Status Report - 23 October 2018

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

The 1.0 label isn't for us. The numbers have essentially always been arbitrary, I know that.

A rose (or corpse flower) by any other name is still a rose (corpse flower).

If I call 1.0, ".75", it will make me feel better.

It's more about general public perception of "completion" and perception of investors and execs.

But that doesn't change the verbal song and dance that has been the status reports.

I've been telling people to, "Just wait and see, DayZ is almost ready for prime time. Everyone will be talking about it, it's going to be incredible. I'll let you know when to join the game, when it's really ready to wow you."

I bought my younger brother a copy ON RELEASE DAY with the idea that he should never touch it until I say it's ready. Nearly 5 years later, and he's never once installed it.

My roommate from 3 years ago (a programmer) bought the ALPHA and we played LAN party style a few times, here in my apartment. This was an early build when the M4 was everywhere.... He hasn't touched the game since putting in a few hours alongside me and merely waits for me to tell him when it's ready.

What percentage of DayZ copies sit idle? That's probably a pretty easy number to figure out.

I've been labelled a fanboy and white knight for years but I always voice my concerns when I feel they are justified.

I'm not even sure BI understands what the 7 month patch drought did to the outlook and resolve of the dedicated testers and then you; set another unattainable date, hit another big snag, and then once again, announce that features are pulled and leave some vagueness as to what's included with the prospective 1.0.

^This could only have a huge negative impact on the mindset of longtime supporters. If they could not foresee this outcome, it may be further evidence of the disconnect between the testers and the devs.

[IMT 3190]

2 hours 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

 

So why is this information left out of the initial Status Report? And what is "contrary to popular opinion, we read, evaluate and take seriously every bit of constructive and POLITE feedback" suppose to mean? Most of us here have been critical, yes. But we have been constructive and polite. I asked multiple times that you guys clarify the situation in a separate post but because he asks it in question-form it gets answered? Come on now, cut us some slack, will ya.

I have a big question for you guys: Why the 1.0? Why don't you guys just do what you are about to do but not label it 1.0? That means, feature freeze, fixing bugs, polishing the game and after that back to work on features. And when there is parity with 0.62 and most people agree that DayZ is ready to launch, then launch it. Remember, you are doing this together with us, the community.

[amadieus 315]

8 hours ago, IMT said:

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.

I mostly agree with you here. Halfway through this year I already did not understood the sentence ''2018 is going to be the year of DayZ'' and already mentioned it earlier in this topic. 2019, with a stable core and modding, plus all the upcoming content, will make that year much and much more interesting then playing a buggy 0.63 since April 2018. 

I only do not know where you got the information from that 1.0 would be in parity with 0.62. I use the 28th of November Status Report of last year and it clearly says with a lot of things that it will come either with 1.0 or post 1.0. The few things in the list that they promised for beta and 1.0, and which is not making it, is: throwing, infected hordes, 6 or so weapons, two vehicles and one helicopter. Now we know currently know that we can add ragdoll effects, climbing and fishing to it. I don't know about you but this is not a large list as some people make it to be. Even before typing this after coming home from work I see new posts screaming how 80% of the promised content is not there or how this is a scam, that's just bullshit and lying. Just complete hysteria about a few more things that are not making the final cut.

I also read the topic you made in which you make some good points, such as that 1.0 has not enough content/features to be a good presentation for the game and that it would be better for the devs to make a list of what is actually making it to the game this year. You also mention the RunningManZ's post on Reddit in which discuss the balance of the game. I don't know where that came from, but the devs have said that they will still balance the game. I would be very surprised if military camps/bases will still have overload of loot with 1.0. First experimental version of 0.63 had police stations/radar towers with an overload of weapons as well, now it is nerfed.

In conclusion it remains of course that the expected 1.0 version misses some essential elements for a good representation and that we can agree on and that a delay in release would be much better for sales of the game and to market it more effective.

EDIT: I just read the Discord conversation with Eugen that another user posted in this topic (https://docs.google.com/document/d/12Ja2dkoc12yTSlSc48s1dYWLR6F9_8M9VOq3R8IDXKQ/edit#heading=h.4neyqe979krb)
It is a pretty good read on why the focus is on stabilizing the game.

