Whats your opinion about post 1.0 updates, development pace and game quality ?

[boggle 49]

>development pace and game quality

Performance of the game is much better but it's lacking many core features that made DayZ SA great. I also love the more deadly infected. Not a fan of the stagger when hit bc you can just get trapped and can't move or fight back. 

Overall game quality is great, but game quality comparing it to DayZ SA Early access, it has some to be desired. My biggest peeve is the absence of throwing objects, and broken legs. 

I think they went over the top with car repairs. They are so damn difficult to get running now it's not even worth it. It would be if we had bases that could be secured......

Base building is a joke. Anyone can break in a matter of minutes. There is absolutely no point to them. It's clear their design intent was for them to simply be something for us to do, and no desire for them to be secure. I don't want to see them impenetrable, but there needs to be some tweaks done to the balance of destruction vs construction times.

 

Development pace. Given the state of the game, it's bad. Had they left it in beta or EA until more of the game was complete, then the current development pace would be fine. It definitely feels half assed and like the BI overlords just got sick of paying for development and wanted to get that console sale $$ now. 

 

This game requires other players for it to be fun. There were many people waiting for 1.0 because we were told that it will be finished at that point. Now that the game has been released at 1.0 in it's current state, those people returning will return and see all of the missing features, and it definitely appears as if they just half assed it. Then Baty revealing that helicopters and throwing physics aren't even on the schedule is a BIG deal. Between these two things, many will abandon the game and never look back, especially with the lack of communication from BI now. 

 

Overall, I'm very disappointed with the state of the game and it's development. It's a diamond in the rough and it's like they just gave up. 

[boggle 49]

On 4/26/2019 at 3:58 AM, ImpulZ said:

@hemmo, please keep it cool (for discussions on that please PM me).

@eno, please keep it down with false/uninformed statements (for discussions on that please PM me). You are still free to share your opinion, experiences, emotions and feelings here and you obviously don't hold back with it. We are very aware of the frustration around last years release, but the only right way goes forward, and we will continue to improve the game with updates.

We read and reply to your feedback every day, we have game streams running in our office every day, we develop, test and play the game ourselves. We might not know what's happening in every players mind, but we have a pretty solid knowledge of the general opinions in the community and the state of the game. Just speaking numbers, so far (since the release) we see an improvement in the average player numbers which is better than anything we had in the last two and a half years (and this is NOT including the new players on Xbox). This does not mean we are leaning back or complimenting ourselves, we know about the hundreds of issues and missing contents/features in the game and work every day on making the game better.

We did not do a good job in terms of managing expectations on "how fast" updates would come out post-release. But as I already wrote in other topics, our update rate evidently increased compared to the development before 0.63. Still, game development remains a challenging task and DayZ with all its features remains a challenging project and takes its time.

Have you guys considered having some form of "status report"? maybe rename it since everyone associates that with pre-release development. The current cycle of every two months or whatever it is, I believe, is part of the problem. If the game was polished at release and full features, communication wouldn't matter as much, but the game seems as though it's in still in as much development as it was pre-release (or it should be anyway). 

So having better communication with the customers about development etc, seems like it would help? There is plenty of communication here, but lets be honest, most of the customers don't use this forum and probably use reddit or other social media. Letting the customers know that there is progress and effort going into development, might aid in lowering frustrations with the game, and keep people from abandoning it. Without a player base, this game will be dead because so much relies on player interaction. 

 

Anyway, I may be way off base with this, maybe it is the wrong approach, I'm not a PR person. But I'm just speaking my mind and I don't intend this to sound rude, just trying to provide my take on it. Maybe I'm a minority regarding this stuff too. 

[IMT 3190]

On 4/29/2019 at 6:33 PM, Influence_X said:

2. Why am I the only person who totally understands if this dev team doesn't want to put out a roadmap? Nothing else has ever caused as much salt in this community as roadmaps and failing to meet them, which they will fail, again. 

First of all, they PROMISED us a roadmap and we still haven't received it. I don't expect or even want a roadmap where they put hard dates on features or updates because they have a bad reputation with roadmaps. What I gathered from the announcement of the roadmap and what I understood was that we would get a roadmap after 1.0 and the continuation of the development. I was and still am expecting a priority list of 2019 and even beyond that. I want to know the road they're taking with updates, which features are going to be worked on first, which last, etc. That's all I want and expect from that roadmap. They can also state it clearly that it is a priority list rather than a roadmap with hard dates.

