Page 6 of 14 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 199

Thread: RWG Just When you think it can't get any worse

  1. #76
    Tracker
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranzera View Post
    The RWG changes did not need to be included. If they are even slightly competent, those changes would be in their own branch and it could be excluded from the main branch when it comes time to build/test/deploy.
    As a software engineer myself I agree with this. Testers are given a release at a certain stage. After their testing issues are brought back to developers who then make another update giving that update for testers to test and cycle repeats itself. Once the major issues are fixed then the product is released to the public. In this case, when the majority of RWG worlds are unplayable it should not have been released at all. Like I said earlier, 17.0 RWG was fine. They then made changes for the 17.1 release which borked it up somewhat. Now more changes to 17.2 RWG messed things up in a major way. If they knew about this why not revert back to 17.1 or 17.0 RWG?

    Some of you are saying oh this is experimental and you opted in for this thing. Yeah that's true but game companies have an obligation to have a somewhat working product before releasing anything to the public for their feedback including while in EA phase. When players have to recreate a RWG world several times just to make it playable, then there's an issue.

    You cannot always say 'You're playing in experimental branch so expect bugs.' Major (gamebreaking) bugs should be found/fixed by the company before any type of release. Users sometimes find major bugs but usually they're by accident and hard to find/reproduce. In this case however, the issue occurs immediately when you create the world! Its the first you thing you see!

  2. #77
    Tracker
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by OzHawkeye View Post
    And you don't suppose that the 17.2 experimental release was to allow for greater testing of things other than RWG? I mean, clearly RWG is borked right now, zero argument there, and as someone who plays exclusively RWG, I'm still playing A16 till it all gets sorted. But an experimental release may well include components that are borked, where the goal is to stress test other systems in the meantime while the borked one gets further love.
    If 17.2 RWG is borked why release it (the new changes in RWG) in the first place? I understand they want to test other features but unless those other features were dependent on RWG then those changes should not have been included in 17.2 release.

  3. #78
    Colony Founder JaxTeller718's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Ravenhearst
    Posts
    4,260
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Roland View Post
    Since you don't seem to understand let me spell it out.

    When the game is "published" it will no longer be in "early access". 7 Days to Die 1.0 will be the published game. Nothing we have now is "published" and you are playing it at your own discretion.

    Waiting until publishing time is certainly an option and probably one you should carefully consider. Just admit that you erroneously thought the game was a finished product and you don't in your heart believe in the early access model and we can all laugh at it.

    <shrug>

    For the record, when the game really is published, if RWG is in this state I will be angry too. I just understand that it isn't that time yet and so there is no practical use to getting angry. Play it as is, or revert to an early version, or put it away and take a break.

    Have fun making your meme.
    Roland let's be practical here.

    Everything you said is true, and no one is arguing that. But developers went and pushed an untested and broken change to an experimental/test release without even considering letting the testers have a look at it "because they knew it was broken".

    There is nothing that can ever be said to make that sentence ok. Its not, not in any company I have ever worked for, nor any other company that Im aware of that employs an actual QA team.

    There is plenty that can be said in regards to peoples opinions in changes to systems and skills and AI but for the most part those are opinions. This is an entirely different beast.

  4. #79
    Hunter
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    149
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PPanda0421 View Post
    If 17.2 RWG is borked why release it (the new changes in RWG) in the first place? I understand they want to test other features but unless those other features were dependent on RWG then those changes should not have been included in 17.2 release.
    I gotta agree. They are hampering their testing by releasing a build that makes testing impossible for some. Asking people to revert to 17.1 just to make a world and then re-g(r)et getting 17.2 just to test is a pretty big ask.

  5. #80
    Zombie Hunter
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    405
    Rep Power
    1
    All vitriol aside, the man does have a point and I have to agree too.

    It's totally fine that RWG is still under work, totally fine that it has not been tested or is not even ready to be tested, so any changes should not be "Committed" to the latest version (experimental or otherwise) until they have been tested.

    I think it's the fact that the changes were "Committed" before they were ready to be, that people are whining about it.

  6. #81
    Colony Founder JaxTeller718's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Ravenhearst
    Posts
    4,260
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranzera View Post
    I gotta agree. They are hampering their testing by releasing a build that makes testing impossible for some. Asking people to revert to 17.1 just to make a world and then re-g(r)et getting 17.2 just to test is a pretty big ask.
    It also makes zero practical sense for development. Imagine releasing a product with the INTENTION of testing it for public release and then telling people who have criticism of said product to go buy a different brand if they dont like it.

    It boggles my mind.

  7. #82
    Hunter
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    149
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Cirion View Post
    All vitriol aside, the man does have a point and I have to agree too.

    It's totally fine that RWG is still under work, totally fine that it has not been tested or is not even ready to be tested, so any changes should not be "Committed" to the latest version (experimental or otherwise) until they have been tested.

    I think it's the fact that the changes were "Committed" before they were ready to be, that people are whining about it.
    I mean if you think that chastising a game developer for not following established software development patterns is whining.... well you do you I guess.

  8. #83
    Leader Tin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    In between
    Posts
    5,549
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JaxTeller718 View Post
    It also makes zero practical sense for development. Imagine releasing a product with the INTENTION of testing it for public release and then telling people who have criticism of said product to go buy a different brand if they dont like it.

    It boggles my mind.
    Except no one said that but whatever..
    It went way beyond just simple criticism of a "product", plain and simple, and there's no reason for it, except to be an ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥..

  9. #84
    Tracker
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranzera View Post
    I mean if you think that chastising a game developer for not following established software development patterns is whining.... well you do you I guess.
    Umm he's taking your side . Nevertheless, I think they (TFP) get the idea. So far I like the new 17.2 changes in my 17.1-created world. Taking a break for now though. I'll wait till RWG is fixed so I can really experience the 'new' 17.2.

