UFO:Alien Invasion

General => Discussion => Topic started by: juice on March 11, 2009, 03:31:51 am

Title: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: juice on March 11, 2009, 03:31:51 am
Alright this is my first post, even though i read the forums from time to time.

I have been checking the update news on http://ufoai.sourceforge.net/ at the end of every month since basically August/Sept. With the desperate hope that the little link that says download latest stable release would have a new file :).  I can understand that programing and coding takes tonnnnnns of work.  Just wonder why it seems to have slown down?

    *  2.2.1 - 2008-04-29
    * 2.2 - 2008-01-15
    * 2.1.1 - 2007-05-01
    * 2.1 - 2007-04-02

I would think the biggest stuff is over and now its more tweaking.  Given I know this is still in beta status, i would have just expected releases to become more frequent and not less.
Its almost been 1 year since latest release.

Basically i think BT Axis summed up my feelings in the first sentence.

It's just that 2.3 is long overdue. We've been trying to get into a release trajectory, but a few big issues must be resolved first, and there's no telling when that will happen.

And calling it 2.2.9 is wrong. That suggests it's compatible with the 2.2.x series in terms of multiplayer and savegames, and it isn't.

Thanks,
By the way the game looks way awesome.  Better than any of the other "sequels" of X-com i think.
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: BTAxis on March 11, 2009, 10:01:35 am
It's really a combination of a lack of manpower and a mentality that isn't focused on releasing often. I (and many people with me) think 2.3 should have been out a long time ago, but as it stands it's probably going to be a long time before it's ready.
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: Captain Bipto on March 11, 2009, 10:37:50 am
As a 2.3 player (i assume...) be more vocal in the forum and share any ideas you have. BTW I flame you &!^)*#, why don't you *&^(! your  ^%*(!%$

p.s. I would but I cannot compile 2.3 to save my &^()!)!)! &()! that include tortoise and other bloody programs...&!()!

p.p.s j/k of course!
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: Canuck77 on March 11, 2009, 04:29:05 pm
My first post too - long time lurker and admirer. :) I think the team has done some really spectacular work, here, and I'm eternally grateful for all the efforts.

I'm going to download the next 2.3 Windows build once it's out (Destructavator is sorting out some glitches with compiling), very excited for it.

May I make a suggestion? Perhaps a sticky in this forum that lists the things in dev which are the gap between a "finishable" game and where it is now. It seems that most people here understand that the development builds (not releases) are going to be buggy, and there's no promises of anything working at any point in time.. but it's difficult to determine from the Wiki "Todos" and things exactly what items are currently missing from 2.3.

It'll save the crap from that other thread, too, with tones like "should I just keep going around shooting down aliens" - I'm sure it wasn't meant that harshly, but I'd be pretty annoyed with it if I was a dev.

I guess, to say it another way - I played the current 2.2 release up until I got the scrolling messages, and was kind of bummed out because it wasn't "expected" on my end - I don't mean that to be negative, as I'm sure I missed that documented somewhere, I'm just saying. If we had a sticky on the forum that says "here are the things which aren't yet included which will prevent the game being played to completion", then at least clueful people (ie. most who are downloading the dev builds) will know.

Just a suggestion, though. :)

Thanks again for the really great work, everyone. It has been impressive to say the least!
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: BTAxis on March 11, 2009, 04:41:42 pm
At least 2.3 will have an ending.

IF I get that map done.
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: Canuck77 on March 11, 2009, 05:47:53 pm
Oh - cool! So it's just one map away from an ending? I had no idea - I thought it was a lot further away than that!

Is there a link in the wiki or something where we can look at progress on that item?

Thanks for the quick reply! :)
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: BTAxis on March 11, 2009, 05:49:12 pm
Well, a map assembly, really. Some of it is done, most of it isn't.
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: geever on March 11, 2009, 07:35:37 pm
No not only one map. We still cannot go up on stairs AFAIK. (However I heard good news about that issue yesterday.) And much stabilizing so the game not crash (so often)...

-geever
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: BTAxis on March 11, 2009, 07:40:21 pm
We were talking about what was necessary for the game to get an ending, not what was necessary to get it to be stable and playable.
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: Canuck77 on March 11, 2009, 07:48:33 pm
Yep - exactly. If there weren't any bugs/glitches, the topic would be about why the 2.3 release candidate isn't out. ;)
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: geever on March 11, 2009, 07:52:00 pm
Well, if I could get it wrong other ones can get it too. So it was better to clarify. ;)

-geever
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: Canuck77 on March 11, 2009, 07:58:50 pm
Yep, no question there.

