Blocking Open Beta from public multiplayer

No its not. It is your main release. Not a test build. If ED likes it or not. People play mainly on OB.

It is a test build, like it or not. The number of people using it doesn't change that.

The Five Steps of the DCS Open Beta / Early Access Process.

 

1. DCS Customer: I want my OB/EA NOW! NOW! NOW I don't care that it's not ready and how bugged it is! Give it to me NOW! :ranting:.:ranting::ranting:
   
2. Open Beta / Early Access releases. :surrender:
   
3. DCS Customer: My Open Beta/Early Access is broken/not complete, why did you release it now. You should have waited to release OB/EA. I want it fixed NOW!! :mad: :furious: :furious:
   
4. Chizh, YO-YO, and Comrades :wallbash::wallbash::drunk:...
   
5. Go back to step one, repeat process..
   

THIS should be the splash screen when launching DCS in OB and a preamble to every OB changelog

I personally like it when ED would release an update in OpenBeta about once a week, have to hotfix a few things, and we would give invaluable feedback on what was not working. I would like to see OpenBeta stay main stream with everyone realizing that it will have bugs and is not "Stable Build."

As stated multiple times (IIRC even by Kate herself): not gonna happen.

Never say never ;-)

I still maintain that the amount of servers on OB is a big problem.

I hated rolling back our server, but so many people want to be on OB that it does impact MP population if you remain on the live branch.

If the server population remains wanting something, they don't really care for common sense, they will follow things like BlueFlag, 104th etc etc. and if those servers dictate the MP playerbase then how can MP admins reasonably grow something or stop this cycle? Will people just say, well I'm not going to play multiplayer because that's a stability disaster? No, the MP community will follow the herd.... Blue Flag updated, so will I so I can play on it. Then.. rollbacks and backlash.

Whilst I agree it's not for admins to cure ED's PR issues, there is a sense of responsibility of contributing to that cycle.

So, given the quite postive desire for OB from the above threads, there is literally no point in having a stable branch for the MP community. MP servers NEVER revert to stable, they always revert to the last known good version. Saying anything else is mutually exclusive. So I find there's a lot of hypocrisy going around at worst, and at best, we are forcing ourselves to have a less enjoyable time with updates, taking more risk and giving ourselves the headaches.

And I dont agree the testing is any better. Who are we testing for? We are living in it?! It's mainly the single players that choose Live branch, because there's no choice for them in MP (you can read the confused posts about server lists and lack of choice)

I'm sick of testing after the last ten years, I really need a break from it. But no one seems to want a change.

and at best, we are forcing ourselves to have a less enjoyable time with updates, taking more risk and giving ourselves the headaches.

Couldn't disagree more. The vast majority of players WANT access to the latest patches. Since DCS 2.0 there has only been two times that servers had to rollback due to some game breaking bug.

The latest bugs are frustrating but not enough for me to drop down to a stable version that hasn't seen any updates since before Christmas.

I'm sorry to say but you are really in the very very minority of players who do not want the latest OB updates. The minority should NEVER impose their views on the majority!

By the way what server are you administering?

I'm sorry to say but you are really in the very very minority of players who do not want the latest OB updates. The minority should NEVER impose their views on the majority!

Hitches razor: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

While it may be a true statement when discussing multiplayer, based on how man servers there are & how many people that can be found on each server, that doesn't necessarily prove to be true (or false) regarding dcs players collectively. I suppose only ED has the numbers of how many folks play MP, how many don't, how many are OB & how many are on stable

Feel free to dismiss this, but my *hunch* is there are more SP than MP players, and by extension more stable than OB players. I say that with stable being the default download for steam players (they have to Wade thru menus to enable OB) (i can't guess what portion of the population is steam and what is standalone). For the standalone players, the primary impetus to choose OB over stable is what's going on in the MO arena.

I say this as someone who started on steam stable, tried OB & went back to stable, and then migrated from steam to standalone

My personal view: i prefer fewer , yet more substantial, updates with fewer bugs. Im not sure about restricting OB cuz I'm generally against banning things, but also don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are beta testers by choice when their sim breaks.

