Page 7 of 14 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 199

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

  1. #91
    Tracker
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    239
    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.
    Actually, this is the kind of comment that I was intending to reply to.

    It's entirely possible that RWG changes could not be excluded from the build.

    I just gave one reason: trader quests. If they release RWG without those changes, RWG is still utterly broken - at the least they won't have any trader quests in RWG, at most the quest system will just outright crash RWG altogether. I'm sure there can be other reasons.

    You can't just assume major features can be isolated, and you can't just assume that the lack of isolation is due to lack of skill or competence.

    EDIT: I'm also a software developer, so...

  2. #92
    Hunter
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    149
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Roland View Post
    snip
    I think this is pretty funny because you guys didn't even give this RWG pass to your internal testers to test because it's not good enough but it's ok for your external testers. This is exactly backwards and amateurish. If this is your philosophy for testing, then you should be using your internal QA testers to catch the real obvious ♥♥♥♥ and your external testers to catch the nuanced ♥♥♥♥. That means the internal QA testers spend at least 30 minutes on *every* feature doing obvious things a user might do to see if it breaks. Let the users smash into it after that to see if there's more subtle bugs.

    You obviously didn't do that here because it's immediately obvious it doesn't work after mere minutes (and you told us you didn't).

    There is no defense. The proper response was "Yeah we goofed, lets all have a chuckle about it and see what they have for us in 17.3." By attempting to "defend" it you make the team look worse.

  3. #93
    Hunter
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    149
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by khzmusik View Post
    EDIT: I'm also a software developer, so...

    Yeah, and? There's a few of us floating around in here.

    As for the rest, there's no way Trader changes would be mixed in with RWG changes aside from the .xml config stuff which is minor. Why? Because that is core and used in both RWG and Navezgane.

  4. #94
    Super Moderator Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    On a Zipline
    Posts
    14,434
    Rep Power
    2
    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.
    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.
    Nobody is asking you to do anything. Opting in to 17.2 must be manually done and is completely up to you. Complaining about unfinished features in that experimental build that nobody forced you to download is really beyond the pale. The only reason you think the development patterns are unorthodox is because your obvious expectation is that "Early Access" and "Experimental Branch" are not real terms that have actual meaning.

    They do and TFP fully embraces those definitions.

    The game has not gone public as a published product. It is in development. The warnings on the store page make it clear that you are playing an early build of an unfinished game. If your experience with other early access titles has led you to believe that early access doesn't really mean "still under construction" and so you have erroneous expectations about what is going on around here I'm sorry. Reassess and decide if you want to continue experiencing the development process or wait until the game is finished. I just started playing a game that left early access late last year and am enjoying it. This is a viable strategy for enjoying games.

    A17.2 is in the experimental branch. Opt in and experience it at your entertainment peril. The experimental branch is for those willing to test those areas requested by the developers. If you want to download it and try and play a long term game that's fine but there is no need for chastising and ranting against the development practices of TFP. I tried the experimental branch of Space Engineers when they were working on their planets and I tried the experimental branch of Empyrion at one point. They were as expected quite buggy and in the case of Space Engineers I immediately reverted to the stable branch as I found the planets unplayable for me. I bet there are other examples of other studios using an experimental branch that is strictly voluntary as TFP has done. I bet it is pretty established actually...

  5. #95
    Leader Royal Deluxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    6,246
    Rep Power
    1
    "Hey Devloper, why do developer speak so few about internal processes"
    Developer:"Because theres allways someone who missunderstand something, turns arround our words, and finally we have the annoyance to put what we said again in the right light"

    Really ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ranzera View Post
    I think this is pretty funny because you guys didn't even give this RWG pass to your internal testers to test because it's not good enough but it's ok for your external testers. This is exactly backwards and amateurish.
    You say it as if 17.2 would never be in internal tests, by quoting a statement roland posted AFTER 17.2 was released in experimental.

