Anyone else feel like stable branch is becoming pointless/neglected?

[Bororm 1156]

I can understand that they got a bit scared releasing a few pretty unstable patches to the stable branch, but it is alpha after all.  The thing that gets me is that at this point stable branch is beginning to feel a bit pointless as their main focus seems to be on shoving stuff into experimental.  At this point stable is probably going to get patched with something that hit experimental a couple weeks ago, and the gap between the two is just going to become larger and larger, as additions pile up on experimental.

 

I just don't really see the point of an alpha of an alpha to this extent.  Especially considering that regardless of how stable they think their patch actually is, we all know that when it hits the huge population of stable branch the flaws are going to become prevalent and it's going to be more issues for them to resolve yet again.  I don't think it's any secret that experimental is actually just as stable if not more so than the actual Stable branch.

 

I haven't played the game since the last major patch, and I'm the sort of person who absolutely loves DayZ.  I'm not really complaining about that, I don't mind waiting (honestly), and I could just play experimental myself, I'm just wondering if anyone else feels the same.  That it just seems like stable is basically being neglected at this point.  I think most people can deal with messed up patches in an alpha, and I'd just like to see a speedier process between the two, because otherwise what's the point of playing anything besides experimental?

 

TL;DR:  It seems like they're spending too much time adding/fixing stuff to experimental, when they are just going to have to address the issues that come from patching it to stable any ways.  I feel like they should shorten the gap between patching over, because otherwise we may as well all just be playing experimental instead as it is usually more stable than the actual stable branch and has all the latest content quicker.  I understand the purpose of experimental, I just don't think they are using it quite right by prioritizing it over the stable branch.

[Hethwill_Khan 233]

Not going to lie, but an entire group here is either sticking to EXP for well over a month now or got back to Epoch until Stable is worth the stable designation.

 

We are very happy with the game progression, mind you, it is just that the money spent on servers might be a waste ?

 

Would be fair for server owners to have more info IF and WHEN stable will be updated, now and in the future.

 

Stable is playable, but damn, simple features included the Exp. makes the experience a little ways better and theres no more lag pains and stuttering aches.

 

Only negative side is that Exp is not connected to BattleEye ? I might be wrong here but the server list shows specifically if you turn off BE filter plus I never see anyone drop from timeout of comms to BE.

Edited March 8, 2014 by Hethwill_Khan

[doviszxc 194]

It's called Experimental for a reason you know.

 

It takes time for people to find and report the bugs and everything else, test it out.

[LaughingJack (DayZ) 767]

Ok, i'll try to NOT read this as another "Ermahgerd, they delayed mah update! But I WANT NOW." post...

 

Becauuuuuse of the 1.6 million people that bought this game there are (rough guess) 20.000 playing experimental and 600.000 playing stable (and the rest is in this forum complaining about KoS or debating the right way to wear boots and pants together).

 

It's an additional testing stage (after internal, that the intern QA team does), so the "real" version is stable, that's the version where you can "play", the experimental is...well...permanent bugs, glitches, character wipes...everything that makes people cry in this forum when they encounter it on stable.

 

At first they had planned it to  make it like this: Patch experimental, one week testing there, put on stable, while new experimental is released.

 

But after the memory leak-patch that had to be hotfixed and the shitstorm, they decided to change it to: patch experimental when a internal testing of a new version is done, put tested version after some weeks on stable.

And tehre it is tested to a much alrger extent because more people test it under bigger load for the server to handle etc.

 

And experimental is not stable at all. Got my char wiped, encountered 4 new bugs, one of them really really really annoying (and saw all of them already reported by the way)...so...no.

 

And play experimental. We have pitchforks there. And they are (like the hoes) nearly as good as the axes...

[korpisoturi (DayZ) 127]

Yeah, It has been almost a month since major stable patch and during this I have seen 2-3 large patches for experimental.

 

I'm propably going to change to experimental servers at some point, but not yet.

[Hethwill_Khan 233]

It's called Experimental for a reason you know.

 

It takes time for people to find and report the bugs and everything else, test it out.

 It is true, but 2 versions ago it was reported as very good, smooth and of course it had some problems, but was worth a shot. That was a widespread opinion.

 

But we respect the Dev team priorities.

[doviszxc 194]

Exactly.

