physics of objects are totally broken atm - why not just disable it for the time being

[joe_mcentire 2074]

That's what i am wondering. I mean for the most part it get's the job done (to showcase all the cool new flareguns, and chemlights and stuff). But then you realize it is just completely broken and server performance is nowhere near to allow correct animations and even collision detection.

Wouldn't it be better to just disable it for the time being, while server performance is subpar for the most part and there hasn't been a lot of work regarding fixing any (temp) problems that come with the physics (items disappearing constantly e.g.)?

Wouldn't it also mean less strain for servers and again more performance for the moment?

[Bororm 1156]

That's what i am wondering. I mean for the most part it get's the job done (to showcase all the cool new flareguns, and chemlights and stuff). But then you realize it is just completely broken and server performance is nowhere near to allow correct animations and even collision detection.

Wouldn't it be better to just disable it for the time being, while server performance is subpar for the most part and there hasn't been a lot of work regarding fixing any (temp) problems that come with the physics (items disappearing constantly e.g.)?

Wouldn't it also mean less strain for servers and again more performance for the moment?

 

I see comments like this quite often but I think it's important to remember that this is an alpha test.  I know that gets thrown around constantly, but it is true.  What is the purpose of disabling a feature just because it doesn't function properly, especially in terms of ongoing testing of stability and performance, when the entire idea is to fix it?

 

The user experience isn't important right now beyond basic function.  Doing things to make the player's life easier shouldn't be a priority at all.  They're building a game here, and removing a key mechanic simply because it's inconvenient doesn't make sense.

 

To put it another way, they could remove physics (and vehicles, and grenades and chemlights and everything else dependent on it) and get stability perfect, then reintroduce it and have to start all over.  They need to throw all these mechanics/features in then sort out stability instead of wasting time constantly trying to make things smooth.  Mechanics come now, polish comes later.

 

 

 

And by the way, they aren't "totally" broken.  They actually work alright, they are just super laggy.  Play a fresh restart server and see how smooth everything works.  Eventually they'll get it that way on a full server hopefully.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Bororm

[Mallow88 110]

I see comments like this quite often but I think it's important to remember that this is an alpha test.  I know that gets thrown around constantly, but it is true.  What is the purpose of disabling a feature just because it doesn't function properly, especially in terms of ongoing testing of stability and performance, when the entire idea is to fix it?

 

The user experience isn't important right now beyond basic function.  Doing things to make the player's life easier shouldn't be a priority at all.  They're building a game here, and removing a key mechanic simply because it's inconvenient doesn't make sense.

 

To put it another way, they could remove physics (and vehicles, and grenades and chemlights and everything else dependent on it) and get stability perfect, then reintroduce it and have to start all over.  They need to throw all these mechanics/features in then sort out stability instead of wasting time constantly trying to make things smooth.  Mechanics come now, polish comes later.

 

 

 

And by the way, they aren't "totally" broken.  They actually work alright, they are just super laggy.  Play a fresh restart server and see how smooth everything works.  Eventually they'll get it that way on a full server hopefully.

 

While your logic is pretty sound, you also need to remember that this is not a typical alpha. Typically, alphas have been a private or limited testing phase, intended for players who really wanted to test the game. Under modern gaming business models, however, alphas are publicly released, advertised as a full game, and sold at retail value. What you then encounter are fans of the franchise or game buy it because they don't wish to wait, then are disappointed with the reality of what an alpha entails. Sadly, this is the nature of the modern gaming industry.

 

However, there is much credit to be given to those who complain about very basic features of the game that have persisted for a long time. This game has been in "alpha" for over a year now, and there are some extremely rudimentary flaws that still have yet to be addressed. It is only natural that this will lead to frustration among players/testers who have paid to play/test the game. For certain features that have been broken for a long period of time and are commonly known to be broken, it might be a good idea to just turn them off until they decide to address them. Some bugs *cough* zombies going through walls *cough* they clearly have no intentions of fixing anytime soon. 

Edited February 4, 2015 by Mallow88

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

They will polish once they have all the key pieces implemented.  It would make zero sense for them to stop designing to fix a partial game.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Caboose187

[Mallow88 110]

Basic functionality =/= polish. I think it's just a lot more fun adding new features than banging your head against a wall of code trying to fix existing problems. 

[LORDPrometheus 21]

They shouldn't wait to the end of development to address performance issues because if they keep adding eventually it will be unplayable. Yes its an alpha I know but they are making a game for us to play and are implementing our feedback constantly. If they want our input then the alpha has to be in a playable state so its important to improve some systems as they go not just save everything for the end.