    Its clear that he spoke about the next build. Or not ?
    Last edited by Royal Deluxe; 02-12-2019 at 01:04 AM.

  6. #96
    Tracker
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    239
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Roland View Post
    Secondly the experimental branch is not designed for public consumption which is why it is strictly for opting in on a voluntary basis.
    OK, sorry Roland, but this sentence actually made me really angry.

    It's released for public consumption because we are all members of the public and you released it to us.

    How do I know we're the public? Because you're not paying us to be your QA testers.

    Don't like what Jax is saying? Too bad, he's absolutely correct here.

    You don't want us, the public, to be upset if you intentionally release something to us that you know is broken? Don't release it to us at all. Not in EA, not in experimental - keep it within the company.

    And if you want to get it "tested by the community" then you'd better start paying us. I'd be more than happy to bill you for 1000+ hours at even sub-standard QA rates.

    Don't want to do that? Then you have absolutely no right to tell us we're acting unreasonable or that we "can't handle it."

    (And BTW, I think this is the first time I've ever actually agreed with Jax - wonders never cease.)

    EDIT: OK... calmed down a bit. Sorry.

    I'm not saying you shouldn't have released this as it is, or that you are immoral and owe us money.

    I'm just saying you can't have it both ways. Either don't do EA and experimental releases at all - and miss out on any input from players, and all the other benefits of EA (like all the streamers who play and popularize your game). Or do EA and experimental with the full knowledge that people like Jax will complain and their complaints are at least somewhat justified.

    That is all.
    Last edited by khzmusik; 02-12-2019 at 01:25 AM.

  7. #97
    Community Moderator OzHawkeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,310
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by khzmusik View Post
    It's released for public consumption because we are all members of the public and you released it to us.
    I can't believe how wrong this statement is - there has to be a word in English that essentially is "more wrong than merely wrong". You opted in to an experimental build of an Early Access game. It wasn't forced down your throat, you didn't have to opt into it, you could have kept playing 17.1, 17.0 or any other version. How can you even begin to say that you should be paid for QA testing?

    Want to QA test (for free)? Play 17.2.

    Want to wait until RWG is in a more playable state? Don't play 17.2.

    It really is that simple.

    And I say this as someone who only plays RWG and, as a consequence of which, my time in 7dtd is now restricted to A16.4 until I feel like A17 has reached a point where I could start a game in it and play it for a reasonable length of time (and without having to go over a random map ahead of time to make sure its decent).

    Also, in no way, does this mean we shouldn't be providing feedback on 17.2 - feedback is a gift and my current feedback on RWG is that is basically unplayable (well, unenjoyable) for 99% of maps generated. But that doesn't mean that I somehow can go telling off the Devs for giving me a chance to test it out!

  8. #98
    Tracker
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    234
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranzera View Post
    I think this is pretty funny because you guys didn't even give this RWG pass to your internal testers to test because it's not good enough but it's ok for your external testers. This is exactly backwards and amateurish. If this is your philosophy for testing, then you should be using your internal QA testers to catch the real obvious ♥♥♥♥ and your external testers to catch the nuanced ♥♥♥♥. That means the internal QA testers spend at least 30 minutes on *every* feature doing obvious things a user might do to see if it breaks. Let the users smash into it after that to see if there's more subtle bugs.

    You obviously didn't do that here because it's immediately obvious it doesn't work after mere minutes (and you told us you didn't).

    There is no defense. The proper response was "Yeah we goofed, lets all have a chuckle about it and see what they have for us in 17.3." By attempting to "defend" it you make the team look worse.

    I agree with your proper response. What I'm only hearing from them (TFP) is that this is development branch and you opted for this so we can do whatever we want. We can release anything (even with major bugs and we even bypass the internal testing phase) but no problem because we'll fix them later! If you can't deal with it, try another branch.

    They invited us to go along with their 'construction' process. I'm not familiar with the gaming industry but their SDLC (or at least TFP) looks out of the norm.