Hitches razor: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

 

While it may be a true statement when discussing multiplayer, based on how man servers there are & how many people that can be found on each server, that doesn't necessarily prove to be true (or false) regarding dcs players collectively. I suppose only ED has the numbers of how many folks play MP, how many don't, how many are OB & how many are on stable

 

Feel free to dismiss this, but my *hunch* is there are more SP than MP players, and by extension more stable than OB players. I say that with stable being the default download for steam players (they have to Wade thru menus to enable OB) (i can't guess what portion of the population is steam and what is standalone). For the standalone players, the primary impetus to choose OB over stable is what's going on in the MO arena.

 

I say this as someone who started on steam stable, tried OB & went back to stable, and then migrated from steam to standalone

 

My personal view: i prefer fewer , yet more substantial, updates with fewer bugs. Im not sure about restricting OB cuz I'm generally against banning things, but also don't have a lot of sympathy for people who are beta testers by choice when their sim breaks.

I do not dispute the claim that there are more SP than MP. Even on OB SP wins out.

But I do not want anyone to limit my MP to Release version only. I have rolled back to the last 2.5.5 version which most of MP run on. Like I said, this is only the second time since DCS 2.0 came out that an OB version broke the MP game.

No big deal, I rolled back and it took less than 20 mins.,

I do not dispute the claim that there are more SP than MP. Even on OB SP wins out.

 

 

 

But I do not want anyone to limit my MP to Release version only. I have rolled back to the last 2.5.5 version which most of MP run on. Like I said, this is only the second time since DCS 2.0 came out that an OB version broke the MP game.

 

 

 

No big deal, I rolled back and it took less than 20 mins.,

RedSands.

It's no big deal for the server. It is for the dozens of people using it. Just multiply users by all that time and effort to upgrade, then downgrade, all that annoyance, disappointment, and dont think about yourself, but what you cause to the masses. It's software genocide.

in parallel, consider a Microsoft patch that went wrong. It's not one person, but many.

No one would know any better if it had always been this way. The only reason people want OB is because that is where the MP base is. It's a self fulfilling prophecy caused by the server admins.

People are being limited in how they look at this. They consider OB to be required for MP. But only because MP == OB. So they consider losing OB to be a loss. If there was no MP on OB, you wouldn't lose anything. In fact it would be the reverse, you would have to lose to move to OB which is precisely the point people are not having the vision to see. MP would still be available to play under the original suggestion, in multiplayer, it just wouldn't be shown on the server list (Barely anyone read and comprehended that in the OP). The effect's intent would be to allow MP to exist somewhere other than OB and give people a real choice in how much they wanted to see the the OB new effects. Jump through hoops to go to OB, make it harder to exist on, whilst taking nothing away but the server listing. People begin using a "live branch" mindset, use MP, the most fragile of areas to have change on on the more stable tested branch, get out of testing for the single player market and reverse thigns to have SP test the majority of issues first and a smaller testing group on OB for people who insist its the only way to exist.

I'm not sure I've seen many folks actually comprehend the way the issue manifests.

Couldn't disagree more. The vast majority of players WANT access to the latest patches. Since DCS 2.0 there has only been two times that servers had to rollback due to some game breaking bug.

 

 

 

The latest bugs are frustrating but not enough for me to drop down to a stable version that hasn't seen any updates since before Christmas.

 

 

 

I'm sorry to say but you are really in the very very minority of players who do not want the latest OB updates. The minority should NEVER impose their views on the majority!

Don't be sorry to disagree. I've never seeked agreement myself, it's a very detestable trait! ;) But, do come up with a suggestion that can be achieved that allows public testing before it reaches multiplayer mainstream and doesnt require an NDA. Make sure you understand you can play MP and SP on OB and have free access to it. Make sure that your reasons are not about you, yourself not having access to mainstream servers on OB.

Majority of people want access to OB. The OP suggestion does NOT change that. Majority of people playing multiplayer want the latest things. The majority of people want a stable environment also, without bugs. Since that is clearly incompatible, how do you feel as a multiplayer using OB, in testing and supplying feedback for the mainly single player market? Does that make you feel used and getting less for your money? Are you really OK as an unpaid tester getting less quality than others? What about the people that don't provide feedback? How many bug reports are actually filed comapred to how many people don't want to be an active part of that process? How much does it hurt to have 2-4 weeks of testing from another community before you get to try X feature/product? Is that a big thing?