On 4/29/2019 at 6:33 PM, Influence_X said:

3. I'm fine with this, they said that their new approach is "under promise and over deliver", so you'll hear about updates just before they happen, which is approximately once a month. I would rather have an almost guaranteed update every month, than a status report twice a month with an update every 3-6 months.

There is only one big problem with this, they're not promising, they're just "delivering". Based on what should've been 1.0, they're under delivering badly for me. After 1.0 my expectations were that new and old features would hit the game in a rather fast pace. Think broken bones, throwing, climbing, bows, fishing, leather clothing, painting Ghillies, helicopters, you name it. All we're seeing is 2 new weapons, perhaps a new vehicle, some fixes and some tweaks. Why not get those features in as soon as possible and then start tweaking, fixing and adding new vehicles and weapons. If people want new weapons or vehicles, modders can provide them. Totally new features is harder for them so the team should focus on that. Modders can keep the playerbase happy (which they already are doing) while the developers push stuff out for vanilla to keep those people happy. The latter is unfortunately missing.

On 4/29/2019 at 5:48 AM, acewhittles said:

Technically yes, updates are coming in faster than ever. But I'm not sure it's good practice to metric it against the rate of massive engine overhaul updates that clearly take much longer than bug fixing and animations.

On 4/29/2019 at 6:33 PM, Influence_X said:

5. Why? It's not like people understood what was really going on with the engine changes by and large by the community. It's a real minority that truly understood what happened with this game, and why most are rage posting on reddit about helicopters not being a promised feature.

I like to disagree with these statements. Go to the Experimental Patch Discussion forum and go to page 3 through page 5 and see the frequency of updates. They would add some content or features, fix some bugs with the new content or features and rinse and repeat. It wasn't until an half year into 2017 that the update pace started to drop. Yes, Stable was seeing no frequent updates and sometimes up to a couple of months but at least Experimental saw progress. At least we get to see progress and how it should be done, at least in an Early Access setting. I also get that at some point they stopped updating Experimental and Stable because it was of no use because of the new engine and that it also takes time. But why aren't we back at the rapid update pace of 2017 where a couple of features are pumped out, bug fixes are done and rinse and repeat? That's what I was expecting after the engine was done and that was also what I was expecting after 1.0. What did I get? Disappointment!

On 4/30/2019 at 8:31 AM, hemmo said:

I guess its kinda allright. Its obvius they are still building on core elements of a new game.

Which core elements? The core elements of DayZ for me are survival elements and I'm not seeing any pushed out by them, at all. If you mean the engine, then why the hell did they release the game when the engine isn't even done?

23 hours ago, MaxwellHouse69420 said:

*snip*

Fully agree with your statements and views. Especially the part about listening to the community. I remember when they put digging for worms in the game. I suggested that it would be a good idea if we could dig worms with a stone knife as well. Low and behold, next update I could dig worms with my stone knife.

The biggest fuck up on their part was releasing the game into beta and 1.0. All these topics, messages, etc. wouldn't matter because the game would still be in Early Access. And let's be honest, it shouldn't always be an excuse but as long as a product in Early Access sees any progress then it is a valid excuse in my opinion.

[acewhittles 59]

4 hours ago, IMT said:

I like to disagree with these statements. Go to the Experimental Patch Discussion forum and go to page 3 through page 5 and see the frequency of updates. They would add some content or features, fix some bugs with the new content or features and rinse and repeat. It wasn't until an half year into 2017 that the update pace started to drop. Yes, Stable was seeing no frequent updates and sometimes up to a couple of months but at least Experimental saw progress. At least we get to see progress and how it should be done, at least in an Early Access setting. I also get that at some point they stopped updating Experimental and Stable because it was of no use because of the new engine and that it also takes time. But why aren't we back at the rapid update pace of 2017 where a couple of features are pumped out, bug fixes are done and rinse and repeat? That's what I was expecting after the engine was done and that was also what I was expecting after 1.0. What did I get? Disappointment!

