Countdown to v1

[Idobek]

I favour option one, largely from a PR and brand image standpoint. As seanas testifies, some people do not read, or simply ignore, warnings. Unfortunately it is these same people who refuse to come here to report their problems. The net result being that the SP, Planet BG and Bioware boards are full of people complaining that the new fix pack is buggy, all because they installed the beta component once. ("TDD broke my game so all mods are crap!") Option one won't eliminate that but, by ensuring that it is the stable version that gets most of the publicity, it will lessen its effect.

 

The people I describe above are a tiny minority, but they do also tend to be a vocal one.

[the bigg]

Option 1 isn't enough: the usual minority would begin to argue that it's easy for someone to download the latest version of the fixpack 'because it's newer' or somesuch.

 

My vote is for option 2, but

- the beta components are commented out

- Even if you uncomment them, you'll be asked for a passphrase from the readme (via (PATCH|ACTION)_READLN), to encourage the user to RTFM.

[berelinde]

I agree with The Bigg in theory, but I am afraid that many people are not comfortable looking under the hood and making the changes you describe.

 

Also, all this would have to be done prior to installation. Many would get confused.

[the bigg]

I agree with The Bigg in theory, but I am afraid that many people are not comfortable looking under the hood and making the changes you describe.

 

Also, all this would have to be done prior to installation. Many would get confused.

Which would mean that, to get the beta stuff, you have to

- read the readmes before installing

- actually understand something and not simply double click everything on a whim

both qualities I feel that are needed for somebody to be using a beta version

[Gorilym]

Which would mean that, to get the beta stuff, you have to

- read the readmes before installing

- actually understand something and not simply double click everything on a whim

both qualities I feel that are needed for somebody to be using a beta version

 

Excellent point. Anyone who is genuinely confused by instructions like that will probably be better off sticking with the non-beta components.

[Wounded_Lion]

Sometimes, I miss the obvious (it happens when you're stuck in your own fantasy world), but...

 

Isn't there an Option 3?

 

You could release a (full) stable version. Regarding new fixes, updates can released in the form of a "beta patch" (eliminating the need to maintain a seperate version). If the updates prove stable, they can "cut-and-pasted" into the stable version and become a part of the next stable release.

 

This sounds great to me... but maybe I'm retarded and just don't know it. Shoot it down if it has a glaring flaw.

 

- D

[CamDawg]

@the bigg

We actually do want a non-trivial number of players to test. Despite the seven alphas, we still had a number of issues with Beta 1 as, even with the number of playtesters we had. I don't see how a component named 'Beta Fixes' or somesuch is going to be vague.

 

@WL

Other than being more work, how is that different than option 2?

[Wounded_Lion]

@WL

Other than being more work, how is that different than option 2?

 

Because the 'beta patch' is completely seperate. It is similiar in concept to Option 2 except that it will cause less confusion among certain users.

 

- D

[CamDawg]

Because the 'beta patch' is completely seperate. It is similiar in concept to Option 2 except that it will cause less confusion among certain users.

You're basically describing option 1, except the beta would lose the stable core fixes. All it really does is make the upgrade path twice as difficult for beta testers.

[Gorilym]

All it really does is make the upgrade path twice as difficult for beta testers.

 

Or at least twice as tedious.

[Wounded_Lion]

You're basically describing option 1, except the beta would lose the stable core fixes. All it really does is make the upgrade path twice as difficult for beta testers.

 

I don't see how. Everyone installs the stable version. Beta testers install the stable version and the beta patch. If the beta patch screws up the game, it can be uninstalled without removing the stable version.

 

But again... sometimes I be dense.

 

- D

[CamDawg]

Beta testers would now have two packages to update when a new stable version come out--both of the current two options only involve one.

[Wounded_Lion]

Beta testers would now have two packages to update when a new stable version come out--both of the current two options only involve one.

 

True... but beta testers are generally more experienced players than those who download only the stable patch. So if there's to be some extra work or thought involved, it should be on the part of the beta testers rather than normal gamers.

 

- D

 

EDIT: Grammar, Spelling

[Wounded_Lion]

The advantage of Option 3 over Option 1 is that the development team doesn't have to maintain two full versions of the mod.

 

The advantage of Option 3 over Option 2 is that normal gamers will not be presented with a decision about beta components (a good thing since some seem unable to handle such a choice... lol).

 

The disadvantage of Option 3 seems to be a slight inconvience for beta testers.

 

Ultimately, I probably vote for whatever Cam thinks is best. He's proven to be a modding god many times over, after all.

 

- D

 

EDIT: Grammar, Spelling

[Idobek]

Cam, are you sure about the maintenance advantages of option 2? It seems to me that with option 1 you can intergrate fixes during the beta phase and iron out any subsequent bugs. With option 2 you'll end up having to intergrate two stable sets of fixes, at which point bugs might be introduced (copy/paste type errors are often the hardest to track down, or even notice). Unless you simply comment out the "BEGIN ~Beta Fixes~" line but, somehow, I don't think you will.

 

Edit: And, yes, I realise that if I had actually helped maintain the tweak packs for the last couple of years I wouldn't need to ask.