  10. #85
    Super Moderator Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    On a Zipline
    Posts
    14,432
    Rep Power
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JaxTeller718 View Post
    It also makes zero practical sense for development. Imagine releasing a product with the INTENTION of testing it for public release and then telling people who have criticism of said product to go buy a different brand if they dont like it.

    It boggles my mind.
    A different brand?

    Ummm...telling people to revert to the stable branch by opting out of the currently experimental branch is light years from telling people to go buy a different brand. First of all, nobody has to purchase anything. Secondly the experimental branch is not designed for public consumption which is why it is strictly for opting in on a voluntary basis.

    Just because you have access to something doesn't mean you should just automatically do it if you can't handle it. This is no dig against anyone here. Do I have access to the A18 build? Yes. Do I want to access it at this point? Hell no. Null References right and left and overloaded texture arrays is beyond my own capacity to handle things. Do I go to Joel and complain and say, "How dare you allow me access to something so unplayable!" No.

    I'm happy to stick with A17.2. (I'm playing A17.2 using A17.1 pregenerated maps btw)

    Now if random gen in it's current form is beyond what some of you can handle, I am throwing no shade. Opt out and play the stable build or if you like the North to South maps then load up 17.0 and pregenerate a few maps from that to play on.

  11. #86
    Reconstructionist
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Long Island, New York
    Posts
    519
    Rep Power
    1
    Ranzera wins the mic drop award of today

  12. #87
    Reconstructionist Hek Harris's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    France
    Posts
    518
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Roland View Post
    A different brand?

    Ummm...telling people to revert to the stable branch by opting out of the currently experimental branch is light years from telling people to go buy a different brand. First of all, nobody has to purchase anything. Secondly the experimental branch is not designed for public consumption which is why it is strictly for opting in on a voluntary basis.

    Just because you have access to something doesn't mean you should just automatically do it if you can't handle it. This is no dig against anyone here. Do I have access to the A18 build? Yes. Do I want to access it at this point? Hell no. Null References right and left and overloaded texture arrays is beyond my own capacity to handle things. Do I go to Joel and complain and say, "How dare you allow me access to something so unplayable!" No.

    I'm happy to stick with A17.2. (I'm playing A17.2 using A17.1 pregenerated maps btw)

    Now if random gen in it's current form is beyond what some of you can handle, I am throwing no shade. Opt out and play the stable build or if you like the North to South maps then load up 17.0 and pregenerate a few maps from that to play on.
    It's so obvious that not understanding this and posting the same complaints several times in different forms should be called once and for all "whining".
    Come on guys, try to behave like adults at least until Alpha 18, the forum will gain in terms of friendliness...

  13. #88
    Tracker
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    238
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Royal Deluxe View Post
    I dont mean that critique would be wrong. i mean only things like
    That was me. Don't know if this came across in my post, but I wasn't trying to complain or voice criticism - we all know RWG is bad right now so there's no point.

    And, when I meant releasing RWG, I wasn't just talking about the A17.2 RWG. I was talking about RWG in all A17 versions. They are all, without exception, far worse at RWG than A16 was - at least in my experience.

    I really was just saying I don't know the reasoning behind it - much less whether that reasoning was good or bad. I was guessing that there are good reasons they didn't just revert to A16 RWG.

    In the meantime, by using one of the seeds from the Steam forum, I was finally able to get a RWG map that wasn't terrible, so I can finally play RWG on any A17 version.

    That's good enough for me, at least for now.

    If anyone else wants that thread here it is, and thanks to Royal Deluxe for sharing it: https://steamcommunity.com/app/25157...6225034133218/

  14. #89
    Super Moderator Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    On a Zipline
    Posts
    14,432
    Rep Power
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Cirion View Post

    I think it's the fact that the changes were "Committed" before they were ready to be, that people are whining about it.
    I understand and that is what I am responding to. I have not disagreed with a single person over the criticism of RWG itself. It is borked. That happens at times during development.

    What some people are not understanding is that TFP is actually and legitimately treating Early Access as a full on backstage pass to the construction zone. They are NOT treating it as a marketing label to get extra funds while in reality the game is mostly done and the updates are actually like DLCs. I get the impression that several around here want to treat it as a finished game and are expecting TFP to keep all updates to the standard of expanded content being added to a finished game-- but that is just a fantasy.

    You have actual early access to the actual development builds which include ups and downs and occasionally closed and under repair features. The pimps provide playable versions for those who bought the game to be able to play if some beloved feature is not working at any given time but they never guaranteed that everything would be working during every moment of development.

    Some want to deny that Early Access actually means anything and that releasing to early access is the same as releasing to the public. But TFP draws a distinction and they really do take the Early Access label seriously. Maybe that confuses some customers who thought they were playing a fully released game but for those who are interested in being a part of the actual development of a game this has been an authentic and interesting journey. There is no shame in coming to the realization that what you really just want is a zombie survival game that works and you really aren't interested in the development journey of said game. You just take a break or opt in to one of the versions that is fun to play until the game is finished and released and you have your publicly published game finally.

  15. #90
    Hunter
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    149
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by khzmusik View Post
    And, when I meant releasing RWG, I wasn't just talking about the A17.2 RWG. I was talking about RWG in all A17 versions. They are all, without exception, far worse at RWG than A16 was - at least in my experience.
    A16 did make some damn pretty maps. If not for the minibike bugs and the world stability issues I'd be screaming from the hilltops that A17 doesn't actually exist and everyone should play A16 instead.

    A16 with bugfixes would have been a beautiful game. One we'll probably never see.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •