Status Report - 23 October 2018

[robbyj 77]

On 10/23/2018 at 4:54 PM, Shaggi_ said:

What ever happened to barricading buildings? Is that scratched from 1.0 release content?

Yes. That's a "post 1.0" feature now see ya in 2020

[IMT 3190]

1 hour ago, robbyj said:

You can add most pre .63 items back into the game manually through the xml files on the server. I actually do that for the baseball caps cause I wanted them as well

If they are ready, why do we need to put them manually in? Why is there so much content kept from us while it's actually ready? It doesn't make any sense, are they trying to get us to have "oh my god, I didn't expect this" reaction when they release? If so, they are making themselves look bad right now for that reason because based on the Status Report, everything which is in the game right now is it for us and it's not much. They're going to have 2 months to get everything in, to fix bugs and polish because they want to release DayZ no matter what in 2018. That's not much time, specially to fix bugs and polish the game.

As I said before, we need some clarification, perhaps a separate post from the team to clarify a lot of shit up and get a lot of questions answered. A great thing which would help is a list of all the items and features which are going to be in 1.0 and a list of what was in 0.62 but isn't going to be in 1.0. Also a list of what isn't in 0.62 and is (not) going be in 1.0. And I'm talking about the full thing, I know that is a lot and a lot to ask for but right now, it's unclear what we're getting.

[Arthur Dubrovka 376]

I hope this will clear things a bit.

[igor-vk 909]

33 minutes ago, Arthur Dubrovka said:

I hope this will clear things a bit.

It wont. We will hear same things again.

[fuzzy_chimera 25]

Will have to wait and see what Eugen says. Who knows it may be insightful, haven't seen backlash this harsh since the food shortage in the mid .50's

[amadieus 315]

The backslash is getting a bit out of hand now anyway. 1.0 remains just a number and if features are not ready then they simply are not just ready. Too many people are going too crazy about this number and the few things being pushed back.

The only real problem here is that releasing 1.0 is a strong marketing tool that can be used to gain lots of new players. But the lack of certain elements make the overall presentation of 1.0 worse. Things like ragdoll, missing physics, lack of weapons, no vaulting (so we have a not so aesthetically looking jump). Infected and diseases also still need work. These elements reduce the overall presentation of the game when it gets released as 1.0 and thus might reduce the amount of new players coming in. 

[IMT 3190]

6 minutes ago, amadieus said:

The backslash is getting a bit out of hand now anyway. 1.0 remains just a number and if features are not ready then they simply are not just ready. Too many people are going too crazy about this number and the few things being pushed back.

The only real problem here is that releasing 1.0 is a strong marketing tool that can be used to gain lots of new players. But the lack of certain elements make the overall presentation of 1.0 worse. Things like ragdoll, missing physics, lack of weapons, no vaulting (so we have a not so aesthetically looking jump). Infected and diseases also still need work. These elements reduce the overall presentation of the game when it gets released as 1.0 and thus might reduce the amount of new players coming in. 

Obviously, you don't get it. When did you start playing DayZ? Have you even ever played 0.62? There is only a fraction of features and items in the game right now. We are all waiting for DayZ 1.0, that is when the game releases and that is when the game goes out of Early Access. It is the version of the game on which we are going to judge the game. If it is not up to par with the promised features and things, it failed. It always has been about 1.0. I never bitched about development speed, process or what ever because Early Access. As soon as the game releases, I have a legitimate reason to do so since the game is released.

And yes, 1.0 is a great tool to get more players or to lose it. The backlash is speaking for itself here, no one except for maybe 10 people are happy with this.

[amadieus 315]

1 minute ago, IMT said:

Obviously, you don't get it. When did you start playing DayZ? Have you even ever played 0.62? There is only a fraction of features and items in the game right now. We are all waiting for DayZ 1.0, that is when the game releases and that is when the game goes out of Early Access. It is the version of the game on which we are going to judge the game. If it is not up to par with the promised features and things, it failed. It always has been about 1.0. I never bitched about development speed, process or what ever because Early Access. As soon as the game releases, I have a legitimate reason to do so since the game is released.

And yes, 1.0 is a great tool to get more players or to lose it. The backlash is speaking for itself here, no one except for maybe 10 people are happy with this.