[PhillyT 554]

I am enjoying the game so much still.  But I am getting a little bit tired of seeing all the patches running through experimental while stable sits.  I initially liked the process of cycling from exp to stable, but now we are sort of stuck with this system of stable sort of languishing while the exp servers are having all the new stuff.

 

If more exp servers were available, that would be one thing, but with the limits in place it makes it a tough wait.

[deebz1234 243]

completely.

 

there shouldnt be a difference.

 

its alpha..should essentially just be what the devs toss at us.

 

havent left EXP, its 10x better than "stable"

[Bororm 1156]

Yeah I really don't mean to come across as "RUghhh stop delaying my patches" I am just legitimately starting to feel like there's becoming a lack of purpose to stable.  When  I say experimental is itself stable, I mean it's about as stable as the stable branch is.  You can experience crashes and pretty gnarly bugs and character wipes in stable as well, so what's the difference really.

 

I understand the purpose of testing out a patch with a smaller population to nail out the more dominant issues before releasing to the larger public, but what I'm saying is that maybe they should go back to that 1 week gap or 2 if they have to, but set some sort of hard goal.  Because as it stands, patches/fixes are piling up on experimental that are just pushing stable farther and farther back.

 

Another thing that just lends credence to my opinion that stable is being a bit neglected is that when people bring up issues about crashes or being unable to even play their character etc, Rocket has personally responded by telling them "oh that's fixed on experimental, just go play experimental."

 

So again, I'm not saying either branch is pointless, I'm just saying stable feels very neglected and I think they should regain focus on treating it as part of their alpha which it is.

[OhNoes 4]

You do realize that Experimental just means the next set of changes that will be coming to Stable right?  Why would they want to push updates through to stable if they're not entirely sure how the changes will play out?  There are ~250 people playing Experimental at any given point, there are about 10,000 people playing Stable at all hours of the day.

 

If you really think Stable is being neglected since they missed their scheduled patch day by a couple days now, start playing on Experimental only.  Experimental can be fun, but it's a bit hard to know what to look for with testing if notes aren't provided.  Either way, stable's not being "neglected" because they're trying to work on the game.  The next patch stable receives is going to be a significant one, which is why I assume it's taken some extra time this patch.

[minime1000 78]

I really do not see what is the point of experimental in an alpha. What's next, experimental is gonna have its own super experimental you can opt in?

It is alpha for a reason.

[UNDERWORLD 76]

I'm not sure if the original poster understands the concepts of experimental and stable servers...

[PhillyT 554]

I'm not sure if the original poster understands the concepts of experimental and stable servers...

 

I think he does, and unlike many, he isn't coming into this in a whinefest.

 

It is a hair disappointing that they have had multiple experimental patches and nothing has gone to stable in ages.  If things work in exp, bump to stable.  The pace of updates has resulted in most of my friends quiting the game.

[crimsonbzd 247]

I'd actually chalk it up to more work being done.

 

Seems like they're pushing more builds, updating the game, quicker than they can keep it playable enough for stable branch.

 

Which is good... it seems to me so far it's been a stop-and-go process. They make something, then make it work, then push to stable. Now we're going straight from .35 to at least .42.

[wild_man 4442]

Not going to lie, but an entire group here is either sticking to EXP for well over a month now or got back to Epoch until Stable is worth the stable designation.

 

We are very happy with the game progression, mind you, it is just that the money spent on servers might be a waste ?

 

 

 

this :thumbsup:  :rolleyes:

 

is too many server and this is stupid guys who renting too many :huh:

[LaughingJack (DayZ) 767]

The super experimental servers are called "internal" ;)

 

 

I am just legitimately starting to feel like there's becoming a lack of purpose to stable.  When  I say experimental is itself stable, I mean it's about as stable as the stable branch is.  You can experience crashes and pretty gnarly bugs and character wipes in stable as well, so what's the difference really.

Ok, I'm glad I didn't troll you ;) So the difference: Far less bugs, chrashes and wipes than in experimental :)

 

 

I understand the purpose of testing out a patch with a smaller population to nail out the more dominant issues before releasing to the larger public, but what I'm saying is that maybe they should go back to that 1 week gap or 2 if they have to, but set some sort of hard goal.  Because as it stands, patches/fixes are piling up on experimental that are just pushing stable farther and farther back.