  9. #99
    Super Moderator Roland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    On a Zipline
    Posts
    14,434
    Rep Power
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranzera View Post
    I think this is pretty funny because you guys didn't even give this RWG pass to your internal testers to test because it's not good enough but it's ok for your external testers. This is exactly backwards and amateurish. If this is your philosophy for testing, then you should be using your internal QA testers to catch the real obvious ♥♥♥♥ and your external testers to catch the nuanced ♥♥♥♥. That means the internal QA testers spend at least 30 minutes on *every* feature doing obvious things a user might do to see if it breaks. Let the users smash into it after that to see if there's more subtle bugs.

    You obviously didn't do that here because it's immediately obvious it doesn't work after mere minutes (and you told us you didn't).

    There is no defense. The proper response was "Yeah we goofed, lets all have a chuckle about it and see what they have for us in 17.3." By attempting to "defend" it you make the team look worse.

    I revealed what I did about RWG not being ready for testing feedback because it is the truth. The only people who are going to be upset about that are those who don't understand what being part of a development process entails or who thought they were purchasing a largely finished game in all respects. I think your comments fully reveal you to be one who is only interested in this game as a piece of entertainment and when that entertainment is spoiled by a setback of development you can't handle it. If you were interested in experiencing the behind the scenes development process of creating 7 Days to Die you would take this all in stride.

  10. #100
    Guppycurian Forum Whore Guppycur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Enemy for life
    Posts
    20,639
    Rep Power
    1
    Wow people. Roland is absolutely correct.

    During the a17 dev process, you very same people were asking for access to the process no matter how broken... Now you have it and you complain.

    17.2 didn't automatically download. It didn't magically appear. You people took literal action on your end to opt into the experimental program.

    Tfp didn't force you. 17.2 isn't ready yet, yet you CHOSE to play it anyway.

    ...and honestly, even if it WAS "released", you are STILL playing an early access game that *promised* you broken and incomplete features.

    Just wow.

  11. #101
    Tracker
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    239
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranzera View Post
    Yeah, and? There's a few of us floating around in here.

    As for the rest, there's no way Trader changes would be mixed in with RWG changes aside from the .xml config stuff which is minor. Why? Because that is core and used in both RWG and Navezgane.
    For the record, the "I'm a developer" comment was just to show that I knew at least a little bit about what I spoke. Nothing more.

    Also, if you truly think that the RWG is mainly just the XML stuff, then you can just revert it yourself. Take the A16 rwgmixer.xml file and copy-and-paste it to the A17 rwgmixer.xml file.

    Think you'd have a playable game this way? Think TFP should have released it to the public this way?

    Probably not - because RWG isn't just about biomes or XML or other "minor" changes, it's about how every other part of the game interacts with it. Like generating the POIs necessary for trader quests - and that's just off the top of my head, a TFP dev could probably give a hundred other examples.

    ...and now I'm going to stop posting here for the night, obviously I'm getting too argumentative.

  12. #102
    Colony Founder The Gronk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    2,778
    Rep Power
    1
    My fear isn't that RWG will always look terrible, that's preposterous, it's still being worked on so it logically follows that the generation algorithm will improve.

    My main fear is that the underlying system isn't very scalable. From what I can tell the size of the generated map on the disk will be directly proportional to the size of the map in the game. Bigger map, more disk space, longer to download the data from the server. What you're gaining in loading speed you're losing in system resources elsewhere.

    It doesn't need to be that way, it wasn't that way. If I remember correctly a floating origin was implemented to allow for larger maps but then that work was largely wasted because you can't generate a map big enough to use it.

    I'm failing to see how pre-generating an entire map will make it look any better than one generated on-the-fly. Certain things like rivers will be easier with a pre-generated system but that wouldn't be impossible if generated at runtime, just a bit harder to implement.