Out of everyone you should know that parity with 0.62 was never going to be achieved. This was already clear in November last year. Plus, with a bit of experience with game design one could expect that even more content got delayed. That is what I'm referring to with the over the top backslash. You can read in my comment that I also do not think that the version we get is 1.0 worthy and that they should delay it to get a more complete product. There are basic things that are just a necessity for 1.0. Things that I mentioned in my post as well

[IMT 3190]

6 minutes ago, amadieus said:

Out of everyone you should know that parity with 0.62 was never going to be achieved. This was already clear in November last year. Plus, with a bit of experience with game design one could expect that even more content got delayed. That is what I'm referring to with the over the top backslash. You can read in my comment that I also do not think that the version we get is 1.0 worthy and that they should delay it to get a more complete product. There are basic things that are just a necessity for 1.0. Things that I mentioned in my post as well

But the thing is, they promised parity to 0.62 for 1.0, that's the whole deal here. That they weren't going to make it, I can understand that. That they were going to postpone some features mentioned last November, I can understand that as well. But were not even close to parity with 0.62 and that is the whole problem. Combine that with the "2018 is going to be the year of DayZ", "beta will come in 2018", etc. while they already had problems with deadlines in the past. Eventually, you end up in the situation we find ourselves in right now. So they should delay that "2018 is going to be the year of DayZ" and "DayZ is going to beta and release before the end of the year" to next year or maybe the year after that.

When they stated that deadline of 2018, they started playing Russian roulette (another feature which we won't see back in the initial 1.0, by the way). But now, instead of playing it with 1 bullet, they just put in 3 more bullets in the chamber.

[Mantasisg 172]

Deadline does not only consists of a date. Deadline is also a must to do work. If must to do work can be adjusted, then deadline automatically gets adjusted as well. So 1.0 is relative.

1.0 doesn't have to bring loads of stuff for existing players that already nearly played out the game during most boring gameplay years, but it has to bring good experience to newcomers and people who didin't play DayZ for a long time. 

 

[Brandon Clinch 50]

I read the discord chat but did not find any useful information, at least not to me.

"We failed on managing expectations, and our way out is to stabilize and stop doing that

Honesty is the way forward" - Eugen

 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Ja2dkoc12yTSlSc48s1dYWLR6F9_8M9VOq3R8IDXKQ/edit#heading=h.4neyqe979krb

Edited October 25, 2018 by Brandon Clinch

[IMT 3190]

6 minutes ago, Mantasisg said:

Deadline does not only consists of a date. Deadline is also a must to do work. If must to do work can be adjusted, then deadline automatically gets adjusted as well. So 1.0 is relative.

1.0 doesn't have to bring loads of stuff for existing players that already nearly played out the game during most boring gameplay years, but it has to bring good experience to newcomers and people who didin't play DayZ for a long time. 

 

You're taking the piss right? Please tell me you are taking the piss. So first of all, you agree with me that they need to postpone 1.0. That is literally what you said because if you can't make a deadline because it needs more work, the deadline needs to be adjusted as well. Second, really? So the developers should say to the players who stood by their side all the time, who believed in them, who trusted them "fuck you, we don't care about you. It's all about the players who shat on our game, to make them comeback and give them a good experience. Plus for possible new people who might play the game". You're definitely taking the piss, there is no other way.

If not, I told you long ago to leave the forums with your negativity, bullshit and trolling and even asked for a ban because of that. After a hiatus, you're back with the same shenanigans, negativity, trolling and bullshit. Cut it out, we don't want it here, specially not now.

[TheYetiBum 790]

Dude I'm a console player and even I get why the diehard long term fans who have been on the forum forever would lose there minds over this blatant cash grab, push it to 1.0 so that it can go on the playstation network asap as they pretty much don't allow early access. So shove a finished sticker on it and take in that money lol.

you don't promise or even insinuate key features, items and mechanics for nearly five years and then with a few months to go suddenly announce that 80% of previous builds and tested mechanics, items, etc won't be in the full 1.0 release.

this isn't a little fan passion project between friends, we are consumers who bought a product expecting it to perform as advertised and it isn't going to deliver. Not only will this make a lot of long term players leave, it'll draw new players in who will play for a short period and leave due to lack of content. Jesus the games been out for only two months on xbox and there's literally only one full server at peak times, that's what happens when people realise they've been ripped off.