Edited October 25, 2018 by amadieus

[blackberrygoo 1416]

I can’t believe the devs are feeling this pressured to release 1.0 by the years end that they will risk making the game even MORE HOLLOW than our already incomplete “feature complete” beta ... you don’t need to do this devs just take your time we would much rather be annoyed that it’s taking a long time than have a game be released in an unfinished , feature incomplete state .

This is coming from someone who has been very impatient with the development process. Make it feature complete and then release it , even if that means a 2019 release . 

 

Malala amadieus, I remember them saying they wanted it to be paritied with .62 as well , can’t remember where though .

Edited October 25, 2018 by blackberrygoo

[Private Evans 1303]

7 minutes ago, ☣BioHaze☣ said:

If they could not foresee this outcome, it may be further evidence of the disconnect between the testers and the devs.

Exactly this ! 

[RaptorM60 392]

39 minutes ago, TheYetiBum said:

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

 

2

But it does. I've said that 3, 6 or 9 months later, the expectations of 1.0 will yet be higher than now, and we'll be in the same spot X months later, but with X months of added frustration.

Also: 1.0 on PC has no repercussions on console releases at all. We're just going for a PC 1.0, consoles are not part of that.Our console inventory and user experience is not quite there yet. Console versions won't likely go for a 1.0 release anytime soon.

I know it's tempting to think we're making this as a business decision, but you'd have to know Bohemia from the inside to know how we operate. We don't really have business people that call the shots, analyze markets, or anything of that sort that you would expect from a corporation. There are no investors at Bohemia. We're a company owned by the 2 people that founded the company 20 years ago. They made the money to run, and grow the business of Bohemia by developing games (and taking risks while doing that). We're very much a development driven company, not a company of quarterly business goals.

Maybe, if there is one part of business thinking (but I'm now speaking my own mind, this is not something that we discussed on a team/company level), it's a worry that we only have so much time left to keep DayZ relevant on the PC gaming market.

For additional context: I'm not just some random hired marketing person with no relation to this community. I've been a regular DayZ fan scrolling through these forums (and Reddit) as a fan before I joined Bohemia in 2015 (a different project back then). You do have to take my word for it, but I'd be the last to scam you or try being some sort of a con artist. What I'm telling you is totally honest, 100% of time. 

[Brandon Clinch 50]

 It is quite incredible how the Devs are trying to shift focus from the issues with  releasing 1.0 this year to  how "terrible" and "harsh" the community is. You guys let us down hard yet again and of course we respond. That is what any rational human would do! But you can't deal with the consequences so you imply that the community is rude and bad adding more damage to what now looks like a gushing open wound.

Hey, I may be an asshole in how I bluntly express my opinions and observations but most here are constructive and correct in their opinions, extremely few ever gets rude or straight up hateful. That is a damn fact and you know it!

 

[TheYetiBum 790]

5 minutes ago, RaptorM60 said:

But it does. I've said that 3, 6 or 9 months later, the expectations of 1.0 will yet be higher than now, and we'll be in the same spot X months later, but with X months of added frustration.

Also: 1.0 on PC has no repercussions on console releases at all. We're just going for a PC 1.0, consoles are not part of that.Our console inventory and user experience is not quite there yet. Console versions won't likely go for a 1.0 release anytime soon.

I know it's tempting to think we're making this as a business decision, but you'd have to know Bohemia from the inside to know how we operate. We don't really have business people that call the shots, analyze markets, or anything of that sort that you would expect from a corporation. There are no investors at Bohemia. We're a company owned by the 2 people that founded the company 20 years ago. They made the money to run, and grow the business of Bohemia by developing games (and taking risks while doing that). We're very much a development driven company, not a company of quarterly business goals.

Maybe, if there is one part of business thinking (but I'm now speaking my own mind, this is not something that we discussed on a team/company level), it's a worry that we only have so much time left to keep DayZ relevant on the PC gaming market.

For additional context: I'm not just some random hired marketing person with no relation to this community. I've been a regular DayZ fan scrolling through these forums (and Reddit) as a fan before I joined Bohemia in 2015 (a different project back then). You do have to take my word for it, but I'd be the last to scam you or try being some sort of a con artist. What I'm telling you is totally honest, 100% of time. 

