*IF* this is an Alpha then lets act like it

[Redshift 58]

I know, I know everywhere you look you see the word ALPHA. It's on the main page, it’s posted in topic titles all over the place, and nearly every single thread has at least one person talking about how "this is still in ALPHA". So it should be obvious that, yes this game is in fact in the ALPHA testing phase. But is it really?

The two types of video game testing that most people are acquainted with are the Alpha and Beta test phases.

Alpha testing is normally done by a very small and carefully chosen list of testers. It is more advanced than a "proof of concept" type phase, but is not fully functional yet. Drastic changes to a games design are made regularly in order to test differing options and find generally what works best.

Beta testing is the phase most people have had actual experience with. It is often (increasingly so) widely available to large numbers of testers who are only minimally screened for desired qualifications, if they are screened at all (i.e. an open beta). During this phase the game is largely stable as is the design and concepts of the game. Some new features might be added, but most of the work is fine tuning aspects already in the game as well as finding as many bugs as possible. This phase can also be used for stress testing the game and it's servers in the case of online games.

Now I fully expect that a large portion of people playing DayZ have previously had Beta testing experience, probably in multiple games. Beta testing is increasingly used as a "preview" of a game to draw in more players, which is sad because it squanders this phase and these games tend to be release with proportionally more bugs than games that engage in real beta testing (but that is a separate debate). I would also expect the number of people who have real Alpha testing experience to be low.

I have been in more Beta's than I can count or remember, and have been part of 2 true Alpha Tests (A tale in the desert 2, and Irth Online). From my experience DayZ is more firmly in the Beta phase than it is in any type of Alpha phase. Lets ignore the fact of the "anyone can come test" type of operation which is exactly what an Open Beta is, because there is nothing that would stop a developer from saying "heck why not have an Open Alpha Test" and it could still be perfectly valid. But, the game is largely stable and the overall design itself is stable. You don't see large scale changes to the game, most of what we see are tweaks to the existing structure. Sure Rocket is adding a few new things in (bear traps, dogs in the future ect), but even these are relatively minor additions.

The obvious question now is "So what, and who cares". Beyond calling it a Beta rather than an Alpha what does it matter? Well, on the surface it doesn’t matter at all. But the reason I made this post to begin with is less about "convincing people this is a Beta instead of an Alpha" and more about "convincing Rocket that this should be an Alpha and treating it like one".

I would love to see him start really testing things instead of falling back on "well its worked ok up to now so we will leave it alone and maybe tweak here and there". Each patch should be introducing drastic new changes and really force people to try things out and re-evaluate play styles from the top down in order to find what really works best.

Just one example of what I am talking about would be weapon spawns. They seem to have been fairly static at the current percentages for a while. What we should see is more along these lines:

-In the next patch noticeably increase the chances of military grade spawns. More high end weapons and gear such as gps and night vision goggles. Make them easy to get, so that everyone has them and can get them with a little bit of effort. See how this affects the game and players.

-The following patch reduces the chances of military gear to so low that most players will never see them. Force players to use only civilian type weapons and see how this affects game play.

-Then remove rifles (both military and civilian) from the game completely. The only types of weapons available are melee weapons and pistols.

-Next patch put all weapon types back in the game, but reduce the amount of ammunition found drastically. See how this scarcity affects game play.

And in-between every patch forces a character wipe, so that everyone has to use the same testing parameters.

The same could be used for almost every aspect of the game.

-Reduce the amount of food and water that spawns, forcing players to really skirt the edge of starvation.

-Make zombies much less observant and slower but increase the numbers they spawn by ten-fold.

-Reduce the number of zombies that spawn by a factor of 10 but make those zombies super-dangerous.

-Markedly increase the effects of weather. You get cold easier to where rain really affects you.

These are just a very few examples of different things that could be tested if we were willing to really engage in an Alpha test. But it would require frequent character wipes, and the willingness to throw out our assumptions and drastically change things from patch to patch.

I know that many people wont like this idea, because they are playing the game as if it were a fully finished retail game. They dont want their characters wiped, they dont want to have to rethink their strategies, they just want the game to stay as it is so they can play it how they have always played it. But that doesnt really sway me. If this is an Alpha test then lets test things, lets push the envelope. Otherwise lets stop pretending this is anything but an open beta.

