UFO:Alien Invasion
General => Discussion => Topic started by: Locke on February 07, 2009, 03:17:14 am
-
This post does not use the taboo "b" word--not even in quotes.
My scientists have nothing to research, and I have nearly all landmass covered with radar. When a UFO pops up on radar, I almost always shoot it down before it reaches its destination.
So my question is: have I seen all that is implemented in 2.3-development right now? Or should I keep playing (shooting down UFOs and mopping up the crash sites)?
And a special appeal to moderators: Be moderate, not nazis. That's the "moderate" part of the word "moderator." ::)
-
Dude, you're just asking for it now ::)
-
you have to shoot down ufos, collect antimatter, disassemble ufos and so on to get new techs. i'm not sure whether there is an ending in 2.3 already.
-
Locke, didn't your mother ever tell you it's a bad idea to piss off a forum mod? It tends not to be helpful.
-
Moderator: I NEVER said a stable version of 2.3 was released. If you thought that was worth emphasizing, you should have posted "reminder: 2.3 is not stable." You should not have locked me out of my own post. That's just being a bully.
-
You have repeatedly posted topics that suggest version 2.3 is available (http://ufoai.ninex.info/forum/index.php?topic=3277.0). It's not. Then when I closed your topic, you opened a new one with the same topic - twice, despite my instruction not to do so. You were also acting indignant and arrogant, which doesn't help, and on top of that you presume to tell me how to do my job.
I'm banning you for 5 days. Try to be more civil next time.
-
Moderator: The post you linked to CLEARLY says 2.3 is BETA.
-
2.2.1 is a ((stable)) beta. There is no real 2.3 ATM. :P
-geever
-
The point is that he's spreading the wrong impression that there is a newer playable build out there than the one on the homepage. This causes confusion and we, the developers, have to deal with it. Development builds are not official. They are for testing and for checking out progress to the interested. Talk about its playability, no matter how you call it, does not apply.
-
This post does not use the taboo "b" word--not even in quotes.
My scientists have nothing to research, and I have nearly all landmass covered with radar. When a UFO pops up on radar, I almost always shoot it down before it reaches its destination.
So my question is: have I seen all that is implemented in 2.3-development right now? Or should I keep playing (shooting down UFOs and mopping up the crash sites)?
And a special appeal to moderators: Be moderate, not nazis. That's the "moderate" part of the word "moderator." ::)
Oh man, couple of days not in forum and are we looking at a plain stubborn noob???
Locke, read this word:
DEVELOPMENT
Whenever you see THAT WORD in ANY GAMES / PROGRAMS or SYSTEMS, it means:
IT IS NOT YET COMPLETE!
Is it loud enough??
Only when u see the word : STABLE, OR PERHAPS EVEN BETA, will it be called a playable version!
Duh.
And FYI, MODS (Moderators) have absolute power in a thread, so, start pissing one off and u can so kiss your presence here good-bye, and perhaps good-riddance.
Trust me, even if u sign up another nick, ur IP can still be banned for good..... so dun play play (singapore slang). Yeah, i have my own forums in my school, and yes, i can so understand that u r being that close to being IP-banned.....
-
[...] You should not have locked me out of my own post. That's just being a bully.
well, i guess it is your personal opinion, not the general truth.
btw, if mods were perfect they would most probably not be mods but would be doing something else.
what would you be doing if you were perfect? posting in this forum? even reading it?
-
well, i guess it is your personal opinion, not the general truth.
btw, if mods were perfect they would most probably not be mods but would be doing something else.
what would you be doing if you were perfect? posting in this forum? even reading it?
lol
Locke, sorry to say, but you have been dissed by the community at large.
However, it saddens me to see that such a large issue has been made of Locke not saying a word or two. How much of a hassle can it be to say "Hey, I dont know what you've heard, but UFO:AI v2.3 is not public, and is still being worked on. v2.2.1 is stable and available for play." ?
O SNAP! I just did mod work! Can I get some recognition?! lol j/k
-
lol
Locke, sorry to say, but you have been dissed by the community at large.
[...]
really, i didn't even think of offending anyone when i wrote what you quoted ::)
but i guess there is a slim chance i might not be perfect, too, at least on some rare occasions when i havn't had too much sleep and/or have a hangover.
anyway, how can the dev version be playable?
1) reaction fire shots should take as much time as normal shooting, yet your sniper can reaction fire every 2 time units the alien uses for moving.
