Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: January 03, 2019, 12:10:45 AM »

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.
Posted by: Texashawk
« on: December 30, 2018, 10:28:48 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on December 30, 2018, 06:41:05 AM
Quote from: 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?

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!
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: December 30, 2018, 06:41:05 AM »

Quote from: 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?

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.
Posted by: Panopticon
« on: December 29, 2018, 07:30:36 PM »

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.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: December 29, 2018, 06:20:10 PM »

Quote from: 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!)

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.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: December 29, 2018, 03:36:37 PM »

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.
Posted by: Erik L
« on: December 29, 2018, 02:15:54 PM »

The first release should probably be in a mostly (90%+) workable state. I have no idea where Steve is at on that state.
Posted 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?