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

They shouldn't wait to the end of development to address performance issues because if they keep adding eventually it will be unplayable. Yes its an alpha I know but they are making a game for us to play and are implementing our feedback constantly. If they want our input then the alpha has to be in a playable state so its important to improve some systems as they go not just save everything for the end.

Uh, they do tweak performance.  Not everyone has issues.  The game is playable.  If it's not, it's most likely caused by user error by not keeping their PC up to snuff.

[TheHermit (DayZ) 22]

I have to trust that they meet/discuss/decide and have reasons for the decisions that are made that we simply aren't privy to.

 

Someone else's job always seems easier from the outside. I get it all the time

 

"why don't you do it this way, why did he not do this, if I were you I would do it this way, etc etc"

 

Unless you are working in/on it, you really don't know the factors leading into decisions, but it's probably safe to give the benefit of doubt and presume things aren't done to deliberately annoy you. Things are probably being compromised and sacrificed for the sake of research and future planning.

[McWendy 675]

Basic functionality =/= polish. I think it's just a lot more fun adding new features than banging your head against a wall of code trying to fix existing problems.

So you can live with all the bugs as long as they add stuff? Makes sense....

You sir should go into politics.

[LORDPrometheus 21]

Uh, they do tweak performance.  Not everyone has issues.  The game is playable.  If it's not, it's most likely caused by user error by not keeping their PC up to snuff.

I both agree and disagree with your argument. I agree that they are constantly tweaking the game and that user settings matter significantly but not everyone can afford a $1500+ gaming rig and few games actually require that anyway. The new renderer released with .53 today should help but in the end it will require very extensive optimization that may take several months to fully complete since these guys are a pretty small team. Also how is being a teenager or a 21k in debt college student (8k for me in freshman year already) that persons fault? How is it an individuals fault for not being willing to spend their hard earned drinking money on a new GPU?

Admittedly I am finalizing a new rig this week so my argument is altitude mute but still. Not everyone games as a sole form of entertainment.

The argument in my initial post if you had bothered to read it would have made it clear that I was saying the current unoptimized architecture will only continue to get bogged down worse over time if new mechanics are added without any thought to making them run efficiently. I did not say the game is unplayable. Just that without some tuning it will be eventually.

[LORDPrometheus 21]

So you can live with all the bugs as long as they add stuff? Makes sense....

You sir should go into politics.

The economy is in a major recession mr president what should we do?

Let's go buy a few islands and create a new national sports league.

But sir how would that help fix the problem?

Who cares about fixing the problem ignoring it and making it worse is far more fun!

Edited February 4, 2015 by LORDPrometheus

[soulfirez 901]

I both agree and disagree with your argument. I agree that they are constantly tweaking the game and that user settings matter significantly but not everyone can afford a $1500+ gaming rig and few games actually require that anyway. The new renderer released with .53 today should help but in the end it will require very extensive optimization that may take several months to fully complete since these guys are a pretty small team. Also how is being a teenager or a 21k in debt college student (8k for me in freshman year already) that persons fault? How is it an individuals fault for not being willing to spend their hard earned drinking money on a new GPU?

Admittedly I am finalizing a new rig this week so my argument is altitude mute but still. Not everyone games as a sole form of entertainment.

The argument in my initial post if you had bothered to read it would have made it clear that I was saying the current unoptimized architecture will only continue to get bogged down worse over time if new mechanics are added without any thought to making them run efficiently. I did not say the game is unplayable. Just that without some tuning it will be eventually.

Here is where there is some conflict in how an alpha use to be worked on and how people feel it should be worked on these days ( seeing they sell it as early release.)

Alpha use to mean you would smash as many or all the features into the game up to the point it broke , then you fixed it enough to keep adding features until you reached the point it was feature complete and you bug fixed optimized polished etc(known as the beta stage).

 

It was done this way because you fix bug X now and when you add feature Y it brings bug X back or it brings it back with bug Z aswell, so in effect bug fixing anything BUT the major game breaking ( and by that i mean making the game unplayable nothing to do with play enjoyment) was a complete and utter waste of time hence they didnt use to do it .

 

But now that they sell the alpha as early release should they change the alpha process?? i mean they warn you to not buy unless your willing to support development( nothing about you enjoying the game) so basicly if they bend to to the will of the consumers and do alot of bug fixing as they go they will extend development time by alot ( and they are already doing more bug fixing as they go than what would be considered the norm in the old days of an alpha.

 

So its a tough one realy do you want a smoother alpha game play but have it go on for years or would you rather they complete the game sooner??

