Even before the thanks are fading away i'm giving air to this topic. Just wondering what the concensus on patching the released 2.0 would be? I was thinking that maybe a small patch fixing a few things (and possibly adding a few new things like tooltips) should be released in like 6 weeks (or end of jan) or so before the devs start the 3.0 RC's.
I don't know, we bug-tested the crap out of Empires, only real problem seems to be servers overexerting themselves. But if there are enough bugs still left to fix that it makes it worth another patch then I don't think anyone will complain.
I've read a few people actually didn't like having to download a new version ever couple of weeks. Every month would seem best, even if it were to only add maps from the community or whatever.
I keep reading on the forums that having to download a new path was a turn off; I say try to release as few patches as possible... We tested 2.0 and balanced the hell out of it... and I like the way it is right now, though there are certain things I dont like, it is just that personal nipicks... A patch if it is needed not atleast for another 3 or so months... By that time things would have settled down enough and evened out; people that didnt like the game left; those that are hooked are still there; I mean look at us... even after a year of internal testing with 20 people on a single server on average, we stuck through it... It would be best if the next patch was as big as this one; if not bigger (Or it is just me ranting my ass off... but I hope you got my point none the less), adding radical things; thats what people are after; even though bugfixes are great, a normal CS bumbwhore will no be impressed too much by them unless it prevents him from getting that headshot...
Shinzon, 2.0 not a patch, its a release. patches are needed, and inevitable, in any game. even retail games with massive budgets and hundreds of testers need to release patches. just fix anything that NEEDS fixing, and leave the rest. if its tiny and trivial its not worth a patch.
well, don't forget, retail games have big corporate overlord executives breathing down their necks to release the game by a certain date, causing shittiness to be enjoyed by all. But more to the point, if you remember Krenzo's most recent interview, he gives his opinion about Valve's release early and release often policy: So seeing as 2.0 is going well, I'd assume that 3.0 is the same deal-- one big release, with patches only to fix major bugs and crashes, no balancing or perhaps even small stuff. But I'm no coder, so idk. Just to bump my own threads and inflate my fragile ego, I made a list of all the minor balancing issues I feel could be dealt with first-- MAYBE some of these are patch-worthy, maybe with a little testing or something. Some are not patch worthy, and some (escort remapping) require too much effort to be viable for a patch, imo.
KILLX, 2.0 COULD be considered by many to be a patch seeing as how by default installer drops itself right over "empires" which for some was still 1.07 ...2.0 goes YOU GO SQUISH NOW 1.071b! patching is dangerous, you really run the risk of players being dropped because they don't have the patch when they wanna play and don't care enough to find the patch that moment and forget about it when some other game loads. But I can see if servers advertise it enough though like with the omg get the hotfix like the main server would do then patching with new maps and new features cuz everyone loves new features, start adding rediculous vehicles. :D bring back the minigun kinda stuff. Besides arn't most of the people reading and writing in this part of the forum already going to have plenty of patches to d/l in the future for 3.0?
We should do the same private testing as we did last time, though keep it smaller and more private so that it doesn't kill off 2.0 the was testing for beta 2 killed off 1.07
I think Krenzo should do as he did with 1.o7/1.08. Have a small group of permanent testers with lots of "patches" leave 2.0 as a release. Maybe release new 2.50rc or something...later. That should balance "testing" with "playing".? Showing consistant releasing also.... That way the general public gets to play with the game without feeling like a "tester" also. I think that's what lost a lot of previous players. People didn't like being exposed to a buggy section of play. (Between fixes.)
Ok. As the results don't show a clear majority for patching 2.0 (with 50% yes and 50% at no and either way options) I guess we can call 2.0 done and the next ride will be testing 3.0 Thanks for all the feedback and votes. I just wanted to get us all on the same page
How remiss of me! That is not what I meant at all Killx... I wanted to close the thread, but I am so inept that I cannot even word a closing statement well. This survey was purely to see what the community thought about the state of the release, it was to see whether or not there were widespread issues about Empires 2.0 because I had heard things from other testers and players alike. If a bit majority of us were finding issues then we may have needed to apply for a change, whether or not the devs listen is always up to them. The closing statement was meant to convey my relief that 2.0 is not causing problems and that this project is finished. What I probably should have said was: "Ok! As the results don't show a clear majority for patching 2.0, I guess this means we did a good job testing (thanks to the devs for letting us be a part of this!) and the next thing we can look forward to is 3.0! I've had a wonderful time testing with you all, thanks for all the feedback and votes " My apologies for the miscommunication, it may look like I have an ego the size of Jupiter, but I assure you, I have almost none.
Only issue i can see is that the Linux-based server performs pretty much the same as a "1.07" server, which is a little disappointing but hey - but the real ass is that about 25% of the time the server gets stuck at the: ... point, may minutes later you get: .. but the server never gets to: Anyhow, it'd be great if Rick/Mootant could do some work on this and i'd be glad to assist in the testing.
It would be beneficial for testing if a small group of new testers were taken on for patch testing. then we could have the main group testing new releases, and a smaller group testing patches should the need for a patch arise.