I put it to you, and the folks that are on OB, that they have absolutely no desire to test software unpaid. I do not believe there is any point in Open Beta for the customer and that ED benefits from that by giving us less testing. And that is why I propose a movement to the live branch, driven by the key server admins. The behaviour is nothing but common sense vs greed, but whilst all the key servers run on OB, what choice do we all have? None.

Obviously folks are free to choose which platform they use. I choose stable because even though there are far fewer available servers, I’m still not savvy enough to tell what’s my problem vs an “open beta “ problem.

What gets me is the same people that exercise their “choice” then have an absolute hissy when there is a problem. ABSOLUTELY use the forum to report bugs, thats what it for. But the page after page of dissertation about business models, loyalty, disrespect, bitches on and on and on is truly exhausting.

I’m new, and have been called out several times by the old salts for negativity, something I have pledged to improve upon. But then these same old salts continue to download beta, then go after the folks that create this sim, some extremely rudely.

While I agree as a developer, really hammed up software is a problem, As a community, it is our responsibility to understand what we put on our server, and the ramifications of that choice. I read through hundreds of posts about “rush, rush, rush. Folks are literally screaming about not having early access to the super carrier even after developers have posted repeatedly “ITS NOT READY”. I’m sure they are also preparing for the hundreds of bitches they will get when it releases and has flaws! I hear the A7 is going to suck according to multiple posts. Just released the news last week and everything from “wrong model, wrong developers, I can’t believe its not the F8....

Run whichever version you want, enjoy it’s strengths, accept and report its flaws.

MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN!!!!!!

Regards

Obviously folks are free to choose which platform they use. I choose stable because even though there are far fewer available servers, I’m still not savvy enough to tell what’s my problem vs an “open beta “ problem.

What gets me is the same people that exercise their “choice” then have an absolute hissy when there is a problem. ABSOLUTELY use the forum to report bugs, thats what it for. But the page after page of dissertation about business models, loyalty, disrespect, bitches on and on and on is truly exhausting.

I’m new, and have been called out several times by the old salts for negativity, something I have pledged to improve upon. But then these same old salts continue to download beta, then go after the folks that create this sim, some extremely rudely.

While I agree as a developer, really hammed up software is a problem, As a community, it is our responsibility to understand what we put on our server, and the ramifications of that choice. I read through hundreds of posts about “rush, rush, rush. Folks are literally screaming about not having early access to the super carrier even after developers have posted repeatedly “ITS NOT READY”. I’m sure they are also preparing for the hundreds of bitches they will get when it releases and has flaws! I hear the A7 is going to suck according to multiple posts. Just released the news last week and everything from “wrong model, wrong developers, I can’t believe its not the F8....

Run whichever version you want, enjoy it’s strengths, accept and report its flaws.

 

MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN!!!!!!

Regards

A lot of times versions are incompatible (not always) on multiplayer. Multiplayer version is dictated by the server admin. If the server admin runs OB, that does not give you the chocie. So, not, if folks want to run MP, they aren't free to decide, they have to go with what is dictated to them.

in 5 years since DCS 2.0 was released, there were two occasions that a game breaking bug forced MP to rollback. Let's not blow this completely out of proportion... please put it in perspective.

Since MP are usually people with a bit more knowledge of the game will almost always insist to use the newest OB. That is just how it works.

I and many others have no issues helping to find bugs in this game. Things that cannot be found when playing a linear SP mission. MP servers are usually dynamic and can use every unit in game making it IDEAL to find bugs as they creep up. This is also an ever evolving game with new units, maps and updates to core engine keep getting released. It needs to be stress tested.

OB will always be the preferred version of MP. Nothing will change that. And it would be ridiculous to ban players from using MP on OB. Let's just drop this silly idea.

Blocking would be the highest strength level measure, otherwise I largely support the OP's thinking and the discussions about this that will get us to get to some understanding and at least partial solution, it's good to debate because the players also have to come to an agreement with eachother and the larger communities, it should be a process that takes some time because habits can be hard to go against but this is something everyone with themselfs has to come to grounds to get some kind of balance, you can't be only enjoying in perfect conditions and using the latest and greatest and fastest.

Every time you open DCS openbeta it should tell you in screaming WordArt letters that this is Openbeta and bugs, crashes and instability will occur.

 

If players still bitch about it, simply ask them if they've seen the warning when they launched DCS.