I suppose my original note stands, albeit in modified form - if it's of any value to anyone, I'd be happy to help with a "dumbed down" list of what is required to get to the release candidate - since there is only one 'item' required to make the game finishable, maybe a broader list makes sense.

It's a duplication, I'm sure, of information which is already in the dev wiki - but the dev wiki isn't really 100% clear to laypeople where the boundaries are in terms of what is "to be" in 2.3, and what needs doing. Is it a simple case of looking at everything that says "WIP"?

Maybe it's unwelcome scrutiny, and invites people hassling the devs because "nothing has happened on the Megatron Gun item for 3 weeks - wtf?!", so maybe a bad idea... just thought I'd offer. :)
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: BTAxis on March 11, 2009, 08:40:55 pm
Actually, I think it's best you didn't. We already have our list, and other people aren't going to benefit from one.
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: odie on March 12, 2009, 06:42:41 am
No not only one map. We still cannot go up on stairs AFAIK. (However I heard good news about that issue yesterday.) And much stabilizing so the game not crash (so often)...

-geever

Wow geever, is it true that the pathfinders got breakthru?!!
I have been personally looking forward to this very much as i know its a difficult task. Lol.

Cant wait.....
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: geever on March 12, 2009, 08:00:13 am
Wow geever, is it true that the pathfinders got breakthru?!!
I have been personally looking forward to this very much as i know its a difficult task. Lol.

Cant wait.....

You can read the story here (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2489125&group_id=157793&atid=805244) And even download a - not yet ready - patch.

-geever
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: odie on March 21, 2009, 05:36:14 am
You can read the story here (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=2489125&group_id=157793&atid=805244) And even download a - not yet ready - patch.

-geever
Haha, how nice. how nice!

I am glad its committed. I have compiled this and uploaded into filefront le. :) See the sticky. :P

Now i will start a new game (again.... for the hmmmm i thnk 14th or was it 15th time in 3 months lol.... i tracked). Hehe.
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: geever on March 21, 2009, 08:02:37 pm
That patch is already committed to trunk. Stairs workin', but experienced some regressions again :S.

-geever
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: odie on March 22, 2009, 01:48:06 pm
That patch is already committed to trunk. Stairs workin', but experienced some regressions again :S.

-geever

Ooooo, i got my first mission last nite. And i noticed that the stairs have some 'wierd' behaviours...... wat kind of regressions are we supposed to be looking out for??

Looks like i need to spend more time on this. Lol. :P
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: geever on March 22, 2009, 02:26:29 pm
RMA. Some tiles are not accessible again even if they're flat. I suppose it's an old bug been reintroduced. :(

-geever
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: odie on March 23, 2009, 03:22:27 am
RMA. Some tiles are not accessible again even if they're flat. I suppose it's an old bug been reintroduced. :(

-geever
Ah, that sounds unfamiliar..... I am not aniwhere into the map engines..... But i did noticed last nite at one of the mission, that THAT tile for going up seemed wierd.

I leave u folks to meddle that whilst i still check the other areas i am familiar with. :P I will keep my eyes peeled and glued to that stairs development! Gosh, i am sure this has been ABX*@#&*(## for the developers. *chill*.

*offers a cool cup of nice fruppucino to each team member*
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: homunculus on March 23, 2009, 06:35:43 am
[...]be more vocal in the forum and share any ideas you have.[...]
yeah, why are we naming skills 'accuracy' and 'explosives' (as if the grenades would explode better) instead of basing them on the types of actions you make, which would give us 'snipe', 'burst', 'recoil', and 'throw' skills.
any means any, right?

i wonder how many contributors are at least somewhat dedicated and how many are like me.
you know, maybe play ufo:ai when bored of some other game, then maybe read this forum if bored of playing, and when bored of the forum, then maybe make some minor contribution.

maybe a poll would be nice.
might give a pretty good idea about how far the next release might be.
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: odie on March 23, 2009, 09:12:45 am
yeah, why are we naming skills 'accuracy' and 'explosives' (as if the grenades would explode better) instead of basing them on the types of actions you make, which would give us 'snipe', 'burst', 'recoil', and 'throw' skills.
any means any, right?
Woooooo..... I guess the terminologies are military in nature and i thnk most are good.
Generally, there are 2 types of stats i believe - Attributes and Skills.