I say we should really be engaging in this type of testing, so that we can find out what actually works best through testing the parameters in every way possible. Maybe we will come back around in the end and say "the initial setting worked pretty well, let’s go back to that". Maybe we would find that there is a much better way of proceeding. But whatever was found to be best would be found through testing, and we would KNOW it is the best way because of it. Because right now we are all proceeding based on the assumption that the game is basically in its finished format with only tweaking and bug fixes that need to be completed. These are assumptions because the basic format of the game has never really been pushed or changed drastically.

[The Poacher 31]

BUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO MY 9 TENTS HIDDEN ACROSS MULTIPLE SERVERS WITH A FULL STASH OF SURVIVAL GEAR AND MILITARY WEAPONS/AMMO IN EACH ONE?!

(I actually saw someone brag about that once)

Oh and yeah, I'd like to see more actual testing going on and less... this.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Lincolnshire Poacher

[Shag 90]

I'm a little embarrassed by/for this community quite often. but then I have been a little embarrassed by/for most gaming communities I have become a part of.

people always have unrealistic expectations for the miserly outlay they pay for their software (nothing in the case of dayz) and demand that they have a stable game to play when they are really here to test for free.

then i guess that is the internet.

[roundkickkid 0]

Now this is what I would like to see, more dramatic testing and honestly I wouldn't mind a server wipe every patch, I feel like that would benefit the game more, testing wise. The only thing that would suck would be all the people who would complain about it but really I don't care, I want a good game and that will only happen with real testing in an alpha testing environment.

[Survivor-Kyle 148]

He has made some pretty drastic changes. There was the "No food spawning" patch, the "Zombies with NVG/IR/ESP" patch, the "Now you start with no guns, lol" patch (I really liked that one-- no sarcasm intended), the "addition of wire everygoddamnedwhere" patch... the list goes on.

I would like to see some more frequent wipes of character however. I understand that really rare items would receive less testing that way, but with the prevalence of scripting/duping it'll be no time until everyone is back to flying Helos, rocking NVG's, and sniping with uber rare guns.

[blueskin 5]

I'd be all for this, Rocket has said this is an experiment, so lets experiment more!

It would be annoying to have less sense of accomplishment when all your stuff keeps getting wiped but I think it would build a better game in the end. Might also help with the server load, driving people away until it is a more finished product.

[ATeamM 2]

I don't mind how it's being done now but I do agree on changing things and making people change strategies and wiping chars. It would actually make it more interesting to me and less boring when you get fully outfitted.

[KWilt 157]

Ain't got any problem, as long as we're notified that these things are going to happen before they happen.

Testing doesn't have to happen on the fly. For as much as 'throw it at the wall' ideas come around, I'm sure there are just as many 'let me plan this down to a T to break the game' ideas.

[Shag 90]

you cant wipe every patch cos people would leave and you would never test the 'late game' mechanics.

[blueskin 5]

the people who would leave are the ones 'playing' the game, not testing it. I'm sure they would be back once the drastic changes ended and the game was in a more finalized state.

[Mastiff (DayZ) 42]

What I find funny about this community is people whohave a legitimate complaint and good reason get shunned down by 'this is alpha!', aint the purpose of this alpha to highlight these issues or complaints.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Mastiff

[JinxX 11]

I'm a little embarrassed by/for this community quite often. but then I have been a little embarrassed by/for most gaming communities I have become a part of.

people always have unrealistic expectations for the miserly outlay they pay for their software (nothing in the case of dayz) and demand that they have a stable game to play when they are really here to test for free.

then i guess that is the internet.

While I may agree the community is crap I wouldn't let it embarrass me. The only people here that should be embarrassed are the self entitled idiots that roam these forums.

That is not our problem as individuals though and more of a flaw of character, let them deal with it and their misery. As for us? We'll keep having fun with the game and life.

[ZedsDeadBaby 2287]

I would love to see him start really testing things instead of falling back on "well its worked ok up to now so we will leave it alone and maybe tweak here and there". Each patch should be introducing drastic new changes and really force people to try things out and re-evaluate play styles from the top down in order to find what really works best.