I wrote a whole thread based about that :beer:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=265404

Tho sorry OP if I have seen this thread before I might have posted it right here in a different fashion, but oh well now.

Open Beta has lost its goal > hunt for bugs, therefore should not be availible to everyone. I also doubt, the influx of feedback is streamlined and moderated to such extent, that it makes any sense. I totaly agree with Pikey.

Open Beta has lost its goal > hunt for bugs, therefore should not be availible to everyone. I also doubt, the influx of feedback is streamlined and moderated to such extent, that it makes any sense. I totaly agree with Pikey.

Open Beta is fine. It has just been too messy, with way too many bugs. Therefore I greet the new closed Beta welcome. At least it gives ED good oppotunity to look into the MP part.

I guess closed Beta will catch a lot of bugs, but they won't cath them all, thus open Beta will still be necesarry.

Open Beta is fine. It has just been too messy, with way too many bugs. Therefore I greet the new closed Beta welcome. At least it gives ED good oppotunity to look into the MP part.

I guess closed Beta will catch a lot of bugs, but they won't cath them all, thus open Beta will still be necesarry.

Well as long as the players realize having a closed beta means only a small fraction of the player base will be "play testing" ensuring updates from now on be several weeks if not months in between.

The great thing about have such a large MP population on OB is the community found the bugs infinitely much quicker than if it was tested to the same standard internally.

I personally think things are ok the way they are, yes the latest two patches contained huge bugs that affected MP, but most servers just rolled back, continued on until the next hotfix.

There is no magic solution, outside of removing all access to the test branch and closing it off to preselected testers. And that won't solve anything because then the snowflakes will whine about being locked out.

In conclusion, it doesn't matter. If people whine, ''explain'' it to them. Politely if they're polite, with a ban if they're not. You can't fix stupid... but you can euthanise it! =)

There is no magic solution, outside of removing all access to the test branch and closing it off to preselected testers. And that won't solve anything because then the snowflakes will whine about being locked out.

 

In conclusion, it doesn't matter. If people whine, ''explain'' it to them. Politely if they're polite, with a ban if they're not. You can't fix stupid... but you can euthanise it! =)

+1

It's really a double edged sword for ED as well as the community. Because the open beta is so popular in MP (more popular than the release version I would argue) a lot of the bugs are found and reported to ED. The other side of that is.... there are a lot of bugs because it is an open beta.

You aren't going to find the amount of bugs that are currently found by the community if the open beta were to be blocked or if it became much less popular... and that means those bugs have a much higher chance of making it to the release version.... then we are right back where we started, but this time the open beta "excuse" (for lack of a better term, I don't mean to suggest ED uses it an as excuse, but you know what I mean) isn't available.

In the end I think what we have now isn't a bad solution, people just sometimes need to be reminded that they are playing an open beta - plus it gives ED the loosely named "excuse" I mentioned above for those bugs to be present. Will we sometimes get a very broken release? Yes, but I argue a lot of that is found because of the popularity of open beta.

in 5 years since DCS 2.0 was released, there were two occasions that a game breaking bug forced MP to rollback. Let's not blow this completely out of proportion... please put it in perspective.

 

Since MP are usually people with a bit more knowledge of the game will almost always insist to use the newest OB. That is just how it works.

 

I and many others have no issues helping to find bugs in this game. Things that cannot be found when playing a linear SP mission. MP servers are usually dynamic and can use every unit in game making it IDEAL to find bugs as they creep up. This is also an ever evolving game with new units, maps and updates to core engine keep getting released. It needs to be stress tested.

 

OB will always be the preferred version of MP. Nothing will change that. And it would be ridiculous to ban players from using MP on OB. Let's just drop this silly idea.

Again missed the point (three times, its in the title too) that it's not banned from MP, it's removed from public browsers. Still being available, you can still play multiplayer in OB, but you need to use the ED website or have the IP to find the server. It reduces the public MP and large servers should choose to use Live instead.

It doesn't need to be a game breaking bug, your two examples are a vast understatement of what OB contends with. I genuinely hope that you can acknowledge the less obvious and more complex bugs. In fact, the non gamebreaking defects in OB, that don't immediately get pushed to Live, sit around in OB for weeks and sometimes multiple months. Some of the apparently not gamebreaking bugs I've reported on that have been in multiplayer for weeks:

• Datalink Frame loss (in VR - frames halved) In MP, frames almost always worse, so we get it worse.
  