    Let's face it, the current terrain system is basically a voxel engine with a terrain smoothing algorithm layered on top and static objects such as trees placed around. When all is said and done it's all just metre square blocks underneath and always has been.

  13. #103
    Hunter
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    149
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Roland View Post
    Nobody is asking you to do anything. Opting in to 17.2 must be manually done and is completely up to you. Complaining about unfinished features in that experimental build that nobody forced you to download is really beyond the pale. The only reason you think the development patterns are unorthodox is because your obvious expectation is that "Early Access" and "Experimental Branch" are not real terms that have actual meaning.

    They do and TFP fully embraces those definitions.

    The game has not gone public as a published product. It is in development. The warnings on the store page make it clear that you are playing an early build of an unfinished game. If your experience with other early access titles has led you to believe that early access doesn't really mean "still under construction" and so you have erroneous expectations about what is going on around here I'm sorry. Reassess and decide if you want to continue experiencing the development process or wait until the game is finished. I just started playing a game that left early access late last year and am enjoying it. This is a viable strategy for enjoying games.

    A17.2 is in the experimental branch. Opt in and experience it at your entertainment peril. The experimental branch is for those willing to test those areas requested by the developers. If you want to download it and try and play a long term game that's fine but there is no need for chastising and ranting against the development practices of TFP. I tried the experimental branch of Space Engineers when they were working on their planets and I tried the experimental branch of Empyrion at one point. They were as expected quite buggy and in the case of Space Engineers I immediately reverted to the stable branch as I found the planets unplayable for me. I bet there are other examples of other studios using an experimental branch that is strictly voluntary as TFP has done. I bet it is pretty established actually...
    You are really good at making incorrect assumptions about people. Like rock star level.

    I don't care what label you put on your game's life cycle stages. There is a software development cycle. Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing (in your model this would be experimental releases) -> Release. Every one of those testing cycles has an option arrow back to development for bugs found. You go through that process in that order or you are doing it WRONG.

    Your own dev told you that a feature was not ready for QA testing, because it had not passed HIS testing. You short circuited not 1 but 2 layers of testing before you hit UAT. And you're on here having a conniption fit while getting basic industry terminology wrong.

    Then you get upset and throwing condescending sounding posts about how everyone else doesn't get it. No, YOU don't get it. If this is how the company runs, then the company runs incorrectly and you've laid bare as to why ♥♥♥♥ takes so long to do. You can't get your testing done right because you don't have a coherent development path.

    But please, tell me again how I don't get it because I don't understand what you mean by Early Access. Surely you'll be more correct next time *roll eyes*

  14. #104
    Leader Royal Deluxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    6,246
    Rep Power
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Ranzera View Post
    There is a software development cycle. Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version-> -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version
    Fixed that for you

  15. #105
    Hunter
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    149
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Guppycur View Post
    During the a17 dev process, you very same people were asking for access to the process no matter how broken... Now you have it and you complain.
    Venn Diagrams bro.

    Honestly, only morons would listen to a user request like that. TFP didn't do that (thankfully).

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by khzmusik View Post
    For the record, the "I'm a developer" comment was just to show that I knew at least a little bit about what I spoke. Nothing more.

    Also, if you truly think that the RWG is mainly just the XML stuff, then you can just revert it yourself. Take the A16 rwgmixer.xml file and copy-and-paste it to the A17 rwgmixer.xml file.

    Think you'd have a playable game this way? Think TFP should have released it to the public this way?

    Probably not - because RWG isn't just about biomes or XML or other "minor" changes, it's about how every other part of the game interacts with it. Like generating the POIs necessary for trader quests - and that's just off the top of my head, a TFP dev could probably give a hundred other examples.

    ...and now I'm going to stop posting here for the night, obviously I'm getting too argumentative.
    I said the Trader stuff that could be packaged with RWG changes would be .xml stuff at most. I'll let the rest of your incorrect tangent rest on its own.

Posting Permissions

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