Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => Development Discussions => Topic started by: Texashawk on December 29, 2018, 01:00:42 PM
-
... then what is the harm in releasing what you have as sort of an evolving alpha? I’m sure you would get a lot of feedback (probably more than you want!) and in the meantime people could enjoy at least a part of the new version, with the understanding that they probably shouldn’t undertake a long campaign! As a fellow developer, I too struggle with ‘don’t release until it’s perfect and I’ve added the ten million things I want’ urge but I have come to learn that people prefer many small updates over one ginormous update every six months or a year. Thoughts?
-
The first release should probably be in a mostly (90%+) workable state. I have no idea where Steve is at on that state.
-
Eh, I think if he gets stalled he should let us fiddle with what he's got. Otherwise it most likely doesn't really matter that much whether he releases now or releases later, in terms of how the final product looks.
-
... then what is the harm in releasing what you have as sort of an evolving alpha? I’m sure you would get a lot of feedback (probably more than you want!)
I suspect that would be the harm. Dozens -- if not hundreds -- of posts saying "Asteroid mining is broken!" "Civilian movement of trade goods is broken!" "EM missile sensors aren't detecting shields!" etc., for all the sections of code Steve hasn't finished yet.
I trust that Steve wil release a playable version of C# Aurora just as soon as there *is* a playable version of C# Aurora.
-
I for one don't want to play a million only partially functional games that can't go anywhere and crash at the drop of a hat. Now if he chose to release the source code to play with that would be another thing, but that ain't happening either.
-
... then what is the harm in releasing what you have as sort of an evolving alpha? I’m sure you would get a lot of feedback (probably more than you want!) and in the meantime people could enjoy at least a part of the new version, with the understanding that they probably shouldn’t undertake a long campaign! As a fellow developer, I too struggle with ‘don’t release until it’s perfect and I’ve added the ten million things I want’ urge but I have come to learn that people prefer many small updates over one ginormous update every six months or a year. Thoughts?
It isn't in Alpha stage yet as there are key elements missing, so releasing now would just generate a lot of bugs that I don't have time to tackle yet. I want the game functioning to the extent that I run a basic campaign before I release anything.
-
... then what is the harm in releasing what you have as sort of an evolving alpha? I’m sure you would get a lot of feedback (probably more than you want!) and in the meantime people could enjoy at least a part of the new version, with the understanding that they probably shouldn’t undertake a long campaign! As a fellow developer, I too struggle with ‘don’t release until it’s perfect and I’ve added the ten million things I want’ urge but I have come to learn that people prefer many small updates over one ginormous update every six months or a year. Thoughts?
It isn't in Alpha stage yet as there are key elements missing, so releasing now would just generate a lot of bugs that I don't have time to tackle yet. I want the game functioning to the extent that I run a basic campaign before I release anything.
Ah. OK, that makes sense. I thought for some reason the game was essentially playable at the core and you were just adding some of the new rules/systems to it. Thanks for the reply!
-
You can kind of assume that as the changes thread is updated it shows what items have been worked on, progress is methodical, and really needs to be. Considering its a total rewrite pretty much everything has to get at least one pass before things will work.
The detours into discussing new mechanics and tweaks is probably for the best, coding stuff right now and then changing it later isn't quite as efficient as just making changes straight up.