I'll take you at your word & wish you and the team the best of luck. Just remember that you don't have to manage community expectation, they only expect what you tell them they'll get.

and remember that base building is great but with the pervasive ghosting issue it'll only cause mass aggravation being implemented until there's fix or work around to stop players abusing it,  but it's your teams baby though and you can raise it anyway you see fit.

I personally would have focused on updating & adding in all legacy features from 0.62 & the original mod and getting that stable before anything else as a base model for 1.0 .

ive played for only two months barely & already feel like I've had my fill, without much weapon choice, ghillies, spraypaints more craftables and what feels like half a health system the game feels empty and tbh spending a fifty hours building a base that someone's gonna ghost into and fighting over vehicles isn't going to make the game come alive.

good luck with your endeavours and I guess I'll check back In a year from now, probably around when the new consoles arrive. thankfully the PC guys get modding to pass the time unfortunately us console chaps might get a hold breathe function if were polite.

 

[RaptorM60 392]

1 minute ago, Brandon Clinch said:

 It is quite incredible how the Devs are trying to shift focus from the issues with  releasing 1.0 this year to  how "terrible" and "harsh" the community is. You guys let us down hard yet again and of course we respond. That is what any rational human would do! But you can't deal with the consequences so you imply that the community is rude and bad adding more damage to what now looks like a gushing open wound.

Hey, I may be an asshole in how I bluntly express my opinions and observations but most here are constructive and correct in their opinions, extremely few ever gets rude or straight up hateful. That is a damn fact and you know it!

 

If it ever came across like me being disrespectful to most of you here, I apologize. Not my intention. I reacted harshly to YetiBum's post, as that one was a personal jab at me and other particular members of the team. See my tweet from yesterday - I specifically asked everyone to be angry, be disappointed with what we say and deliver, but also to not go personal . That's not fair. So isn't to use words like cashgrab  or suggesting we're liars. Despite the outcome not being what everybody wants, there are dozens of people working their asses off on DayZ every day, 5th year of Early Access, while we've had so many moments where it would be so much easier to give up and move on. Then it would be anybodys utmost right to call us these things.

1 hour ago, ☣BioHaze☣ said:

I'm not even sure BI understands what the 7 month patch drought did to the outlook and resolve of the dedicated testers and then you; set another unattainable date, hit another big snag, and then once again, announce that features are pulled and leave some vagueness as to what's included with the prospective 1.0.

^This could only have a huge negative impact on the mindset of longtime supporters. If they could not foresee this outcome, it may be further evidence of the disconnect between the testers and the devs.

 

We do - time between 0.62 and 0.63 was also probably one of the hardest times for the dev team. And we did see this reaction coming - my comment in our internal systems on a proposed scale of the BETA/1.0 on August 27 this year was literally "I expect a shitstorm of epic proportions". We've still went for all this, because it's the best possible thing to do for DayZ, even though pretty much nobody likes it.

 

54 minutes ago, IMT said:

So why is this information left out of the initial Status Report? And what is "contrary to popular opinion, we read, evaluate and take seriously every bit of constructive and POLITE feedback" suppose to mean? Most of us here have been critical, yes. But we have been constructive and polite. I asked multiple times that you guys clarify the situation in a separate post but because he asks it in question-form it gets answered? Come on now, cut us some slack, will ya.

I have a big question for you guys: Why the 1.0? Why don't you guys just do what you are about to do but not label it 1.0? That means, feature freeze, fixing bugs, polishing the game and after that back to work on features. And when there is parity with 0.62 and most people agree that DayZ is ready to launch, then launch it. Remember, you are doing this together with us, the community.

The answer is in the post you quoted - "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"

Also: "especially when we keep accumulating WIP features as I described, this could well be another disappointment, just arriving another 6 months later".

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

I forgot to add "aim spaces", to the things discussed as features for production which were never heard of again.

We were told that drive by shooting would be possible in the future.

The infected were originally supposed to be spawned globally at server start and be server controlled.

Instead we played for many many months with ridiculously low infected on the map to the degree that the PvP guys would joke about dayz being a zombie game at all. Only later to be told that dynamic infected spawn would have to be implemented causing all of the same problems that dynamic spawning caused in the mod.

