Comment: Where are all the updates?

Devlog
41

@luke-turbulenz, yeah, “real followers” might not be the right therm. I was already doubting the therm when I wrote it, but in the short time, i could not replace it in a better way (guess cause of lack in vocabularies, since english is not my mother tongue). I mean the people who track the developement day by day (like me, if I have the time). I think we refine more (in quality and quantity) of the input you give us, so I guess we can contribute better feedback with higher value.

People who check the game rarely might not even know all those discussed topics in the forum. We already had giant discussions and know the decisions. So the “long time followers” at least won’t repeat asking / suggesting things already debated.

I can’t say there is such a hard shift. I think in this topic both is requested. People like to see new features ingame to test them. But the last month there were a few big updates that really gave testing playground. Just the features to test were “shallowly” analyzed in a few hours and later extensively discussed in the forum. So of course they also demand more. Especially because so many neat features are mentioned the last weeks. You devs test them all the time and give us feedback and we players cannot lay our hands on. I guess that is frustrating for some. On the other hand many can imagine that you get even more feedback, if you release those features to public. And that feedback you can implement already within next udate steps.

Ummm, name is not fix. I have many ideas, but in the end it’s decision of the team who will run it. I could tell you in pm - too many eyes could steal the good ones :smiley: :smiley: just kidding, if you are interested I can write you pm, but there is nothing decided yet. Also it seems a bit like people who wanted to start it, lose there motivation to do it…

2 Likes
42

@Smoothy

Please create a new topic with your thoughts if you don’t have one on the forums already. :slight_smile:

43

there’s another consideration other than crash-stability of the game/servers, often as a feature is being developed the ‘data’ required and it’s layout change, and we rely on… basicly being able to wipe our local dev worlds constantly a lot of the time to deal with the data changes wtihout wasting a load of time on migrations. But if we pushed a release with an unstable (data-wise) version of a feature, we’d then have to waste time on migrations when it changes, or equally waste time (it does take time.) to wipe the worlds even more frequently.

4 Likes
44

thx @Squidgy

But you safe the time for testing / bug finding and you lost not so much commuity.
I think it should not be to hard to add at least every month a small update.

at th moment i have no motivation to spend again 300 hours for a big building or to make a fane page like we planned a long time ago.

last time i showed in the steam reviews boundless had a positiv statistic, now only balanced.

1 Like
45

So since there is now a dedicated topic about the state in which new features should be released I want to come back to the devlogs.
I see that you are about to release quite a bunch of new features, so I’m curious, and want to ask, when we’ll be able to read/see more about them (cause, you know, someone has to provide us with new leaks, now that @ben is gone :wink:)

Also a big shout out to you for being this active in the forum on a Sunday!

3 Likes
46

How does that differ from the stable & experimental servers we have now?

3 Likes
47

The feature is that everyone gets a kitten.

7 Likes
48

can it be that you do not want to understand us?
or did you only read the half of all post ?

i mean a experimental server with new feature for testing.
but I’m too tired to do a better explain sorry

49

I think he definitely understood :wink:

You suggested a server setup of 2-3 servers… 1 stable, and 2 experimental for testing… which is exactly what we have currently!

The standard version of the game on steam is the stable version which has 1 server… the beta ‘testing’ version has 2 servers.

2 Likes
50

no this is not what i mean and say

its 2:37 i need some sleep :wink:

51

Quite sure (as his edit confirms) he’s talking about “update frequency” on the servers (e.g. 1 representing every “stage” of development. The 1 server is “stable”, the 2 server is “semi-stable” [like the current testing server] and the 3 server is “instable” [e.g. live development like mentioned in the other topic]) and not about “concrete numbers of server” …

As you said there are ATM 3 Servers but TBH on all 3 of them are extremely outdated versions of the game (at least if i trust the devs spoilers). There should be much more to show and discover right now like:

  • Cuttletrunk and Fish
  • Ground Basher
  • New Worlds with new Bioms and Prefabs

to name only some (which are IMO somewhat “independent” from other features).

Question out of interest: Why are all people here so focused on numbers (this is bothering me for quite some time) ?

52

That is exactly what we have now with the testing branch of the game.

Are you asking, instead, for more frequent updates to that branch? Otherwise, it’s not clear to me how it’s different from what we’ve got already

1 Like
53

Test results from the test server are in! It’s unfinished and unstable. Here is a list of 99 known issues from hundreds of “test” players. It’s impossible to know what bugs are just unfinished and what is infact a bug. /eyeroll

2 Likes
54

Um, that’s a little hypocritical, as this whole topic, regarding frequency of updates and number of servers, is all about numbers!

It may have been what he meant to say, but wasn’t what he did say… hence the responses from both myself and @nevir and the following confusion! I wasn’t about to speculate on what he meant to say as we all know that speculation and assumptions aren’t necessarily a good practice on forums.