[byrgesen 1341]

While your logic is pretty sound, you also need to remember that this is not a typical alpha. Typically, alphas have been a private or limited testing phase, intended for players who really wanted to test the game. Under modern gaming business models, however, alphas are publicly released, advertised as a full game, and sold at retail value. What you then encounter are fans of the franchise or game buy it because they don't wish to wait, then are disappointed with the reality of what an alpha entails. Sadly, this is the nature of the modern gaming industry.

 

However, there is much credit to be given to those who complain about very basic features of the game that have persisted for a long time. This game has been in "alpha" for over a year now, and there are some extremely rudimentary flaws that still have yet to be addressed. It is only natural that this will lead to frustration among players/testers who have paid to play/test the game. For certain features that have been broken for a long period of time and are commonly known to be broken, it might be a good idea to just turn them off until they decide to address them. Some bugs *cough* zombies going through walls *cough* they clearly have no intentions of fixing anytime soon. 

 

Dayz was never EVER advertised as a complete game (BIG RED TEXT BOX!!!!)

DayZ was never sold at full retail price, during development, and isnt at full retail price yet, wont be for a long time.

If people buy it under the assumption its a complete game and its full retail price, they are either very bad at reading and understanding, or havent done any kind of research beforehand.

I cant feel sorry for these people, i really cant. They knew what they were getting into, or at least they would if they had done the research one should ALWAYS do before buying any new product.

 

I cant help but get abit offended, on behalf of BI, when you write "Some bugs *cough* zombies going through walls *cough* they clearly have no intentions of fixing anytime soon" as this is a subject that been under heavy development and open discussions for months, again if you do your research.

 

Turning off features, is not feasible. Its not like theres a switch for every feature in the game, most of them rely on each other and turning one off will break 10 others completely. Especially in a complicated game engine like this.

 

I will agree with some issues taking a very long time, but if you have ever done "bug smashing" on big software projects, you would know how difficult it is to fix issues, that are connected to other things, in 100's of ways.

Writing code is easy, making it work is the hardest part. :)

[Mallow88 110]

So you can live with all the bugs as long as they add stuff? Makes sense....

You sir should go into politics.

 

Clearly you failed to comprehend my message ;) I'm saying I understand why the developers work on new material rather than fixing bugs, not that I agree with it.

[Mallow88 110]

Dayz was never EVER advertised as a complete game (BIG RED TEXT BOX!!!!)

DayZ was never sold at full retail price, during development, and isnt at full retail price yet, wont be for a long time.

If people buy it under the assumption its a complete game and its full retail price, they are either very bad at reading and understanding, or havent done any kind of research beforehand.

I cant feel sorry for these people, i really cant. They knew what they were getting into, or at least they would if they had done the research one should ALWAYS do before buying any new product.

 

I cant help but get abit offended, on behalf of BI, when you write "Some bugs *cough* zombies going through walls *cough* they clearly have no intentions of fixing anytime soon" as this is a subject that been under heavy development and open discussions for months, again if you do your research.

 

Turning off features, is not feasible. Its not like theres a switch for every feature in the game, most of them rely on each other and turning one off will break 10 others completely. Especially in a complicated game engine like this.

 

I will agree with some issues taking a very long time, but if you have ever done "bug smashing" on big software projects, you would know how difficult it is to fix issues, that are connected to other things, in 100's of ways.

Writing code is easy, making it work is the hardest part. :)

 

I never blamed them, but this game was released and advertised on steam, and with many early access games you expect it to be playable. There have been multiple times over the past year where the game simply was not playable due to game breaking bugs. I understand that coding can be a nightmare, but I think the developers of this game are simply amateur. You can hate me because I'm not a fanboy all you want. I love DayZ. I love the concept. I really agree with where the developers want to take the game. I just don't agree with how they are doing it. That doesn't mean I dislike them. I could care less about new clothes. Fix the zombies first. I've been in many alphas and betas. Most of them, if they were developed like this I would have quit. If I didn't have such a fondness for the concept of dayz, and some of the thrills I experienced in the mod, I would have left this game long ago. 

 

Now in response to zombies going through walls. If they have been unable to fix this one major issue for the last year, you don't doubt their priorities or abilities as programmers? I don't wish to label you as a naive fanboy, but if the glove fits...

[Caboose187 (DayZ) 3036]

I never blamed them, but this game was released and advertised on steam, and with many early access games you expect it to be playable. There have been multiple times over the past year where the game simply was not playable due to game breaking bugs. I understand that coding can be a nightmare, but I think the developers of this game are simply amateur. You can hate me because I'm not a fanboy all you want. I love DayZ. I love the concept. I really agree with where the developers want to take the game. I just don't agree with how they are doing it. That doesn't mean I dislike them. I could care less about new clothes. Fix the zombies first. I've been in many alphas and betas. Most of them, if they were developed like this I would have quit. If I didn't have such a fondness for the concept of dayz, and some of the thrills I experienced in the mod, I would have left this game long ago. 

