The Psychology of Understanding Alpha

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

-snip-

 

The Arma 3 Engine still would've had to be rewritten in whole chunks for the SA, just like the Arma 2 engine. All of the other things you mentioned are a symptom of alpha or are arguments from personal incredulity due to your own lack of faith in the dev team's ability to deliver on what they have projected. You can tell me you know that this is an alpha all day long if you like, but your statements clearly demonstrate that you do not understand the process. You have absolutely no idea what Enfusion can deliver. Why? Because you've barely seen any of it. 

Edited August 31, 2015 by ColdAtrophy

[comikz 218]

While I grasp the idea of what a game being in Alpha is all about, it's hard to attribute all this games problems to being just that, Alpha...

 

When the phrase "It's Alpha" is tossed around so freely that, everytime someone has an issue or brings up a problem that it is explained away by people shouting, "It's Alpha!" makes me think that a lot of the problems this game has, may be in fact, NOT Alpha related, and just poorly planned patches, and little to no testing on the developers side before putting it out for us players.

 

And before someone comes in and says, "We're not just playing it, we're testing it too!!!" I realize that as well, however, unless everyone who is playing/testing this game, has a grasp on game development skills, then simple uneducated reports aren't going to help get things sorted out.

 

So, is all this game in Alpha, Yes!

Can all the problems we face while playing it, be excused away by, "It's Alpha", No...

[BlinkingRiki182 54]

The Arma 3 Engine still would've had to be rewritten in whole chunks for the SA, just like the Arma 2 engine.

 

No it wouldn't.

Let's take the new render for example. Why are they writing a new render for the SA? Because the Arma2 engine render is written for DX7/8. Arma3 is written for DX11, thereby eliminating the need for a new render. Instead of that, they could have focused on fixing the netcode, which is bad enough even in Arma3 (still better than Arma2 though). Anyway, as I already said I'm not saying the devs are lazy or stupid, I'm just being realistic.

I also fail to see you provide any credible argument to your Enfusion hype. You've said it yourself - you know as much about it as I do.

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

 

No it wouldn't.

 

Well, Hicks specifically stated several times now that the Arma 3 engine would have imposed the same engine limitations as the Arma 2 engine. Also, as he also stated, the new renderer was not hard to write or work intensive. The hard part is extracting all of the old renderer from the simulation and "everywhere it touches the game" as Hicks put it. They would have had to do exactly the same thing with the A3 engine. So I don't get what you are saying.

[pilgrim* 3514]

 The last 5 contribs to the discussion all come down to "netcode" - and you are all agreeing on that one thing, in different ways.

 

[netcode is the gamer term, not a technical programming term]

which is why I suggested in the last line of my entry above =  " Need to look at pc<->server bandwidth (different approaches), or more powerful servers, or some kind of hybrid solution (radical!). "

 

I emphasise "different approaches" and "hybrid/radical" - because when all the game decisions are run on the server there is an upper limit to what you can do; It is an absolute limit set by the  lag - synch - server power triad. Any game engine that does not deal with this bandwidth problem in some really NEW way, will have the same maximum performance as any other.

 

Everybody who makes on-line games has been "improving" or usually "tweaking" their netcode for years. Has some NEW technique turned up since 1990 ?

 

In SA you can not have any game decisions AT ALL made on the PC, they must be made on the server, that was the key change from DayZ Mod. So right there you have set the upper limit to how well the game can run. Use a faster more powerful server and you could have more stuff running, but just as badly as ATM. Generate some game decisions on the PC (eg, create and interact zombies on the PC), taking that priority away from the server, and you could have fifty zombies in one village, no problem. But then hackers could play their game at home with no zombies at all.

 

So the difficulty is to find a different - new - way to deal with  <lag - synch - server power>  What you call "netcode " is about the bandwidth between the Server and the PC. This includes the tickrate, the lag, the synch, and the complexity of the world. It's been chewed over, the same old way, for years - since the first good new ideas made it possible.

 

If you want more server power how about a cloud, dealing with one game ? Distributed decision-making that can't be subverted from any one PC? If you want faster response how about finding SOME decisions that can be initiated on the pc, and then passed to the server, of types that can not give hackers any advantage ? 

 

As the netcode situation stands (with ANY online game that runs 100% server-side), if you made the player's on-screen action really smooth, really fast, really complex - then you'd just get MORE rubberbanding, more freezes, more dead men shooting back.. etc etc.. The game experience would NOT improve.

 

People have found radical solutions and done things by new methods, in the past, - the idea of synch at the server was a breakthrough (years ago) - and it was a hybrid solution IMO, which is why no "specialist" thought of it earlier?

 

So you can't have "better" netcode (by the meaning of "netcode" as it stands) you can only have "optimized" netcode and that's already been done - Or you can have different 'netcode'  (radically different ? different approach? different relation between the PC and the server ? ) a new bandwidth concept -  and this is the only way to gain the higher bandwidth that is absolutely required for this game to get past the current <speed/complexity> limit.