I love how everyone has suddenly become an experienced developer! That aside, I seem to remember that many of the creatures are linked in the approach being used to create them … and I don’t just mean one single creature. All creatures will have multiple variations, both in model, textures, biome related textures, special abilities, even AI and behaviours (disclaimer: ‘AI and behaviours’ is an assumption on my part here!). So no, they’re not wholly independent from other features… nor are they as simple to create and implement and you both believe and make out. Additionally, I’m not sure how much extra gameplay you’re expecting to get out of 1 creature being added to the game… there have already been complaints that the current stuff to test only takes 2 hours to get through… you think a single creature will give you a whole lot more? Interesting.

I think a couple of very important points have also been missed with the now modified suggestion of 3 separate servers for stable, semi-stable and unstable releases…

  • How are you going to test portals on a single server?
  • Other people have said that they’re bored with the limited colour palette of the worlds as they stand (this is with 2 worlds) … reducing that further is going to limit the people that just want to build and be creative… quite a few new players I might add.

Whilst I can see your point of view, and that you want to get back into playing this great game… and back at the level of playing that you used to… I agree with your sentiment of wanting to play more… but I’m sorry, I have to whole-heartedly disagree on both your approach to getting that to that goal and the amount of negativity in the posts. I’m also very eager for updates… lots and lots of updates!! But, being a developer myself (not a game developer though), I understand that development takes time. As a developer, I understand that you don’t want to just push out an unstable release that you know is going to fall over at some point, because you’ve not had enough time to test internally, as you’ve had to rush it out to placate someone stamping their feet and demanding it now.

We’ve been kept up-to-date with what is coming and why an update hasn’t been released over the last few weeks (yes I’m disappointed that there hasn’t been an update sooner too), due to it making sense to release a lot of related and inter-linked features at the same time to give us a more cohesive playing experience.

Anyway, I’ve waffled on enough… I have to go to work.

TL DR; Updates are coming, chill out, let the devs do their jobs and get ready to test some awesome content when it’s finally in an enjoyable state for everyone. EA isn’t always just about finding bugs… it’s also about testing content and providing feedback.

Have a good day all!

5 Likes
55

First of all … I’m an experienced developer as well (as well not games). I don’t know your company internal software testing / implementation process but most of the features “I” develop “most of the time” are somewhat “independet” from “most of the other features” … Okay there are a lot of “double quotes in here” because it’s never as independet as one might think and there are always things that interlink … but one unstable update in 3-4 months ? an other unstable update in 6 months ? My main problem is about the “time spans” that are between such updates. Yes of course they tell us most of the time why they delay (that’s one of the good changes i mentioned in prior posts) but it’s to often that things delay dramatically.

While everything you say is “theoretically” right, the problem itself is the frequency.

My point of view is more from a Agile (or [RAD] (Rapid application development - Wikipedia)) side if it comes to games and havily “user interactive” stuff.

This is the “final” creature you describe. Why not put it ingame “step by step” ? There is no “iteration” over features at the moment (at least not visible for players). For us as players features are one day not existing and the next day 100% existing. They might add “things” even if they are not “final” earlier ingame, to give us a visual example or a rough impression of the final product (prototyping). Yes, this might add up “some” extra effort but it’s something “visual” that people can play around with (even if it’s only for N minutes) and you can increase the update frequence. IMO a high update frequency is (mostly) good for EA games because it “keeps” the player base.

Theorem: Everytime a dev is able to test something (and it’s decently stable) it should be possible to release it as an “unstable” version of the game. (And i really can’t imagine that they need 3 months to get a first test running).

I agree with you that one as developer don’t like this thoughts but aren’t “cheap testers” (we) one of the reasons why one might choose EA ? And isn’t fast feedback one of the reasons to choose EA ? Features don’t need to be “polished” in the last detail and you can get your feedback in early stages of development and not in late stages where it’s really (mostly) expensive to change even small things.

To be fair we are all waiting for a long time now and we all accepted the “delayed release” because we want to give them the time they need. But i think it’s only fair that one should be allowed to ask for more frequent updates within the EA phase.

Can’t even provide “real” feedback at the moment (Look at all my posts and topic in the past … i really like to give feedback). This is one of the main reasons why i’m standing in for more frequent updates (and even if this is off topic now - more informations about core game play aspects).

This hole topic has IMO no “right” or “wrong” answer and there is no “perfect” solution. It’s all about balance and for me the balance was to long on “take your time”.

And please don’t get me wrong, the game looks really nice and i think the dev are doing a good job … but it’s just no good EA development (don’t get me wrong again - a lot of things have improved but it’s still far from perfect).

1 Like
56

Neat, but I was asking when we’ll be able to read & see more about the new features, not what they are (as we already know that it’s pretty much portals, trading and XP).

1 Like
57

Dont know about you but i prefer more finished features so i can truly test them, they also give more and i can give my feedback. Devs also sayd that updates come weekly, delays are expected.

It would be nice if they updated the game more frequently, who wouldn’t like it? But i give them theyr time and wont demand them to make things faster.

58

Please read the first post in this thread…

[quote=“james, post:1, topic:4924”]
Our standard process is to release stuff incrementally, but sometimes it’s just easier from a planning + dev perspective to bundle a collection of features together. It can often be cheaper (in time + effort) to bundle rather than making sure every feature can be independently released. It’s about finding the right balance.