 

Now in response to zombies going through walls. If they have been unable to fix this one major issue for the last year, you don't doubt their priorities or abilities as programmers? I don't wish to label you as a naive fanboy, but if the glove fits...

It was advertised on steam but it clearly had it's own warning not to buy this game.  A lot of other early access games don't have this warning.  People are just too ingorant this day and age and cannot comprehend simple warning messages.

[TheHermit (DayZ) 22]

 

 

Now in response to zombies going through walls. If they have been unable to fix this one major issue for the last year, you don't doubt their priorities or abilities as programmers? I don't wish to label you as a naive fanboy, but if the glove fits...

I don't doubt anyone's abilities. I have no clue what goes in behind their closed doors, to presume such is ignorant and silly.

 

Do you have a job? How would you feel if casual outsiders criticized your unfinished work in progress during a status presentation? If you have ever worked on anything of any substance, you ought to understand this.

 

We do not know anything. At all. Judge the developers on the finished (developed) product. You have to wait until the product has been developed before you have a right to doubt their ability. Not during.

Guess what. Shit happens good and horribly ALL the time during development. It usually happens behind closed doors.

 

Have some respect for the people that do jobs that you can't do. And have some respect for the people (that you call fanboys) that are patient and understand what they've bought into.

Grab a lesson in patience and respect.

[byrgesen 1341]

I never blamed them, but this game was released and advertised on steam, and with many early access games you expect it to be playable. There have been multiple times over the past year where the game simply was not playable due to game breaking bugs. I understand that coding can be a nightmare, but I think the developers of this game are simply amateur. You can hate me because I'm not a fanboy all you want. I love DayZ. I love the concept. I really agree with where the developers want to take the game. I just don't agree with how they are doing it. That doesn't mean I dislike them. I could care less about new clothes. Fix the zombies first. I've been in many alphas and betas. Most of them, if they were developed like this I would have quit. If I didn't have such a fondness for the concept of dayz, and some of the thrills I experienced in the mod, I would have left this game long ago. 

 

Now in response to zombies going through walls. If they have been unable to fix this one major issue for the last year, you don't doubt their priorities or abilities as programmers? I don't wish to label you as a naive fanboy, but if the glove fits...

 

So in a nutshell, putting a game on steam, makes you automaticly disregard the developers advice and guidanse, before buying into something called "Early Acces" and is clearly labelled an ALPHA?? (see, now you made me do it....)

It also makes you loose youre sense of reality (developing a really good game, in 2-3 years. Imposibruh!!!) and patience??

Really? i mean.... Im not really sure what to answer, right now....

 

You can call me what ever you like, it doesnt matter to me.

But looking at bohemias track record and looking at the really good games, we have on the market (and i mean REALLY good, like playing it 5-10+ years after release), its just simple facts that a good game takes a very long time to develop and requires alot of patience to participate in.

 

In the past year, dayz have seen a lot of updates, and most of them have been pretty significant to gameplay.

I still think something like the zombie AI, is an extremly huge task.

Making a computer controlled unit go anywhere on a 225 sq/km map, littered with 3d animated objects, which also move around. At the same time it should have different attack patterns, based on the position (open land, cities, rooms, etc.) the position of the victim and still not colide with anything.

It should also require very little processing power from the CPU, so the rest of the game has all it needs, to run well. In a nutshell...

 

I would love to see you write something like that, before you start trash talking proffesional programmers....

 

Ohh i forgot to add, dayz has always been a playble game, in development.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Byrgesen

[Hetstaine 10852]

[Mallow88 110]

The age old argument of "if you think they suck, could you do any better?" 

 

No. I couldn't make a better game. That's why I'm not in the business of making games. As a consumer, I have a right to my opinions about a product, whether or not I could make that product. If I buy a pair of shoes that gets a hole in it 2 weeks after purchase, the fact that I can't make shoes has nothing to do with my complaint. 

 

Logical fallacies are running rampant in this thread. I must leave before the space-time continuum has a hole torn in it.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Mallow88

[boneboys 7988]

physics of objects are totally broken atm - why not just disable it for the time being

 

What sort of question is that when you know the game is WIP.

 

Topic has degraded into absolute nonsense.

 

@ Hetstaine, go get with the words already will ya !