yes, you really do want things working BEFORE you add new elements, because then you are able to more quickly diagnose and fix problems that may occur once you do implement new elements. THAT is simple logic.

I suppose it depends on what you consider "core mechanics". Should walking/running be a core mechanic? Pathing AI? Inventory management? Combat, both projectile and melee? I believe these are all core, and should be working "out of the box" even at this early stage BEFORE you add new things that could possibly affect those mechanics...thus allowing you to immediately identify WHY problems are occuring and giving you a great chance to fix them almost immediately.

Scenario: "now that we have zed basic AI working properly and melee combat somewhat acceptable (even though we continue to use the placeholder models and animations), let's drasticly increase the amount of zeds and see what happens." You wouldn't want to do so BEFORE you have those things in place, since the existing issues are simply multiplied, and you do not get to "see" the true result of increasing the numbers...in other words, you now have simply more problems to deal with.

Back to my whole "I enjoy the game and just want to suggest or even influence! the direction of development argument"...did you miss that part? Did you hear me crying a river over lost loot due to bugs? Having said that, the reason you can spend 80 hours in this game already has less to do with the high quality of gameplay currently available and more to do with how long it takes to run from one place to another while playing poker on your phone, lol...

Hey is this game alpha guys? Please don't troll this thread with repeated statements of that nature...its embarassing to you.

Edited February 23, 2014 by fracture

[pantsd0wn 49]

TBH, your concerns about the direction of development are unfounded. What you are writing about as trivial and little things are some of the bigger problems for modders of the RV engine contend with. As someone who has tried with limited success to create a MP-capable weather sync system for ArmA3, I can tell you the engine actively fights you on this. If Dean and team have found a fix for this, brilliant! But it still needs testing, which is our main purpose here.

 

As to some of the issues with the Zs, this is an ongoing problem. It hasn't seen significant changes in the public builds as it is only a placeholder system ATM. It is intended to be completely rewritten at some point, and fixing the existing system would just be so much wasted development time.

 

We've got a long way to go. Wee've got at least 6 months before they are looking to include vehicles. That's a lot of time to fix bugs and reinforce the basic framework they'll be hanging everything else off of. A lot of the small things they are adding is simply because the framework already supports them.

 

These are the main talking points from the most recent Q&A streams by the Devs: http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/175596-summary-of-dev-qas-from-streams/. A lot of things in that list. It explains a lot about what is intended and what isn't.

OK, so in your opinion my concerns are unfounded. For you, it makes sense to add weather effects in before having basic model collision in place. Cool.

I mentioned an acknowledgment of the fact that zeds are "placeholders". But to what extent that is literally true, and what the devs mean when they say that, could be completely different. Some clarfification would be nice no?

If you are saying, as somebody familiar with the engine, that it makes sense...well, I cannot in good consience argue with that being unfamiliar with teh engine myself...but some explanation would be nice...since it defies reason in a number of ways.

[pantsd0wn 49]

The reason that new Content is currently added more frequently than crucial bugfixes, is that the design team has literally nothing better to do.

While the programmer-team is working on, for example the zombie-AI, the Designers can create and configure Assets like clothing and new guns.

This game will most likely remain in its' Alpha-stages throghout the entire year, with core features being added and fixed/optimized over time.

(And yes, Weather is a core element, seeing as this is not only survival against Zombies/Players)

 

 

The teams responsible for new content and for fixing the game are mostly separate. If they did not have the new content then honestly we'd just see the same changelogs with the new stuff removed,

 

When the modeling/texturing/animating guys decide to make something new, they should work on implementing and fixing that. They aren't responsible for the AI pathing of the zombies, nor for fixing the various bugs and glitches we find.

I have read this argument a few times around teh forums here.

Is it in fact true? How many are on dev team, and is there really that much uncoordination of the team? You have various members doing ilttle goofy things like adding in new hats, while you have a core team of developers doing zed AI? Seems ridiculous to me. Asset creation is a whole department on it's own, but should be being driven by a team leader (rocket?) with an established roadmap in place with fixed dev points. In other words, the guys making hats should not be currently drawing a paycheck until the time is ready to actually put them to work on designated tasks.