[RaptorM60 392]

9 hours ago, TheYetiBum said:

but whoever the the brand manager is... need a serious sit down to discuss public perception and long term product viability

1

Oh hai. That would be me. Teach me, since you feel like you know better than I how I can do my job in my situation. I'm listening, my private messages are open and I like to learn :)

[IReadTheAgreement 313]

42 minutes ago, RaptorM60 said:

Oh hai. That would be me. Teach me, since you feel like you know better than I how I can do my job in my situation. I'm listening, my private messages are open and I like to learn :)

Maybe stop being condescending to the remaining players here?  You hardly have a leg to stand on.

Doesn't really matter in the end I guess.  This SR has put so many old players off of DayZ I can't see the majority of them even wanting to load this poor excuse you guys are calling 1.0 when it comes out.  This is my first post on these forums in a long time and will most likely be my last.  Enjoy riding out the sinking ship you sunk yourselves.

 

[TheYetiBum 790]

42 minutes ago, RaptorM60 said:

Oh hai. That would be me. Teach me, since you feel like you know better than I how I can do my job in my situation. I'm listening, my private messages are open and I like to learn :)

You see your unprofessional reply to a paying consumers post with an obvious sarcastic response as if this is a school yard spat tells me all I need to know, especially after the vast majority of all steam reviews are negative , the vast majority of all forum posts on latest status report are negative. Would you like to explain in detail why the game is being released with the vast majority or features that were previously stated as being in the game in 1.0 won't be in the game, rather than further postponing?

if You went to a restaurant and ordered a 12oz steak and was delivered beans on toast but was still charged for a 12oz ........oh and it took the waiter 4 years to deliver.

would you feel that you were treated fairly, honestly and ethically? 

 

[RaptorM60 392]

1 hour ago, TheYetiBum said:

 Would you like to explain in detail why the game is being released with the vast majority or features that were previously stated as being in the game in 1.0 won't be in the game, rather than further postponing?

1

Sure, as that's a legitimate question that will actually get us somehwere. A detailed answer is something we've spend quite a lot of time thinking about after we've read all of the feedback on the Status Report, it was the main topic on our today's morning meeting of Baty, Eugen, project lead David and me. We'd like to get that answer written up with Eugen. For now, let me just restate some of the points Eugen had already made elsewhere, and expand upon them: 

• having a specific, locked feature set for 1.0 is essential in order to establish a stable game/platform
  • we've now reached a point where we have the core set of features that make the core DayZ gameplay, and that's why the line has been drawn
  • 1.0 with this feature set, and proper amount of bug fixes and stability, will be the best DayZ we delivered to date + modding support. That alone makes it worth a 1.0 release
• having that stable platform is critical now; further work with an unstable game is tedious for the team - it's frustrating when problems caused by multiple work-in-progress systems accumulate. Not dealing with that will make our work easier = results better
  • being in the 5th year of Early Access is something neither players or developers enjoy. And let me tell you, especially the developers. We don't want people to burn out
• we're in a constant uphill battle with community (=your) expectations, it's a catch 22 that unfortunately originates from game dev realities, as well as our previous mistakes in estimating and managing expectations
  • everybody now feels like we'll do better if we give you a 1.0 release 3, 6, 9... months later with more stuff
  • but after 3, 6 or 9 months, it's natural to expect even more than a mere content parity with 0.62, engine improvements, + basebuilding, for example
  • especially when we keep accumulating WIP features as I described, this could well be another disappointment, just arriving 6 months later, being the more frustrating for both the community, and for the hard working people here
• we don't have the perfect option where everybody will get what they want in the time they want it. Much like with the engine development road we've been through, we have the option that we know will lead us somewhere eventually. We'd be a bunch of dummies to not offer the perfect option to players if it was there. We're not dummies, as the perfect option is not there
• contrary to popular opinion, we read, evaluate and take seriously every bit of constructive and POLITE feedback
• no features are forgotten, work on new things continues on when we stabilize the platform

 

[Ballsinacan01 6]

1

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Ballsinacan01

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

25 minutes ago, RaptorM60 said:

• contrary to popular opinion, we read, evaluate and take seriously every bit of constructive and POLITE feedback
• no features are forgotten, work on new things continues on when we stabilize the platform

whoooo, doggy!

I've contributed thousands of lines of polite questions, suggestions, and feedback, patch by patch.