• Late activated units on all 3rd party modules appearing on radar as false contacts (old one but jeez how they missed that it was crippling)
  
• IFF coalition bugs and DataLink (the one thing you dont want in public MP and recurrs often)
  

I could go on there are plenty to pick out, there's too many bugs sitting around in OB that don't stop the "visual element" of the game that ED prioritise over core functionality of Multiplayer games, and that has been the last decade of direction at ED, fix the visuals, leave the under hood and MP. They wouldnt be excusing this oversight publically if it were not so.

So, who gains from fixing multiplayer issues? No one, we live in the OB branch and take what we are given and endure a low quality game which gets fixed and pushed to Live where the more single player folks recieve it and wonder why there are no servers on OB to play on.

The benefit of testing in production is utterly pointles. Why test and fix it if we have to play it anyway and then say that "this is fine, it's OB, we don't mind reporting bugs" (and playing with them). What maniac actually says that on a public forum?! :)

And the personal loss? You are a fortnight behind these MP issues and have to wait 2 weeks for a feature/module which you can access and play in OB anyway, earlier if you like? Is that a lot to really lose? I don't think so, but until the main servers actually run on the Live branch you have no choice and will never see it any other way and that is not your fault!

I'm currently still unable to play online, I have to look ahead because I have a server to test on, I have a the Moose scripting community to support who are all doing the same thing, trying to make OB work and failing and finding bugs, my server is literally deceased of activity because the community is now split. On Tuesday 11th of Feb (prior to this patch) our Discord shows three Discord pages of takeoffs and deaths: 149 basic player events. (you can join RedSands Discord to see, it's all logged publically). Yesterday only two people even logged on, 16 player events. That's a decimated player base. Is two weeks wait because ED don't test multiplayer really worth the absolute mess that is on OB? You know they don't test OB and expect us to, right, else they would have seen the flying static units 20 feet above the ground in a few seconds.

Everyone in this community has a responsibility to uphold a standard of quality of gaming and We have a duty to expect more and stand up and hold people accountable for our own contribution to this mess. As long as folks are happy to expect less, and as long as ED doesn't do any useful testing on Multiplayer (if they did, they wouldnt have released this) and as long as servers update and attempt to run OB immediately, we will have this continuous cycle as unpaid QA instead of actually getting to enjoy the sim as it should be. It just takes two weeks of patience to improve it, that's not a hard ask. Put the MP servers on Live branch and test for the MP community yourselves so that at least those servers can warn ED! How is that not a better solution? :) OB should be for testing not playing! (excuse the tone, im not meaning to be confrontational, just passionate)

Again missed the point (three times, its in the title too) that it's not banned from MP, it's removed from public browsers. Still being available, you can still play multiplayer in OB, but you need to use the ED website or have the IP to find the server. It reduces the public MP and large servers should choose to use Live instead.

 

It doesn't need to be a game breaking bug, your two examples are a vast understatement of what OB contends with. I genuinely hope that you can acknowledge the less obvious and more complex bugs. In fact, the non gamebreaking defects in OB, that don't immediately get pushed to Live, sit around in OB for weeks and sometimes multiple months. Some of the apparently not gamebreaking bugs I've reported on that have been in multiplayer for weeks:

 

• Datalink Frame loss (in VR - frames halved) In MP, frames almost always worse, so we get it worse.
  
• Late activated units on all 3rd party modules appearing on radar as false contacts (old one but jeez how they missed that it was crippling)
  
• IFF coalition bugs and DataLink (the one thing you dont want in public MP and recurrs often)
  

I could go on there are plenty to pick out, there's too many bugs sitting around in OB that don't stop the "visual element" of the game that ED prioritise over core functionality of Multiplayer games, and that has been the last decade of direction at ED, fix the visuals, leave the under hood and MP. They wouldnt be excusing this oversight publically if it were not so.

 

So, who gains from fixing multiplayer issues? No one, we live in the OB branch and take what we are given and endure a low quality game which gets fixed and pushed to Live where the more single player folks recieve it and wonder why there are no servers on OB to play on.