Why did that take so many months to figure out? Why does dynamic infected spawning seem so poorly implemented in general? 

[Brandon Clinch 50]

21 minutes ago, RaptorM60 said:

If it ever came across like me being disrespectful to most of you here, I apologize. Not my intention. I reacted harshly to YetiBum's post, as that one was a personal jab at me and other particular members of the team. See my tweet from yesterday - I specifically asked everyone to be angry, be disappointed with what we say and deliver, but also to not go personal . That's not fair. So isn't to use words like cashgrab  or suggesting we're liars. Despite the outcome not being what everybody wants, there are dozens of people working their asses off on DayZ every day, 5th year of Early Access, while we've had so many moments where it would be so much easier to give up and move on. Then it would be anybodys utmost right to call us these things.

 Good, I respect your response.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Brandon Clinch

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

Bohemia is Amazon and I'm just a customer pressing the, "Where's my stuff?" button here.

Edited October 25, 2018 by ☣BioHaze☣

[Private Evans 1303]

Hmmm so my personal conclusion...vanilla Dayz is a dead horse...

it will take far more than a year to implement all the missing stuff and I guess most people are not willing to wait year 7 and 8 before they can play the game they dreamt of.

So it will be modding then and modded servers :

 

or

 

[cirkular 178]

I'm not gonna freak out here. I'm ok with this decision. If they have some particular reasons or feel that they need to release 1.0 by the end of this year, then so be it. So if you feel bored or angered already, scroll down to the next post lol

I don't feel cheated or anything like that. I'd say some of us here feel bummed not to be able to play the best version for Christmass-New Year (again). But some of us are concerned that the new and returning players are gonna ditch Dayz for good the minute they try out the announced 1.0 version, resulting in a poor player base and eventually the game dying.

Way back early this year with so many issues, I rather wished the devs to make a stable build just with the content that made it in so far, and then work on rest of the content later. Meaning the various mechanics, melee, new vaulting system, UI stuff and similar should be as good as we can get it. Then, you can put in stuff slowly, like modders will do anyway. Modders can improve the game significantly, but good quality mods can also kill the base game. I think this was a bad decision to give the modding tools before 1.0 version was well out. All the ideas, visions and past builds we've got from the devs so far, show that Dayz is a very, very complex shooter game. Not just to get a grasp on everything as a player, but also first as a developer. I'm sure they still have a lot on their hands. And the more you want to go into details, the deeper you dig yourself in. But if you achieve it to work properly in the end, then you get what people call a good quality and a thoughtful piece of work that they keep getting back to years after.

There's plenty of games out there which were good but with DLC only or even better. I've seen numerous advice "Hey, this basic game is mneeh ok, so make sure you get it with DLC". Or with mods. So I look at it like that. Post 1.0 content which couldn't make it in time will be like free DLC. Sure, it's a bummer we get to taste a lot of it in 0.62, and while we wished we could kidnap the devs and make them do it, we can't really, can we?

I totally get the worries about the player base shrinking. But in this game and at this point in time, I personally don't care about the diversity of the guns or scopes. Fishing and vehicles would be nice, I'm not against it. But since we start on foot, I'd like the character to move around fluidly, melee combat should be easy like swinging a bat or a lead pipe lol It should be normal to be able to climb and jump or even run over simple obstacles intuitively, not like in a platformer game. The hunger and stamina systems should be tweaked until most of the people feel satisfied with it. In the end, like with many things in life, it's hardly that everyone was satisfied with any decision made.

On a side note, I tried out the stress test yesterday. Sometimes I really miss the text messages in the bottom left corner. This is a game and I feel like I don't have all the possible input of what my character goes through. But it's probably just me. So when I finally decided to run away from NWAF to roam around, I got mobbed by several infected in some godforsaken village, I was bleeding heavily. After putting them to sleep, I used up all 3 rags I had to stop the bleeding. Didn't help. Seemed like they hit the artery. I went to sleep too, couple of minutes later. Can someone tell me what I did wrong? Just don't say "you needed the fourth rag".