I've even thought I've seen a few things I've suggested being implemented in game after I recommended them.

But I've never once received feedback in return. "Thanks, that's a good suggestion. We'll see about implementing this in future builds." Nothing.

A recent example, in the past year or so, I stressed the need to conceal infected spawning from players view (after being swarmed at Myshkino base by a small army of infected that were 100% not there when I arrived), adding that infected spawn points inside buildings are something we all like for surprise and variation. Lo and behold, the number of infected spawning in buildings has risen since that post but I never received feedback that my suggestion was useful or implemented. A lot of dev teams would be front and center encouraging and responding to suggestions on a regular basis.

^Last night. 5 in one building in Elektro.

I've asked countless POLITE questions for matters that are relevant to many here that test and can probably count the amount of replies I've had on one hand.

Most recently I've asked Baty and ImpulZ when we might see nails, sheet metal, and hammers in online mode, so we can test them, and my questions were met with silence.

My first post in this thread was largely ignored and there was nothing impolite about how it was worded. Flustered, confused, and down trodden, should be how it's all read. Desperate for answers as to where all this past work will actually be seen in game. Desperate to hear if those features I listed will ever make it into the game....

[TheYetiBum 790]

7 minutes ago, RaptorM60 said:

Sure, as that's a legitimate question that will actually get us somehwere. A detailed answer is something we've spend quite a lot of time thinking about after we've read all of the feedback on the Status Report, it was the main topic on our today's morning meeting of Baty, Eugen, project lead David and me. We'd like to get that answer written up with Eugen. For now, let me just restate some of the points Eugen had already made elsewhere, and expand upon them: 

• having a specific, locked feature set for 1.0 is essential in order to establish a stable game/platform
  • we've now reached a point where we have the core set of features that make the core DayZ gameplay, and that's why the line has been drawn
  • 1.0 with this feature set, and proper amount of bug fixes and stability, will be the best DayZ we delivered to date + modding support. That alone makes it worth a 1.0 release
• having that stable platform is critical now; further work with an unstable game is tedious for the team - it's frustrating when problems caused by multiple work-in-progress systems accumulate. Not dealing with that will make our work easier = results better
  • being in the 5th year of Early Access is something neither players or developers enjoy. And let me tell you, especially the developers. We don't want people to burn out
• we're in a constant uphill battle with community (=your) expectations, it's a catch 22 that unfortunately originates from game dev realities, as well as our previous mistakes in estimating and managing expectations
  • everybody now feels like we'll do better if we give you a 1.0 release 3, 6, 9... months later with more stuff
  • but after 3, 6 or 9 months, it's natural to expect even more than a mere content parity with 0.62, engine improvements, + basebuilding, for example
  • especially when we keep accumulating WIP features as I described, this could well be another disappointment, just arriving 6 months later, being the more frustrating for both the community, and for the hard working people here
• we don't have the perfect option where everybody will get what they want in the time they want it. Much like with the engine development road we've been through, we have the option that we know will lead us somewhere eventually. We'd be a bunch of dummies to not offer the perfect option to players if it was there. We're not dummies, as the perfect option is not there
• contrary to popular opinion, we read, evaluate and take seriously every bit of constructive and POLITE feedback
• no features are forgotten, work on new things continues on when we stabilize the platform

 

Firstly thankyou for the response, I can imagine your all very agitated at the moment & it's generally not in my nature to be combative. I respect anyone who works hard  and has passion for there work, but I do speak plainly

My only point is that once you condense your response down removing business double speak it reads as this.

we promised too much or hyped too much for too long and couldn't deliver on said promises/hype and therefore lost consumer trust. Subsequently a snowballing effect on development arose as new mechanics, features and items were being created faster than bugs could be fixed or stability raised which has interfered with merging new content.

I understand all this and respect games development timelines are fluid, no one can fully ascertain how one added feature will effect core performance and other mechanics etc, I am a very patient consumer and can forgive almost any wait but that wait or setbacks of any kind need to be fully explained at the time not hidden away & not compounded with more hype and more promises.

Simply stating that you can't deliver on a previously stated brand standard, already set by you the DayZ team for 1.0, not by the communities expectations but literally stated by the development team. 

