daily patches

sasuke2490

<div class="IPBDescription">as title says</div>i think the devs should crank out daily patches not as in content that can wait a bit. I'm talking about bugs, leaks, and stuff even if theyre not serious you don't even have to say but daily patches could get the game to a better state faster then waiting another 2 months for 153.

Hugh

Impossible given Steam update overhead. This is a great idea for the community in theory but is_not_possible in practice.

And releasing outside of Steam is not an option, otherwise they lose DRM.

SgtBarlow

yeh, it would not work because of the whay patching is processed via the steam platform, Even the steam developers platform is not suitable for fast patching, thats why they said they use DropBox with a small group of playtesters because its instant.

pausen

they would waste to much time with building patches then fixing the bugs

DY357LX

Is weekly patches plausible?

Martin

<!--quoteo(post=1803447:date=Oct 28 2010, 08:17 AM:name=DY357LX)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (DY357LX @ Oct 28 2010, 08:17 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803447"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Is weekly patches plausible?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

If people don't mind massive downloads, then yes. I wouldn't mind it if it gave better feedback.

yourbonesakin

<!--quoteo(post=1803356:date=Oct 27 2010, 09:13 PM:name=sasuke2490)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (sasuke2490 @ Oct 27 2010, 09:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1803356"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->i think the devs should crank out daily patches not as in content that can wait a bit. I'm talking about bugs, leaks, and stuff even if theyre not serious you don't even have to say but daily patches could get the game to a better state faster then waiting another 2 months for 153.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Woah, that's way fast.

I would say weekly or (more sane) every other week. The update period will probably be between two weeks and a month.

Do we even need reactive hotfixes for bugs? I'd say the regular updates can catch them until we hit beta and actually care about balance.

Obraxis

Weekly or Bi-Weekly would be good. Even if we only see a few small improvements it will still feel better to have patches flowing.

Martin

From personal experience weekly release schedules can lead to issues. The best I've seen for rapid development is a week of development, and week of QA, then release. Now with that said......it seems like the community is going to be QA on the network issues ;)

Tig

biweekly gets my vote. 2 features and definitely bang out the 2 biggest network/cpu usage bugs and then release the patch. that way we all get something more and more playable.

for instance, they released the power node, but its not fully working. if the content team programmed the crap out of power nodes and the engine team worked hard one or two network bugs, we have a very happy alpha crowd.

it just seems like they're rushing to please us (cuz we've been crying like babies) when they should just slow down and work on their top problems on both teams.

just a thought, back to mapping :)

Racer1

Anyone else think that using steam for the alpha was a bad idea? If they would have published it on ftp (or bittorrent if they are worried about bandwidth costs), it would have been good enough.

If they were concerned about security, they could have add a basic password authentication to the application. It wouldn't have been full-proof, but who cares when you are working with an alpha?

Starting to use steam for beta would have been a better time.

Kouji_San

Steam DRM protection is very important though. Otherwise they'd have to write their own security DRM...