 

[☣BioHaze☣ 7337]

26 minutes ago, cirkular said:

It should be normal to be able to climb and jump or even run over simple obstacles

This basic level of in game capability should have been worked on from Day 0. Same with throwing of items, in my opinion.

DayZ EA may have suffered from lack of hindsight in some ways (being one of the pioneers of EA), and maybe the way the engine was built could be part of the problem too... why was throwing stuff so low on the list of implementation? Did it end up being more complicated or was there purely no time, or both?

Building the engine was a protracted process to say the least but after it was released was it just so jam packed with bugs you had to strip it down and build it again over 6 months?

26 minutes ago, cirkular said:

. Can someone tell me what I did wrong? Just don't say "you needed the fourth rag".

Oh man.... I'm sorry. you needed the fourth rag

@RaptorM60 - I appreciate you addressing and engaging some of the concerns voiced here.

This is the most anyone officially related to Bohemia has engaged the forum since before @rocket left.

Edited October 25, 2018 by ☣BioHaze☣

[Gadget_97 28]

Quote

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

It would not be more frustrating than a 1.0 this year. We're used to wait but we are not used to be stabbed in the back (it may sound overdramatic but it is the feeling of most of your fans).

Quote

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

So you decide to offer the worst option... It seems to me like you are just taking the best decision for you dev team and we are left behind.

Quote

I've said that 3, 6 or 9 months later, the expectations of 1.0 will yet be higher than now, and we'll be in the same spot X months later, but with X months of added frustration.

Added frustation for people who were already angry to you. With your decision you are getting frustration from your adherent ! Don't you get it ?

Quote

Also: 1.0 on PC has no repercussions on console releases at all. We're just going for a PC 1.0, consoles are not part of that.Our console inventory and user experience is not quite there yet. Console versions won't likely go for a 1.0 release anytime soon.

Can you promise us that the ps4 version won't come out this year then (It seems like you cannot release this version if it's not 1.0) ?

Quote

We've still went for all this, because it's the best possible thing to do for DayZ, even though pretty much nobody likes it.

No it's not. You are convincing yourselves that it is but it's not. It is maybe the best thing for you but not for your game.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Gadget_97

[Mantasisg 172]

LOL "stabbed in the back", "worst option", "added frustration to people who are already angry", "you are convincing yourselves"...

Can you believe in manipulation level of this guy.

I just don't get how persistent are current DayZ fans to block releasing the game. Even when they are acknowledged that it is not going to have an effect for end product content and features, and that 1.0 doesn't mean finish. For me it is ridiculous how gamers these days are all about hype and waiting, actual gaming and good experience is kinda a background thing...

 

Edited October 25, 2018 by Mantasisg

[FSHIR 7]

6 hours ago, RaptorM60 said:

• 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

 

Thanks for all of your answers and addressing concerns. 

Now i understand why you need to have 1.0 as a stable platform to make future content easier. 

But would it be easier? With that very limited time we all have before holidays will the team be able to make 1.0 stable as you say it needs to be, and would it change anything in regards of adding new or postponed content, since new features will certainly   bring new bugs and make it unstable again?

[Gadget_97 28]

37 minutes ago, Mantasisg said:

LOL "stabbed in the back", "worst option", "added frustration to people who are already angry", "you are convincing yourselves"...

Can you believe in manipulation level of this guy.

I admit that I use very strong words (firstly because I am angry and secondly because I'm not the best in english) but I don't think I am being manipulative. I just wish the devs understand how angry is an important part of the community and what will be the implications of their choice. 

Quote

I just don't get how persistent are current DayZ fans, to block releasing the game. Even when they are acknowledged that it is not going to have an effect for end product content and features, and that 1.0 doesn't mean finish. For me it is ridiculous how gamers these days are all about hype and waiting, actual gaming and good experience is kinda a background thing...

It will have a major effect on the public image of the game. It will be an issue if everyone stay away from the game because of this bad press (1.0 was the best opportunity to make good press). 

If I am so angry it is because I care deeply about this game and I am honnestly thinking they are taking a bad decision.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Gadget_97

[Mantasisg 172]

Yes, it is the only logical reason to be against 1.0. But it is just wrong assumption which for some reason got widely spread. The game can be absolutely awesome, and yet few sentences about annoying stuff can break the image much more than few sentences about missing content, and missing content is not going to be obvious for absolute majority. Broken stuff is very obvious. It is like going into forest full of wolves with bacon suit. 
 