If u r a RPG player (Role Playing Gamer), you will pick this up immediately.
Attributes are like - Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma.
(Which i thnk maybe we should model after....)

As for skills - these refer to the things they are good (or bad) at....
Eg, Magic, Swordsmanship, Blunt weapons, etc.....

For UFOAI context, these are under the skills category including - Sniper, Assault, Explosives, etc.
These are simply proficiencies of weaponary which can be and definately will be affected by the soldier's intelligence (Think complex weaponary), dexterity (think nimbleness in assaulting in FIBUA), and even strength (think of it this way, a poor 45kg skinny dude trying to manage a complex Rocket launcher which easily weigh 20kg.).

Maybe this could clear up something as to why the stats are as such?
FYI, the stats for ATTRIBUTES do not increase as quickly as would skills.....
Since ATTRIBUTES are quite there already and only increases over a VERY long time.
Whilst SKILLS, well, dont we all get real proficient in firing an M16 after just 1 week of constant practise.

i wonder how many contributors are at least somewhat dedicated and how many are like me.
you know, maybe play ufo:ai when bored of some other game, then maybe read this forum if bored of playing, and when bored of the forum, then maybe make some minor contribution.

maybe a poll would be nice.
might give a pretty good idea about how far the next release might be.

Haha, that i dunnoe. :P I cant even say i am uber dedicated (as i do get sidetracked by real work in life and occasional interesting programs like open sourced stuff). :P But u do see many folks like myself ard. Haha. So I guess everyone here are generally pilgrims of UFOAI? :P
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: BTAxis on March 23, 2009, 09:26:18 am
There has been any amount of discussion on the naming of the skills, and everyone wanted something else. That leads to conclude that any naming convention is as good as any other, and that means the current one is preferred (because it doesn't involve renaming everywhere).
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: homunculus on March 24, 2009, 10:24:02 am
uhh, lol, btw if you (@odie) notice the 'any' that was highlighted red in the quote in my previous post, the skills suggestion (although i like it myself) was given as an example of a retarded suggestion.
continuing the same style as about the stats and rpg-s i should also helpfully mention that in order to see it red, you need a color monitor and some appropriate settings and confs ; )

why i posted it at all was because the idea of posting any suggestions is not so bad in itself imho.
a list of what kind of suggestions are actually wanted might be suboptimal, though.
i read somewhere in the forum about making a list of suggestions that are _not_ wanted, i think this sounds like a nice idea.

as for "lazy" contributors, i hope the numbers compensate for that (actually, assuming the contributors have a rl, they rather need to be lazy to contribute).
but it would be reassuring to know that there are at least 10 people that are somewhat reliable.
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: Captain Bipto on March 24, 2009, 08:09:31 pm
wait, is someone making fun of me?

Anyhow, i'll freely admit that I only play this game when I want to.
Title: Re: 2.3 Don't Flame
Post by: odie on March 31, 2009, 11:13:41 am
uhh, lol, btw if you (@odie) notice the 'any' that was highlighted red in the quote in my previous post, the skills suggestion (although i like it myself) was given as an example of a retarded suggestion.
continuing the same style as about the stats and rpg-s i should also helpfully mention that in order to see it red, you need a color monitor and some appropriate settings and confs ; )
Haha, as a matter of fact, i dun. lol. I see only the words and main points. :P

why i posted it at all was because the idea of posting any suggestions is not so bad in itself imho.
a list of what kind of suggestions are actually wanted might be suboptimal, though.
i read somewhere in the forum about making a list of suggestions that are _not_ wanted, i think this sounds like a nice idea.

as for "lazy" contributors, i hope the numbers compensate for that (actually, assuming the contributors have a rl, they rather need to be lazy to contribute).
but it would be reassuring to know that there are at least 10 people that are somewhat reliable.
Dun worry abt this though. Haha. I thnk all ideas are good to suggest..... that is unless they are plain dumb. Urs not one. :P

As for contributors who dun really search the forums for ideas already contributed, (i.e. repeated debates), well.... cant help those, but point em to read previous discussions. Lol.