Well, it may seem so, since we were spoiled with the one week patch rythm and the last stable patch wasn't released due to some larger issues and experimental got one.

Meh. Next week (hopefully) stable gets the patch(es) and will be on the newest version, while experimental gets one patch (maybe). But IF there are issues that let the 42 not go on stable, I'm sure exp. will not get another patch until the version is on stable...

So in 4 or 5 weeks, there will be again 3 patches (or 4) already released on experimental, until stable gets all of them.

 

 

Another thing that just lends credence to my opinion that stable is being a bit neglected is that when people bring up issues about crashes or being unable to even play their character etc, Rocket has personally responded by telling them "oh that's fixed on experimental, just go play experimental."

 

Yeah rocket is a hell of a PR guy XD If I were in the PR department of BI (do they actually HAVE one?) I would fear rocket more than anything. He just always says what he thinks, driect and honest and thats really bad fora game studio, because people are used to comfy lies XD

I guess what he wants to say: If this bug disturbs you so much and you don't want to wait until it is fixed on stable, play on experimental in the meantime.

 

 

So again, I'm not saying either branch is pointless, I'm just saying stable feels very neglected and I think they should regain focus on treating it as part of their alpha which it is.

True. But on the other hand, they decided to change it for a reason and we have to live with it *shrugs*

 

 

And the experimental servers are just an extra for us, think of it that way, 9/10 times you wouldn't get to have these kind of service to test the things before they hit the actual alpha, they would stay on "internal" for 4 weeks until the next stable patch is released. So, from my point, i'm thankful for experimental, because I want to help by repoting bugs and issues, so I don't have to swim to ragetears in this forum^^ (And experimental players usually don't cry here that much than other ALPHA players^^)

 

With that being said: Yes, stable looks a little bit neglected if you watch experimental, since it gets a patch nearly every week and stable only once a month, sometimes further delayed. But again: It's for the greater good and against the tears of "stable"-alpha-testers...ehm...palyers ;)

 

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

this :thumbsup:  :rolleyes:

 

is too many server and this is stupid guys who renting too many :huh:

Well....I'd be happy if there was only a smaller amount of servers. Just because it would mean: More players are forced to play on every server, which means the game gets harder since people are a danger and loot is harder to find...and everything that makes DayZ harder is good ;)

Edited March 8, 2014 by LaughingJack

[mintypie007 57]

Trust me, with the last experimental patch they made the game unplayable. The lag/dysnc issues have been multiplied 10x. The reason the updates haven't been pushed to stable is because experimental right now is buggered.

[LaughingJack (DayZ) 767]

Trust me, with the last experimental patch they made the game unplayable. The lag/dysnc issues have been multiplied 10x. The reason the updates haven't been pushed to stable is because experimental right now is buggered.

 

True. I never ever had real lag/desync issues but on exp I have them all: From stuttering, to lags to desyncs...exp is just not meant to play. It's meant to test.

[mintypie007 57]

True. I never ever had real lag/desync issues but on exp I have them all: From stuttering, to lags to desyncs...exp is just not meant to play. It's meant to test.

 

Yeah it is experimental but internal testing should have shown that this was an issue. Even though it is the experimental of an alpha game, should this have really passed internal testing?

[thequantum 52]

It looks like it has been almost a month since the regular servers were patched. Why do they add all these things to the experimental branch and never move them to regular? Since the game is in alpha, I would think they would be doing weekly updates in small batches to regular, but it seems like they add dozens and dozens of new things to experimental, and then move everything at once to regular, which would make it harder to determine what caused problems on regular?

[LaughingJack (DayZ) 767]

Well, there are three possibilities that I see:

 

• It was found and noted and it is worked on, but it wasn't seen as gamebreaking enough for the experimental (but enough for the stable), so stable delayed, experimental for testing purposes got it
• It was not found because it happens only if your ping is higher than...whatever the internals have (pretty low i assume....that's always a tester mistake...because they have to find everything fast, they have good computers, very good connection etc., so these things  are missed)
• It didn't occur on internal because of server issues (like the memory leak)

[thequantum 52]

I couldnt agree more. At this point, they are going to push 5 weeks worth of experimental patches to stable, and then not have a clue what the problem is when bugs start appearing, because they are throwing dozens and dozens of patches to it at once. They should be updating alpha just as often as experimental, and with smaller updates.