Hey fair enough, I never spent much time on Experimental or kept up with it due to managing my community. I'm also willing to accept that I'm fairly bitter over the direction they've taken the game in (if that was not apparent in my original post) and don't want to offer up much credit for anything right now.

[eno 1049]

4 hours ago, IMT said:

The biggest fuck up on their part was releasing the game into beta and 1.0. All these topics, messages, etc. wouldn't matter because the game would still be in Early Access. And let's be honest, it shouldn't always be an excuse but as long as a product in Early Access sees any progress then it is a valid excuse in my opinion.

It's definitely the biggest thorn in my side... and when I used to click on that "I agree" or "I understand" button every time I played I was relinquishing my right to be mad about whatever happened to me in game in the interest of progress.

Now, there's no button. And I'm mad. And have the right to be.  

 

[valdark 142]

The direction they’ve taken since they failed to deliver helicopters in 2015 has just been a series of reneged promises and feature cuts.   

 

This “new increased speed” isn’t even on par with the speed on the old engine and they are just re-implementing a fraction of what we we got to play during early access but now with crappy useless base-building.  

 

The map work was almost entirely done in the old engine so we cant credit that.   The vehicles are still next to worthless as far as reliability is concerned and both melee and gunfights are the worst they’ve been since Arma 2.    

 

We’ve basically been given the shaft and told we should be happy they put a few pieces of what we had back in maybe if they feel like it. 

 

 

I went from the most enthusiastic and forgiving memeber of this community to just another disillusioned player among millions with the 1.0 and post 1.0 handling of this project.  

 

 

[emuthreat 2837]

Making great games is hard.  Developing yet another new in-house engine for an already great game, and splicing it in while still under development, and already released to millions of consumers is crazy hard.

Crazy like a fox....

The sad part is waiting to see how long it takes for them tell us when they realized that the "oh shit" moment happened, and what it means for .62 content parity in the long term; and how long before we know which "legacy roadmap" features are a strong 'nope' for 1.XXX

I've gotten the impression that despite their want for guarded openness, there are many things happening behind the scenes that nobody can predict yet, with any degree of certainty.  Like they are trying to do their best, but still have no honest idea what that best entails.
I don't want to sound too jaded, but this seems an awful lot like that period of around the mid 0.5x patches when they decided that the old engine couldn't do everything they wanted to do.

 

Maybe some idiot is out there still working on how to fix 0.62 to the best of its capabilities...

 

[hemmo 55]

13 hours ago, IMT said:

There is only one big problem with this, they're not promising, they're just "delivering". Based on what should've been 1.0, they're under delivering badly for me. After 1.0 my expectations were that new and old features would hit the game in a rather fast pace. Think broken bones, throwing, climbing, bows, fishing, leather clothing, painting Ghillies, helicopters, you name it. All we're seeing is 2 new weapons, perhaps a new vehicle, some fixes and some tweaks. Why not get those features in as soon as possible and then start tweaking, fixing and adding new vehicles and weapons. If people want new weapons or vehicles, modders can provide them. Totally new features is harder for them so the team should focus on that. Modders can keep the playerbase happy (which they already are doing) while the developers push stuff out for vanilla to keep those people happy. The latter is unfortunately missing.

 

It wasn't until an half year into 2017 that the update pace started to drop. Yes, Stable was seeing no frequent updates and sometimes up to a couple of months but at least Experimental saw progress. At least we get to see progress and how it should be done, at least in an Early Access setting. I also get that at some point they stopped updating Experimental and Stable because it was of no use because of the new engine and that it also takes time. But why aren't we back at the rapid update pace of 2017 where a couple of features are pumped out, bug fixes are done and rinse and repeat? That's what I was expecting after the engine was done and that was also what I was expecting after 1.0. What did I get? Disappointment!

Which core elements? The core elements of DayZ for me are survival elements and I'm not seeing any pushed out by them, at all. If you mean the engine, then why the hell did they release the game when the engine isn't even done

 

Cause they are still working on the core elements of the game. If you are not able to see this, than you are not playing. In example: the ability to sneak around, the adjustmenst of zombies onto this and the intergration of these elements into other ones. And than the weather, tent placements, and server browser ect ect. 

 

So, eno makes a good point, there should still be a i accept or decine button. But hey... its dayzz man.. its worth the wait..