Just one example of what I am talking about would be weapon spawns. They seem to have been fairly static at the current percentages for a while. What we should see is more along these lines:

-In the next patch noticeably increase the chances of military grade spawns. More high end weapons and gear such as gps and night vision goggles. Make them easy to get, so that everyone has them and can get them with a little bit of effort. See how this affects the game and players.

-The following patch reduces the chances of military gear to so low that most players will never see them. Force players to use only civilian type weapons and see how this affects game play.

-Then remove rifles (both military and civilian) from the game completely. The only types of weapons available are melee weapons and pistols.

-Next patch put all weapon types back in the game, but reduce the amount of ammunition found drastically. See how this scarcity affects game play.

And in-between every patch forces a character wipe, so that everyone has to use the same testing parameters.

The same could be used for almost every aspect of the game.

-Reduce the amount of food and water that spawns, forcing players to really skirt the edge of starvation.

-Make zombies much less observant and slower but increase the numbers they spawn by ten-fold.

-Reduce the number of zombies that spawn by a factor of 10 but make those zombies super-dangerous.

-Markedly increase the effects of weather. You get cold easier to where rain really affects you.

What you're describing is not testing functionality, it's testing balance. None of the things you describe are really appropriate for an Alpha stage development road map nor should we as play-testers really be worrying much about them at this juncture.

The engineers need to be focusing on functionality, mechanics, bugs, glitches, exploits, performance and stability - not how often this or that item spawns in the game.

As for wiping - if character data changes drastically then wiping would be prudent.

If it does not, then wiping does not create a better test environment. There are tens of thousands of people every day spawning fresh on the beach to test the player starting conditions. We're getting plenty of test data from those people already. We don't need to wipe the few that are in other areas of the game or in possession of high end equipment, weapons, gear, etc.

Making everyone test the exact same thing every time they patch would actually find fewer issues in the long run.

It sounds tempting because everyone gets a "fresh start" but it's unnecessary, really.

I would support a wipe once they close duplication of items and tents - but every patch? I can't get behind that, sorry.

Edited July 11, 2012 by ZedsDeadBaby

[Zakificus 10]

The only thing I have to say in favor of not wiping the characters, is that it makes testing across all stages of the game that much faster. When a new patch hits, you have the new players, the players just getting the hang of things, the guys with all the rare weapons and vehicles, and everyone in between. This means that as soon as a patch hits, we know what is wrong and right and where.

Best example is this last patch. If we wiped everything every time, it could have been quite some time before people realized that the L85 was accidently removed, and that the Ghillie was bugged again. Would these things have been discovered eventually, yeah, but it was almost immediate by leaving people with what they have.

That said, I definitely think major releases should have wipes. I would honestly be surprised if there weren't wipes when the mod is declared Beta and when it is released. But those are the obvious times. In between I could see a few big wipes whenever he makes a more substantial change. If like the OP suggested, we start really cranking the mechanics in different directions, a wipe becomes much more necessary to get pure testing results. Otherwise for the time being, not wiping I think, is a little more beneficial since the whole spectrum of players is hit at once.

[Redshift 58]

What you're describing is not testing functionality, it's testing balance. None of the things you describe are really appropriate for an Alpha stage development road map nor should we as play-testers really be worrying much about them at this juncture.

The engineers need to be focusing on functionality, mechanics, bugs, glitches, exploits, performance and stability - not how often this or that item spawns in the game.

Actually what you are describing in the second paragraph is Beta testing for the most part (from my experience). Bugs, glitches, exploits, performance and stability. Those are things that shouldnt get a ton of focus in an Alpha (some focus yes, but not the majority of it). Only testing functionality is really a focus of an Alpha test from your list, and those functionality type issues are exactly what I used as examples. Alpha testing is for testing the engine itself (not as necessary since it uses ARMA2 engine which is broadly known to work) to make certain that there are not "game breaking bugs" (things that make entire servers crash for example). And testing the basic mechanics of the game world.