 

The benefit of testing in production is utterly pointles. Why test and fix it if we have to play it anyway and then say that "this is fine, it's OB, we don't mind reporting bugs" (and playing with them). What maniac actually says that on a public forum?! :)

 

And the personal loss? You are a fortnight behind these MP issues and have to wait 2 weeks for a feature/module which you can access and play in OB anyway, earlier if you like? Is that a lot to really lose? I don't think so, but until the main servers actually run on the Live branch you have no choice and will never see it any other way and that is not your fault!

 

I'm currently still unable to play online, I have to look ahead because I have a server to test on, I have a the Moose scripting community to support who are all doing the same thing, trying to make OB work and failing and finding bugs, my server is literally deceased of activity because the community is now split. On Tuesday 11th of Feb (prior to this patch) our Discord shows three Discord pages of takeoffs and deaths: 149 basic player events. (you can join RedSands Discord to see, it's all logged publically). Yesterday only two people even logged on, 16 player events. That's a decimated player base. Is two weeks wait because ED don't test multiplayer really worth the absolute mess that is on OB? You know they don't test OB and expect us to, right, else they would have seen the flying static units 20 feet above the ground in a few seconds.

 

Everyone in this community has a responsibility to uphold a standard of quality of gaming and We have a duty to expect more and stand up and hold people accountable for our own contribution to this mess. As long as folks are happy to expect less, and as long as ED doesn't do any useful testing on Multiplayer (if they did, they wouldnt have released this) and as long as servers update and attempt to run OB immediately, we will have this continuous cycle as unpaid QA instead of actually getting to enjoy the sim as it should be. It just takes two weeks of patience to improve it, that's not a hard ask. Put the MP servers on Live branch and test for the MP community yourselves so that at least those servers can warn ED! How is that not a better solution? :) OB should be for testing not playing! (excuse the tone, im not meaning to be confrontational, just passionate)

Or a tick mark in the server browser that is unchecked by default.. and when you click on it you get a warning... yea something like that would be a good reminder to folks.

So, who gains from fixing multiplayer issues?

Actually we ALL do EVERY player does!!!

The benefit of testing in production is utterly pointles. Why test and fix it if we have to play it anyway and then say that "this is fine, it's OB, we don't mind reporting bugs" (and playing with them). What maniac actually says that on a public forum?! :)

It's actually been like this for years and except for 2 occasions has been running relatively smoothly. The sim still has some work ahead, but I and as many other would love for the chance to continue testing out the OB and see just how far we have come!

And the personal loss? You are a fortnight behind these MP issues and have to wait 2 weeks for a feature/module which you can access and play in OB anyway, earlier if you like? Is that a lot to really lose? I don't think so, but until the main servers actually run on the Live branch you have no choice and will never see it any other way and that is not your fault!

I have no idea what you are trying to convey here

:)Put the MP servers on Live branch and test for the MP community yourselves so that at least those servers can warn ED! How is that not a better solution? OB should be for testing not playing!

You just contradicted yourself here, which is at the root of my opposition! ED does not have thousands or hundred or even dozens of people that can test MP WITHOUT the tools used by the best servers in MP.

You fail to understand that any of the top MP servers have put in THOUSANDS of man hours and we NEED to test MP with the latest releases. When there is a game breaking bug (only happened twice in several years), then you juts need to rollback and wait for the hotfix.

Again missed the point (three times, its in the title too) that it's not banned from MP, it's removed from public browsers.

It wasn't clear from your original proposal. I read it as "restrict MP to Stable only, and completely remove it from Open Beta".

you can still play multiplayer in OB, but you need to use the ED website or have the IP to find the server. It reduces the public MP and large servers should choose to use Live instead.

Let's imagine ED implemented this.

In a day a topic will pop up here on forums, listing all popular OB servers.

In a week there will be a dedicated site for that purpose.

In a month someone will create a mod that pulls the list from that site and allows you to connect to any server in a couple clicks.

In a few months this workaround will become as widespread as SRS.

And you know why? Because, from the herd's perspective, it will still be their good, old Open Beta with all the cool toys - and not some new and dangerous wildland you just created.

I honestly don't know why are we still discussing this after the recent newsletter (see the "Quality Assurance Update" part).

If they indeed pull this off, this might solve most of our problems. Or mine, at least. Like I said before, I don't mind betas with occasional bugs (because there's also fixes - let's not forget that). I just don't like them badly broken.