[cirkular 178]

2 hours ago, ☣BioHaze☣ said:

you needed the fourth rag

goddammit

2 hours ago, ☣BioHaze☣ said:

Same with throwing of items, in my opinion.

Throw that in too, yeah

45 minutes ago, Mantasisg said:

and yet few sentences about annoying stuff can break the image much more

True. The most popular one was FIX THE GAME! lol

[RaptorM60 392]

17 hours ago, Gadget_97 said:

It would not be more frustrating than a 1.0 this year. We're used to wait but we are not used to be stabbed in the back (it may sound overdramatic but it is the feeling of most of your fans).

So you decide to offer the worst option... It seems to me like you are just taking the best decision for you dev team and we are left behind.

Added frustation for people who were already angry to you. With your decision you are getting frustration from your adherent ! Don't you get it ?

Can you promise us that the ps4 version won't come out this year then (It seems like you cannot release this version if it's not 1.0) ?

No it's not. You are convincing yourselves that it is but it's not. It is maybe the best thing for you but not for your game.

I can only repeat that I stand behind our decision to go for this specific 1.0 feature/content scope as the best option we've got now - even if it's not popular. I know the feeling you've got, it was one of my worst days here when I learned that this should be our 1.0, but it is a way to deliver a stable game, and a stable platform to build on further. That is essential now for DayZ in order to have a great future :)

I can 100% absolutely promise you that there will be no PS4 release this year, and most likely not even in Q1 next year. 

17 hours ago, ☣BioHaze☣ said:

This basic level of in game capability should have been worked on from Day 0. Same with throwing of items, in my opinion.

DayZ EA may have suffered from lack of hindsight in some ways (being one of the pioneers of EA), and maybe the way the engine was built could be part of the problem too... why was throwing stuff so low on the list of implementation? Did it end up being more complicated or was there purely no time, or both?

Building the engine was a protracted process to say the least but after it was released was it just so jam packed with bugs you had to strip it down and build it again over 6 months?

Oh man.... I'm sorry. you needed the fourth rag

@RaptorM60 - I appreciate you addressing and engaging some of the concerns voiced here.

This is the most anyone officially related to Bohemia has engaged the forum since before @rocket left.

I'm not entirely sure about how the prioritizing went there, I may want to check with the dev team, though I know why we, for example, went for base-building over some other features - Base Building is one feature that is undeniably new to DayZ with BETA, and it's an "end-game" feature that strongly encourages player interaction (you really don't want to build the bases alone, or at least you'll probably want to trade).

 

16 hours ago, Mantasisg said:

Yes, it is the only logical reason to be against 1.0. But it is just wrong assumption which for some reason got widely spread. The game can be absolutely awesome, and yet few sentences about annoying stuff can break the image much more than few sentences about missing content, and missing content is not going to be obvious for absolute majority. Broken stuff is very obvious. It is like going into forest full of wolves with bacon suit. 
 

Take my beans! 

[Wili 156]

On 23/10/2018 at 11:10 PM, Shaggi_ said:

-ADS with a weapon is extremely clunky. I understand the devs want it so people wont easily be able to just toggle a button to raise your weapon...

Well... I don't understand... really, I don't... 

The Dayz developers obsession for making things complicated when it should be the other way around wonders me... 

[Wili 156]

2 hours ago, RaptorM60 said:

I know the feeling you've got, it was one of my worst days here when I learned that this should be our 1.0, but it is a way to deliver a stable game, and a stable platform to build on further. That is essential now for DayZ in order to have a great future :)

Nobody is denying that having a stable game for building on further should be done, but... calling it release 1.0 will bring lot's of players back to check on Dayz, and probably will bring more disappointing and bad reviews as the players coming back would expect a finished game. You can do the same without calling it release 1.0.

[valdark 142]

23 hours ago, RaptorM60 said:

it's a worry that we only have so much time left to keep DayZ relevant on the PC gaming market.

Releasing 1.0 as you propose is the best way to ensure you miss this mark.