 

BI are perfectly capable of making a major breakthrough that will revolutionize on-line gaming for years. I can feel it. They have the Force with them, they have genius among them, and they can work bloody hard when they need to.

 

[edited]

 

xx

Edited September 2, 2015 by pilgrim

[Tonyeh 454]

The basic reason people are so fed up consistantly with DayZ is that there is a two steps forward, one step back syndrome with development, as there is with many types of software development, it has to be said.

 

The problem DayZ has is that it's already "in the field" as it were, so the flak will be drawn from the public and not the dev team/shareholders.

 

Also, many, many people are wondering if DayZ will ever be finished to the level that was anticipated and when constant problems arise with the likes of zombies, etc. it's easy to see why.

[q.S Sachiel 470]

[snip]

 

The difference between this and a finished game that someone doesn't enjoy is that this game is still being developed, and people may perceive a potential to minimise their distaste by exerting some kind of pressure to come about a change in the development and form of the game.

The screaming 1pp crowd is a shining example of how this strategy can be effective.

 

I see no difference between someone complaining about lack of zombies, lack of things to do, immersion, difficulty above or below expectation, 1pp/3pp camera or a litany of other complaints or emotive suggestions...

 

This is a community of people who bought into a work in progress that is still in progress, and being the internet people will of course try to shut down the other's argument with varying degrees of justification/legitimacy, but criticism and feedback are basically what this forum is here for, that and consumer-developer communication.

 

And i know you're not saying 'if you don't like it get lost' like people on many other forums are quite so quick to do, *COUGH E: D COUGH* although this forum is still quite quick to say 'ALPHER' 'This game is not for you' or 'come back in 3 years', but imo it's important people can air their grievances here about the game.  IF the devs decide it worthy or otherwise, dictates whethere anything changes, but without the stimulus the change will not be brought about.

Edited September 1, 2015 by q.S Sachiel

[boneboys 7988]

*****************Removed*************

Whoever has half a brain will understand.

I rest my case.

Would you care to elaborate ?

I do not see what this video has to do with the Topic discussion, therefore off-topic and or spam.

[BlinkingRiki182 54]

Would you care to elaborate ?

I do not see what this video has to do with the Topic discussion, therefore off-topic and or spam.

 

It was related to our Arma3 engine discussion and the fact that it is superior to the old Arma2 engine in every way. I don't see why would they want to create a new engine from scratch (Enfusion), when the RV4 can handle everything they want to achieve (e.g. a ton of zombies, that's why I posted the video).

Edited September 3, 2015 by BlinkingRiki182

[boneboys 7988]

 I don't see why would they want to create a new engine from scratch (Enfusion), when the RV4 can handle everything they want to achieve (e.g. a ton of zombies, that's why I posted the video).

The needs are not the same and DayZ will have its own modding tools when the time comes, also each game has different licences.

If you wish to post the video please do so in the ArmAIII Topic (Off-Topic sub Forum).

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

It was related to our Arma3 engine discussion and the fact that it is superior to the old Arma2 engine in every way. I don't see why would they want to create a new engine from scratch (Enfusion), when the RV4 can handle everything they want to achieve (e.g. a ton of zombies, that's why I posted the video).

 

I never said the A3 engine was not superior to the A2 engine. I said that neither engine meets the needs of DayZ. It may seem like they will based on what we have seen of the game so far, but I don't think you will feel the same way come beta. You will likely look back on this discussion and realize that you weren't seeing the whole picture. 

[byrgesen 1341]

It was related to our Arma3 engine discussion and the fact that it is superior to the old Arma2 engine in every way. I don't see why would they want to create a new engine from scratch (Enfusion), when the RV4 can handle everything they want to achieve (e.g. a ton of zombies, that's why I posted the video).

 

Many of the Arma II limitations are still in Arma III, because the RV engine still does the same thing, just better.

Arma is essentially a "tool", if you download arma and nothing else you will only have a short campaign, a few bootcamps and VR to play. You will get bored fast. The strenght of the game is user created content and the ability to create almost whatever you want, without it Arma would have died out long ago.

Arma also has what you call a non-authoritative server/client design. It trusts the client and lets it do what ever it want, hence why cheating in Arma is so "easy" and why cheating in the early days of DayZ SA was so rampant, legacy left overs of the server design.

 

This does not fit into DayZ at all, we need a game not a "tool", but strict rules and a very authoritative server/client design, like you see in all MMO games today. Basicly the server needs to be the boss and dictate exactly what the client is capable of and that includes usercreated content, so a whole new server design has to be developed.

The renderer in Arma III, obviously better then Arma II, is still limited because it does the same thing as it did in Arma II, render EVERYTHING within your view distance, litteraly everything. The new render for DayZ will not do this (amongst many other differences), thus boosting performance on the client.