The game is laregly stable, it runs, people can play it. There is half of what an Alpha is for, done and over with. Yes there are still some connection issues, and they should also be worked on but not to the exclusion of everything else. So yes, testing to see if the game plays better with only melee weapons and pistols is very appropriate for Alpha stage. Because IF that worked out best, then it would be a core concept that the game would revolve around. This is important to get ironed out as early on as possible because there is no reason to spend time focusing on working out bugs and exploits if those bugs and exploits revolve around mechanics that might be taken out of the game entirely.

As for wiping - if character data changes drastically then wiping would be prudent.

If it does not, then wiping does not create a better test environment. There are tens of thousands of people every day spawning fresh on the beach to test the player starting conditions. We're getting plenty of test data from those people already. We don't need to wipe the few that are in other areas of the game or in possession of high end equipment, weapons, gear, etc.

I agree completely on all points. If all you are changing from patch to patch are minor things, making tweaks and small adjustments then there is no need for character wipes. This is currently what we are doing now, and I dont think that the patches we are seeing deserve wipes because of it. However, what I was proposing would be changing major aspects of the game with each patch. And in those cases you could not effectivly test, for instance, how the game plays with Melee/pistols only if there are people who have AKMs and DMRs grandfathered in.

Making everyone test the exact same thing every time they patch would actually find fewer issues in the long run.

Um not really but kind of yes. A lot of very succesful alpha testing comes from having every single player playing the same way in the same area under similar circumstances. For instance in a MMO, this weekend you test a single faction and no one can play any other faction, all players are the same level and can't level up past a certain point and start in a specific area. That results in wonderful test data since all of the testing is specifically focused to find issues that could go largely unnoticed in a more general no-restrictions type of test. Now, I'm not saying we should restrict players to Cherno and give them all shotguns. That type of overly specific testing, I dont think, would work for this game. But saying that forcing people to test the same things under similar circumstances doesnt result in good data is wrong.

[Cormac McCarthy 15]

disregard post. apparently i cant delete it/

Edited July 11, 2012 by Cormac McCarthy

[Ingway 4]

I agree, i never cared about dying unless it was really sudden and actually scared me in the process, so i'm fine with wipes.

Not to mention, people should probably just stfu when someone makes a suggestion/complain, trying to act like a smartass to look cool, when someone makes a complain tread, even when the OP is acting polite when giving his complaint, what do they do? "Herp derp, go back to cod", "oh it's alpha deal with it". I'm pretty sure alpha is also a phase for hearing out criticism and not to mention opnions, but they are so busy praising the dev like mad they don't notice.

Also i might add, this is not a perfect game, people WILL find flaws or bugs even after alpha, it's completely normal, even big gaming companies suffer from it.

Edited July 11, 2012 by Ingway

[Evroz 3]

I would love to see regular server wipes like every patch. Everyone starts on the coast and all vehicles have to repaired again.

This would make the game more new player friendly and most likely promote more working together since not everyone can defend themselves right off the bat.

[Redshift 58]

I would love to see regular server wipes like every patch. Everyone starts on the coast and all vehicles have to repaired again.

This would make the game more new player friendly and most likely promote more working together since not everyone can defend themselves right off the bat.

Server wipes for the sake of server wipes is not at all what I am advocating. Server wipes should only be used to facilitate changes that are drastic and encompassing. Using them as some hope of artificially promoting cooperation is backward and non-productive.

[aoshi 32]

I'd love it, but I believe it will not happen

[Nyz 42]

Wow, i've never fallen asleep reading a thread before. Guess I need more sleep.

[The Poacher 31]

Wow, i've never fallen asleep reading a thread before. Guess I need more sleep.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Blizzaze 5]

That's because Rocket rather focuses on fixing bugs while creating double the amount of new bugs and then calling it a new version.

Balance issues will probably only be addressed when the game reaches beta status.

[Joyrider (DayZ) 0]

I agree with OP, this would be a much better test environment if characters were wiped more often and the overall gameplay mechanics were more dramatic.

[Azrail (DayZ) 211]

Alpha = look for features to put in the game and how to implement them, test how they work, experiemental stage.

Beta = find and fix bugs, fill the gaps, finetuning stage.

This is an open alpha.

I don't really think its neccessery to pick a fight wether we need to call this stage alpha, beta or open-gamma,

we (or some of us) are trying to lift this game onto a solid level, i think this is what matters.