I dunno, I might be considered a troll myself now that I think about it...perhaps engaging in this conversation is without merit with co-fans of the game...I really just wanted to attract teh developers attention on this...is there a blog or soemthing I have missed where they outline their general plans, and not only that, but how they will accomplish them (a roadmap)?

[guppy22143 1081]

Ahem. Fracture.

You have come on to this forum, with an almost condescending attitude toward a full professional development team. They know what they are doing, they do not need advice from a random person on the internet. Though it may be hard to hear, you are making yourself look like a know-it-all. But at least you care about the game enough to try and help it, and I respect that. But seriously, just let the devs work through it. Their design and coding teams are separate. So they are going at a good pace.

 

EDIT: And about hats being "goofy", they are adding them simply because the framework allows it. It actually takes them a minimal amount of work, and they act as filler in between major content releases.

Edited February 23, 2014 by Guppy the DayZ Medic

[pantsd0wn 49]

Ahem. Fracture.

You have come on to this forum, with an almost condescending attitude toward a full professional development team. They know what they are doing, they do not need advice from a random person on the internet. Though it may be hard to hear, you are making yourself look like a know-it-all. But at least you care about the game enough to try and help it, and I respect that. But seriously, just let the devs work through it. Their design and coding teams are separate. So they are going at a good pace.

 

EDIT: And about hats being "goofy", they are adding them simply because the framework allows it. It actually takes them a minimal amount of work, and they act as filler in between major content releases.

I hear you. I acknowledge in my last post that maybe I even sound like a troll.

The truth is, I honestly find it worrying what I see as a trend towards developing "fluff" (what I consider fluff...again not ment to insult) rather than focusing on the core game. That's what the intent of my posts are all about. Sorry if it comes across as condescending or "know-it-all". It truly is not my intent to sound that way.

Basically, I am expressing my concerns as if I was a paid alpha tester (rather than paying to alpha test, which could be seen as a priviledge as well, I understand.)

This game has lots of potential! I want it to succeed!

[guppy22143 1081]

I hear you. I acknowledge in my last post that maybe I even sound like a troll.

The truth is, I honestly find it worrying what I see as a trend towards developing "fluff" (what I consider fluff...again not ment to insult) rather than focusing on the core game. That's what the intent of my posts are all about. Sorry if it comes across as condescending or "know-it-all". It truly is not my intent to sound that way.

Basically, I am expressing my concerns as if I was a paid alpha tester (rather than paying to alpha test, which could be seen as a priviledge as well, I understand.)

This game has lots of potential! I want it to succeed!

It is good that you want it to succeed. It means you care. However, if you have concerns about the game... Make suggestions. Post bug reports. They will get around to addressing these concerns. But don't tell Rocket and his entire team to drop everything and rework the entire way they develop their game. It isn't going to happen, and you will get a lot of criticism for it.

[Gdaddy22 299]

From my understanding the devs want to first add things to the game, and then fix bugs. Why ? Because if you first fix bugs, then you have to add new things to the game. But when you add new things to the game, you get new bugs. 

[pantsd0wn 49]

From my understanding the devs want to first add things to the game, and then fix bugs. Why ? Because if you first fix bugs, then you have to add new things to the game. But when you add new things to the game, you get new bugs. 

This is the type of argument that if it is true, IMHO, is representative of just how "green" this development team is.

Why? See my reasoning in OP. It is, as they say in my world, "back-asswards".

It does, at the very least, make it more difficult to fix bugs. At the medium, it makes it impossible...and at the very worst indicates teh team does not consider some things important to even try to fix. (Perhaps it will always be the case that running will randomly break your legs...realism, no?)

I cannot stress enough that I am not jumping to conclusions that this is true. But I am asking teh question. The direction of recent updates does lean me a certain way tho...

Can I ask also: why does it seem to be the case that defensiveness...even to the point that it seems I am personally offending some of you guys...is so much a part of the overall response? Are you not curious how a dev may respond to this type of question? Do you really feel a sense of loyalty to the dev team that you feel you need to defend their decisions?

Honestly, I think even if they read this thread, they could take it, guys.

[pantsd0wn 49]

You can pretty much merge this topic with the following...I don't think this idea is very unique or going to go away moving forward:

http://forums.dayzgame.com/index.php?/topic/176561-redefine-your-definition-of-done/