Edited May 2, 2019 by hemmo

[IMT 3190]

4 hours ago, hemmo said:

Cause they are still working on the core elements of the game. If you are not able to see this, than you are not playing. In example: the ability to sneak around, the adjustmenst of zombies onto this and the intergration of these elements into other ones. And than the weather, tent placements, and server browser ect ect. 

 

So, eno makes a good point, there should still be a i accept or decine button. But hey... its dayzz man.. its worth the wait..

Then explain this to me: why did they RELEASE the game when THE CORE ELEMENTS are still NOT READY?

Edited May 2, 2019 by IMT

[pilgrim* 3514]

2 hours ago, IMT said:

Then explain this to me: why did they RELEASE the game when THE CORE ELEMENTS are still NOT READY?

the DayZ development model - "the game" on their development servers is built as a single game and then at output it is forked into PC version and Xbox version. This way "the game" stays in step on Xbox and on PC.

the core elements were mainly in place and PC players have already played most of them. The reason for "experimental" and the reason the game was simplified for the Xbox/PC parallel development have been explained.. plenty.

With the PC/Xbox "same game" running smoothly, then the old core elements (we all know and love) could be brought back and one or two important additions created, as promised, depending on player feedback and attitudes and gameplay.. The way BI has always done it, in fact.  

BUT the Xbox version ran into an unexpected "serious" problem with the Xbox Live Network. This is something hte developer can only find out about after they have put the game out and enough Xbox players have messed with it enough to find a "big" exploit that seriously wrecks the game.

So this puts the developers back into the middle of "the single model".  

Don't expect them to put out an "advanced version" of DayZ for PC, and go on developing that alone,  while they are still dealing with the Xbox netxwork problem. They have spent a year gearing to have a single unified development - "one game model" - and then fork it. They are not going to step back to PC version 0.6 and develop it separately from there only for PC,  while they are sill dealing with the Xbox problem.

And the Xbox problem (as we know) could not have been predicted before Xbox release.  

IMO

- this is just my personal analysis of the situation.

[Mantasisg 172]

During the years I have noticed the pattern that when something starts get into a groove in DayZ and gameplay gets going, then it gets changed in such way to break it. On purpose. It is almost like if they don't understand what makes for good stuff. 

At first I had silly conspiracy theory that in such way they try to make the game not as attractive, so people wouldn't milk it out to boredom before it is completed. Or before it breaks out of electronic arts program. Lol EA haha

But of course that was wrong. Game is designed to be bad, and not to have any groove, any rhythm. I say that not even considering any technical stuff like for example glitchy cars, insanely complex bicycle physics, or helicopters that are already turning to wishes only. I say that only by talking about simple gameplay. 

But we live in 2019 a lot of high end profiles are complete failures, and biggest wins are made by small groups of people, which some of them sometimes gets consumed by those "big guys". 

I bet DayZ got no love because it did not met Bohemia big heads pride or something like that, because some guy, Dean Hall, simply knew better and proved it real fast. Lots of people will remember. I bet that DayZ is still popular mostly because of how much of good impression initial DayZ has made, and momentum and hope still goes on.

I wonder how many of those 6k average players are consistent players, and how many of those are just some of those million people who bought the game making a short visit to check if the game got anywhere. Which technology of course did, but game got worse. 

It is almost like it is secret program to stop people from spending too much time with computer games, and enjoying more of real life, real survival lol. Gotta be grateful for that 🙂 

Edited May 9, 2019 by Mantasisg

[green_mtn_grandbob 594]

i think they are trying there best to get the game to us with what they have to work with.

[Tarkules 153]

I think version 1.02 is the most stable version they got out so far, and I truly believe that this was a successful outcome of the new goals they have set, which are basically to release a full working game with all the basic functions to experience the basic DayZ.

If you'll browse the forums back to the times when they released an update/fix twice a week (0.63 marathon), the community went mad and crazy like shareholder losing their investments on every release.

The new pace of the updates has proven to be better, since the last 2 updates (1.01, 1.02) improved and stabilized the game more than ever.

For those veterans who played the game for years, it's very painful to see the game missing so much content, but i'm sure (I hope..) that within a few BIG updates and by the end of the year, we will be back on tracks.

Edited May 10, 2019 by Tarkules
Typo