2) afaik you need a dropship to equip soldiers in the base, or at least any airplane with at least one team slot to put any equipment on any soldier in case you need to defend your base.
there was some more but i am extremely sorry i have forgot those.
so i'll skip the rest.
dev version playable? really?
;)
-
Well, playable in the sense that, yes, you can run the game and do SOMETHING. No, in that its not quality game play, though I rather enjoy it...when its not being buggy.... ;D
-
It might be suggested that if players are really supposed to stay away from the development version, that
(1) the wiki pages on Ninex should retain correct documentation for 2.2.1 -- examples of pages that are incorrect for 2.2.1 include the small hangar page (capacity; 2.2.1 small hangers can store multiple craft), the training simulator (not in 2.2.1 at all), the (blank) coilgun page (not in game), some of the alien craft which don't appear at all. This sends a somewhat mixed message about what versions people might be using.
For what it's worth, some of the in-game behavior (like gas grenades affecting robots, which presumably aren't really organic creatures) is also contradicted by the in-game text and the briefings on the wiki; it might not have been a bad idea to mention this in the game to make it clear as to whether the restriction is intended and the behavior is simply unimplemented, or whether it was intended to be implemented but isn't actually correctly so, or whether the description is obsolete and the in-game behavior is correct. This would be good practice, anyway, rather than requiring that people actually visit the forum to find out that their strategies tailored to specific game elements (like 'this species is particularly resistant/vulnerable to particular damage types' -- unimplemented, I gather, based on chatter about armor values) are actually inappropriate because of missing features.
(2) that rather than argue about the semantics of 'playable' or 'released', it might have been more polite to suggest that major elements (such as the campaign system) are in flux and that therefore progress may be substantially more limited; not only that, but judging from the other threads, there are substantial issues with the pathfinding such as navigating stairs and ramps that limit the usability of the tactical core. And that the development process appears to follow the "openly break vast parts and fix it at some point" plan rather than a more traditional incremental-improvement model with small deltas and numerous stable, usable if incomplete milestones (as in commercial enterprises which prefer not to terrify their client base or sales teams); or the rather secretive process associated with a certain legendary roguelike game (with minimal public chatter or access to development work, until *poof* a new version is announced).
-
i hope i was clearly being a bit sarcastic about the points why the game is not playable, as i expect those features might not change in any near future.
at least i don't really expect them to be changed in 2.3 release, and i don't like non-oo programming myself, even if the devs liked what i think.
as for me, a suitable contribution might be just to try to translate the e-mails by dr. connor, as i think i have some, however remote, relations to chemistry and biology.
and translating those e-mails won't change a thing in those matters, except for my own satisfaction and a faint hope the next version might be released some day.
i hope i made it clear now, if it wasn't clear enough already.
i wasn't seriously talking about playability of the dev version.
btw maybe a forum section where random people can post their uncensored opinions and brainstorming ideas would not be a 'bad thing'?
i mean, something that the mods would not read so seriously.
atm i can't help feeling like even the posts in discussion are being judged as if they were considered to be some kind of dramatic contributions to development.
maybe some random less censored chatting could generate some useful ideas in the end?
bad idea?
-
2.2.1 is a ((stable)) beta. There is no real 2.3 ATM.
Then perhaps we should call it 2.2.9 or something like that?
Point is, the time gap between 2.2.1 and 2.3 is huge. The feature gap between 2.2.1 and 2.3 is huge. There has been a lot of work on 2.3, and playable but buggy releases are being released for people to play with.
Heck, as pointed out, the Wiki documents 2.3 more than it documents 2.2.1. Some of the developers have been working on 2.3 for so long that they cannot answer questions about 2.2.1. Bug reports based on 2.2.1 are so out of date that they are of no use anymore.
As much as 2.2.1 is the current released beta, and 2.3 2.2.9 is alpha, everything I've read on these forums in the last few days indicated that 2.2.9 is currently at least as good as 2.2.1. So people want to play it, and have questions about it.
Now, are you really going to say that with the wiki describing 2.3, the developers talking about 2.3, bug reports only being useful if they are 2.3, and more features in 2.3, that we cannot talk about playing 2.3 on the forums?
-
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.
-
Fair enough. GCC had that ".9" numbering on a not-quite-ready-but-not-really-compatible release recently.
So this is 2.3.-1 then, right? :-)
-
And what if the final 2.3 will not be compatible with the current? Call it simply trunk and mention the revision. ;)
-geever