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

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®et getting 17.2 just to test is a pretty big ask.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.
Click to expand...
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 ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥..

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.
Click to expand...
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...

 
I dont mean that critique would be wrong. i mean only things like
Click to expand...
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/251570/discussions/10/1777136225034133218/

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

 
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.
Click to expand...
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.

 
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.
Click to expand...
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...

 
snip
Click to expand...
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.

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

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.

 
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®et getting 17.2 just to test is a pretty big ask.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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...

 
"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 ?

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.
Click to expand...
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 a moderator:
Secondly the experimental branch is not designed for public consumption which is why it is strictly for opting in on a voluntary basis.
Click to expand...
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 a moderator:
It's released for public consumption because we are all members of the public and you released it to us.
Click to expand...
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!

 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

 
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.
Click to expand...

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.

 
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.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top