What is puzzling me is how would you then make the logic leap to sticking to the original 1.0 release date instead of postponing, doing the bug/stability fixes necessary and adding in content previously stated as being in 1.0 before release, as your statement above doesn't explain that reasoning.

my assumption is that it's to keep to a finance schedule and to capitalise on seasonal sales after being put Into full release marketplaces cross platform, do not get me wrong I do not mind why it's being done even if it's just because it needs to be done financially but some transparency would be nice

 

[TheYetiBum 790]

@RaptorM60.

Also my suggestion to you as a brand manager would be to get a detailed compete list of items, weapons and mechanics that will definately be in game on launch, I know the status report touched on these aspects but certainly a detailed extensive list of items & weapons that will be included would go a long way to restoring some faith/positivity amongst consumers , I'm sure you had more than a notion that this status report would not be taken well by consumers it just puzzles me why this list wasn't included to at least alleviate some negative response. I do not envy your job role right now & I certainly bear you no Ill will & wish the team the best of luck, I still have faith that the game will be worth playing in the future , it's just a shame that'll be even further away than expected.

[Gobbokirk 546]

Let me try to summarize my thoughts here.
As for people complaining and a few "happy", I don't think "Happy" would be the right word.
More like accepting the situation than happy, wasn't it Martin that said that it's not ideal but needs to be done the other day?
Slap me if I remember wrong, but we all have a common goal in the end.

I am still leaning towards pushing the 1.0 in name out a while.
Taking a content and focusing on bug fixes makes a lot of sense though.
If it in the end makes workflow easier for the crew it is worth it for sure, no doubt in my mind there.
Even if just calling it beta at the end of the year and letting it be an extended beta towards a little more functionality in that 6 months(random number) later might be better gain from a PR standpoint.
Then again you'd ofc still have the backlash of another delay and might not give the team that end in sight line that they clearly need.

In the end I still see no reason to doubt any of the devs on their words. The usual "Devs lie" that gets thrown around won't fly with me.
Mistakes have been made sure, but lies indicate intent and that will require hard proof to accept.

So if the team agrees this is the best, then we're left with guess work on our tips, just like mine above.
It's not like this would be an impulse decision and they have been as open about issues as could be expected.

Not sure if this fit in anywhere, kinda just writing as stuff pops into my head.
As I've said before, X amount of work takes Y amount of time no matter what we stamp on the build number.
Though I still want my broken limbs ;)

<gobbohugs> for everyone :)

 

[green_mtn_grandbob 594]

Build the game on a rock not on sand. 

Edited October 25, 2018 by green_mtn_grandbob

[Ballsinacan01 6]

41 minutes ago, Gobbokirk said:

The usual "Devs lie" that gets thrown around won't fly with me.
Mistakes have been made sure, but lies indicate intent and that will require hard proof to accept.

One being in software development, I agree devs don't lie, they extent the truth much like the US politicians. Also I would say very much of what Dean "rocket" hall said was lies but o well. Cash grab is in.....Holiday season 2018 DAYZ 1.0 Cash Grab

[Private Evans 1303]

having a specific, locked feature set for 1.0 is essential in order to establish a stable game/platform

NO !

Having a locked feature set is if course something that has to be done at certain points of development and yeah it has to be done to make a platform stable but calling this basic platform  then 1.0  with all the missing stuff is a slap in the face of your fans and something completely different and not the point because we are all pissed here.

we've now reached a point where we have the core set of features that make the core DayZ gameplay, and that's why the line has been drawn

Again  NO !

Don't you get it...most players  are testing the game and then leaving again, because the game has not enough content and features to motivate for more than a few sessions. Don't you read the comments...features and mechanics that are basic and important for us the players are just flavor content for you..this game in its current status is far away from being feature complete !

What we've got is the basic core...nothing more ! We all know that you will add  most of the missing content in the future...but we all also know that this will take at least a year or more looking at your development speed and the massive amount of missing stuff....Don't  you get it that you are currently on the best way to completely loose it ?

1.0 with this feature set, and proper amount of bug fixes and stability, will be the best DayZ we delivered to date + modding support. That alone makes it worth a 1.0 release

and NO !

it is the best running version of this game.....not the best experience!  This is a big difference. I had way more fun with the clunky mod ! What really is shocking me is how far you are away from the original idea of this game . It is still gameplay and diversion that matters not nice graphics and tech !!! Beside that modding is cool but not a core feature of a game !!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Private Evans