If you’re truly a software developer you should know that catching things in design saves time/effort/resources downstream.

I’m no dev, but I am a QAer. My company (nearly 10,000 strong, we’re pretty big compared to Boundless)'s process for testing ANYTHING makes it take about 2 months minimum from design to out the door. Even a one line fix. Even a one character fix. And this is with weekly sprints. So I don’t know who you work for or how stable your product is, but as industry leaders we definitely know the value of taking your time on things and making sure that promises are delivered and we know we get ONE first impression when releasing new stuff so it has to be right the first time. Larger projects here can take around 18 months because of all of the work and research that goes into it. So if we are asked to wait a few weeks for a super cool bundle with some secret stuff in it, that’s pretty frickin good.

2 Likes
59

@Clexarews: My concerns are about the complete “EA development process” for B< and not especially for this concrete situation (It’s in principle okay that they delay for a couple of weeks to get the boulde out - even if i think the could release stuff in the meantime). Did you read through all i wrote ? … I’m arguing for a more agile development process and not for “buggy” or “rushed” updates (even if this goes hand in hand often).

If you only like to show “final” stuff, if you only like to show things if they are polished, you shouldn’t do EA in the first place. There would be absolute no problem if they do their work and take their time as long as noone (except their QA) is able to play. In the moment you release your stuff to an audience you need to “show” stuff and that on a frequent basis (read my linked Wiki article above, to learn more about RAD). Even if it might not be “perfect” or “polished” in the last detail. E.g. Why not add the ground basher without all the “cool” biom-styles and without the last level of detail in animation (just like the splitter and the goat) ? A lot of “small” dev groups refine their project over time and try to get content in the game as first and not as last.

A game is a “large” project of course. Some features within a game are by far not. If it take 10 months to get a ground basher working (even if there is already “working” livestock) it’s neither agile nor EA “friendly”.

But i assume this is a “final” than product than and not something in EA ?

A lot of “let them do” arguments is out of the the point of view of BIG companies with complete development and strictly defined QA processes where everything need to take defined steps with “classic” processes. If you like to success with EA and attract players you should work more agile and more transparent (a lot of successfull games prove this valid) - and i want them to success (I’d even code for them unsalaried in my freetime if i could).

I’ve stated nearly everything dozens of times but obviously the “points of view” are completly different (or i’m absolutly unable to explain myself) - I’m tired. Let the future show how many “more” players the current process will attract.

1 Like
60

From Wikipedia: Agile Software Development

The Agile Manifesto is based on twelve principles: (I’ve bolded the ones I think the Boundless team reasonably satisfies. As I don’t know their internal organization I cannot comment on 11).

1.Customer satisfaction by early and continuous delivery of valuable software
2.Welcome changing requirements, even in late development
3.Working software is delivered frequently (weeks rather than months)
4.Close, daily cooperation between business people and developers
5.Projects are built around motivated individuals, who should be trusted
6.Face-to-face conversation is the best form of communication (co-location)
7.Working software is the principal measure of progress
8.Sustainable development, able to maintain a constant pace
9.Continuous attention to technical excellence and good design
10.Simplicity—the art of maximizing the amount of work not done—is essential
11.Best architectures, requirements, and designs emerge from self-organizing teams
12.Regularly, the team reflects on how to become more effective, and adjusts accordingly

From Wikipedia: Rapid Application Development

The disadvantages of RAD include:…Poor design. The focus on prototypes can be taken too far in some cases resulting in a “hack and test” methodology where developers are constantly making minor changes to individual components and ignoring system architecture issues that could result in a better overall design.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe solid resources and time spent in design can make or break a product. So I’m not ignoring what you’ve said about RAD. I just find it difficult to accept the advantages it offers when that particular disadvantage seems to blot out anything that might make RAD shine (at least to me).

Talk about repeating oneself! James has mentioned MANY times how everything is a first pass. He’s also mentioned that he wants to bundle the next release to make it cheaper on effort/resources. They’re not only showing polished things man. As James mentioned, it’s all a balance of getting out things we can actually play with and provide functional feedback on while not polishing them to perfection first.[quote=“Heurazio, post:59, topic:4924”]
But i assume this is a “final” than product than and not something in EA ?
[/quote]

It’s also something that has more people looking at it on a team than Boundless employs in total, so…

Their communication has already improved since a year or so ago, which is really nice to see. As for agility, I’d rather they take their time and make a solid game so we’re not given something else like NMS. The product can speak for itself and attract players post-launch.

You’ve made 8 posts in this thread so far by my count. Last time I checked, 8 < dozens :wink: (This isn’t meant to be spiteful, just poking fun).

I don’t know about the “points of view” being completely different. I’d just rather have them devote time and resources to launch than time and resources to setting up hybrid dev/testing servers that people want updated weekly with the newest thing being worked on. I think it’s probably best that they work on release (especially given the prolonged deadline introduced by the increase in scope) than try to satisfy a few bored and vocal forum users. Doing so will indeed show how many more players a higher quality game will attract.

2 Likes