While Arma III is a huge improvement over Arma II, the RV engine is still very much limited in the exact same things as it has been limited in for years. People on Bohemias official forums still talk about features, limitations and bugs they have been wanting either added or fixed since OFP or Arma II.

Dont get me wrong, i love Arma, spend so much time in it and it is an ever improving game, but the core design of the game simply does not fit into DayZ at all and that is why it didnt really matter what engine they took to begin with. At least RV3 (Arma II OA, Take On Helicopters and VBS2 2.0) was a finished engine while RV4 and Arma III was still very new and almost fresh out of development.

Imagine what could have happened, if they had taken a new engine full of bugs and not properly tested, and started gutting it like they did? That would have ended bad imho.

 

In short, the RV engine simply cannot do what it needs to do for DayZ to work the way it is intended.

 

This information is based on years of playing BI games, actively scripting for Arma II and III, reading pretty much every single devblog the last 5 years and spending way to much time then i will admit, in this forum and BI's own forum :)

Edited September 3, 2015 by Byrgesen

[VahidkinG 192]

i think the issue is about how early the game is in its development when it goes to steam Early-access. people play this game (which went to steam early-access so early in development) and then play some other game in early-access which has more process in development when it goes to steam early access and that cause a confusion in gamers society.

 

example: people think because Game X have more regular updates and more content than Game Y then probably Game Y developers dont do their job, while they dont consider that maybe some engine is harder to code than the other, or maybe the scope those two products are not the same or the Game Y is so early in development in compare with Game X that  causes more bug than Game x 

[BlinkingRiki182 54]

Many of the Arma II limitations are still in Arma III, because the RV engine still does the same thing, just better.

Arma is essentially a "tool", if you download arma and nothing else you will only have a short campaign, a few bootcamps and VR to play. You will get bored fast. The strenght of the game is user created content and the ability to create almost whatever you want, without it Arma would have died out long ago.

Arma also has what you call a non-authoritative server/client design. It trusts the client and lets it do what ever it want, hence why cheating in Arma is so "easy" and why cheating in the early days of DayZ SA was so rampant, legacy left overs of the server design.

 

This does not fit into DayZ at all, we need a game not a "tool", but strict rules and a very authoritative server/client design, like you see in all MMO games today. Basicly the server needs to be the boss and dictate exactly what the client is capable of and that includes usercreated content, so a whole new server design has to be developed.

The renderer in Arma III, obviously better then Arma II, is still limited because it does the same thing as it did in Arma II, render EVERYTHING within your view distance, litteraly everything. The new render for DayZ will not do this (amongst many other differences), thus boosting performance on the client.

While Arma III is a huge improvement over Arma II, the RV engine is still very much limited in the exact same things as it has been limited in for years. People on Bohemias official forums still talk about features, limitations and bugs they have been wanting either added or fixed since OFP or Arma II.

Dont get me wrong, i love Arma, spend so much time in it and it is an ever improving game, but the core design of the game simply does not fit into DayZ at all and that is why it didnt really matter what engine they took to begin with. At least RV3 (Arma II OA, Take On Helicopters and VBS2 2.0) was a finished engine while RV4 and Arma III was still very new and almost fresh out of development.

Imagine what could have happened, if they had taken a new engine full of bugs and not properly tested, and started gutting it like they did? That would have ended bad imho.

 

In short, the RV engine simply cannot do what it needs to do for DayZ to work the way it is intended.

 

This information is based on years of playing BI games, actively scripting for Arma II and III, reading pretty much every single devblog the last 5 years and spending way to much time then i will admit, in this forum and BI's own forum :)

 

I guess you guys might be right. It's just that after playing some of the Arma3 mods, it seemed to me as if the RV4 engine provides with everything needed for the standalone. I really hope that the new engine that they write will kick ass, I really do. I love DayZ SA and want the game to be as good as possible.

Edited September 4, 2015 by BlinkingRiki182

[ColdAtrophy 1850]

 

I guess you guys might be right. It's just that after playing some of the Arma3 mods, it seemed to me as if the RV4 engine provides with everything needed for the standalone. I really hope that the new engine that they write will kick ass, I really do. I love DayZ SA and want the game to be as good as possible.

 

This is why I love these forums. Intelligent people open to actual conversation rather than belligerently sticking to their guns regardless of the information presented. I've convinced others that maybe they don't have all the facts and they've changed their minds. What's more is that no one shamed them for it, but rather commended them. I've been convinced that I was wrong about stuff on here too and admitted it. I don't care what anyone says about gamers, the internet, or DayZ. With the exception of a few bad apples, this place is leaps and bounds ahead of what I've seen on the internet over the last few years in terms of social interaction among posters and how well it is moderated. Have beans!  :beans:  :beans:  :beans:  :beans:  :beans: