Operation Podcast EP 17

2»

Comments

  • .dcG-Colts^.dcG-Colts^ Posts: 1,973Player
    edited July 2015
    .sauce wrote: »
    I guess I just don't understand why you would continue to keep the open beta live, but it is what it is.

    Beyond that I can imagine a match parser that dumps into a league stat page to show some great team and individual statistics. Look forward to that.
    I agree I am atleast glad they not taking away the opt-in but whats the point in keeping current open beta alive? Are you going to keep it up when Full Release comes and have 2 versions of the game? NO? So force people to play the Opt-in beta because after all they both a still betas and they can deal with this current open beta version not being the game anymore. Because when full release comes that is exactly what will happen anyways. So why not start now?

    Pie charts + Graphs= Very Bad.



  • [ENG]Uni-Sol[ENG]Uni-Sol Posts: 3,193Player
    edited July 2015
    They said in the cast that people should seriously consider playing and getting used to the opt-in as it's a more realistic representation of what we will soon be forced to play. Perhaps they are worried that people will rebel and kick up a fuss if forced to play opt-in, I mean given the lack of popularity in past opt-ins it makes sense for at least now to keep both running, letting people dabble the newer version and hope they stick with it.

    So much changes between versions though.. its like getting used to a different game and some people won't like that.
    If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.






  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    .sauce wrote: »
    I guess I just don't understand why you would continue to keep the open beta live, but it is what it is.

    Beyond that I can imagine a match parser that dumps into a league stat page to show some great team and individual statistics. Look forward to that.

    For better or worse, people treat open beta as a finished, supported product that owes them something. Leaving the new version as opt-in while they work out the kinks is a hedge against possible stability issues or other complaints for those players.

    Current beta has a relatively stable user base and there are some big changes going forward. It may also be that they think players will be happier and more dedicated if they choose to swap themselves rather than having it forced on them.

    Personally, I'd think it best to just kick everyone over sooner than later and accept status quo when the dust settles.


    As a comparison, Rust went through a similar process. There was a popular early version, devs decided to make some major changes while porting the game to a new engine, and the community was split across the versions. At first, the new version was an opt-in. Eventually, the devs swapped the new version to the default choice instead, leaving an unsupported "legacy" option as opt-in. I wouldn't mind seeing that approach here. If there are holdouts that want to stick to what they know, they'd have the option, but the majority of players would be testing the near-final material.
  • =IK=SgtBadazz=IK=SgtBadazz Posts: 160Player
    Good idea. Make the opt-in the old beta.
  • Gronfather@twitchGronfather@twitch Posts: 466Player
    I agree with the force option. Just get rid of the open beta we have right now (feels like a totally different game) and get people onto reality.

    OR leave it up and nobody will play this opt-in again. They'll all be playing legacy warriors until full release.

  • ddra-ddra- Posts: 454Player
    edited July 2015
    "You should just do it like a Band-Aid. One motion. Right off!"
    image
    Fragmovie 6 | iNv Discord
    FGNL Season 1 Champions
    FN Season 2 & 4 Champions
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 630Player
    A great addition to a "force-in" would be no inner till release ;)
    AAPG is good!
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,607Beta Tester
    This is the problem with learning as you go. None of us, even Devs, come into this knowing everything from the start. So...we've allowed a group of Open Beta players to settle in. Obviously, they don't want to alienate anyone.

    Those people probably don't want it to change every other week as we move toward Final, so...?

    I bet many of those players don't even know what's been going on with the latest builds! The Final will be a shock!
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • Can't wait to start playing the game again :)
  • .dcG-Vortex^.dcG-Vortex^ Posts: 188Player
    After reading the different opinions here I think that the beta we play right now should be the opt-in. As in, if I were a new player and I downloaded the game I would jump into the newest possible build, and if I wanted to play the version that has been out for the past 6 months I would need to opt-in to the older version.
    TheTots wrote:
    I think this thread has run it's course......
  • .sauce.sauce Posts: 308Player
    Keebler750 wrote: »
    This is the problem with learning as you go. None of us, even Devs, come into this knowing everything from the start. So...we've allowed a group of Open Beta players to settle in. Obviously, they don't want to alienate anyone.

    Those people probably don't want it to change every other week as we move toward Final, so...?

    I bet many of those players don't even know what's been going on with the latest builds! The Final will be a shock!

    For the new players and average pub players, making the new beta the de facto open will do little but add numbers to that side and give the new players a better idea of the direction the game is going. In that sense I'd like to see the new opt-in become the open and have everyone else opt-in to a legacy beta. Those that are dead set on a dead branch can still play it, but I see little value in giving that group the benefit of the uninformed players.

    On the comp side, no one is willing to invest the time and energy into the legacy beta. If we don't give GSP's a reason to provide support for the new beta branch, we'll have more months of stalemate with no leagues and ladders to help build excitement on that side of the game. All of this effort to provide comp settings will be wasted in the interim. It just makes sense to me on both sides.
    Hello sir, excellent accuracy.

    LETS GO PENS
  • Keebler750Keebler750 Posts: 3,607Beta Tester
    Good post, .sauce
    ______

    This has been a test of the emergency flame-fest system. Please do not adjust your set.
  • =IK=El.Jefe=IK=El.Jefe Posts: 72Player
    +1 for making people opt in to the existing "open beta" and making the "opt-in" the default.
  • TheTotsTheTots Posts: 2,279Player
    We'll be covering our reasoning behind how we are doing the perma opt-in, as well as some other topics, on the next podcast. Make sure you check it out (coming Friday)
    The game wasn't made exactly to my specifications, so I feel it's broken.

  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 458Player
    TheTots wrote: »
    3, as we've explained before, is related to the actual map. It's not a server variable you can just set.
    I guess the theory of it is that the map should be able to support specific roles as you've designed and explained before, however it's an interesting element to see how the players would define it if they didn't have to go through the process of publishing a map that will hardly be touched.
    I didn't do server management in AA2, but I believe this system was handled through for-classing. Anyone with knowledge of that able to explain it clearly?
    For the player it's clearly more beneficial to have a simple option to toggle such features, but from a developer standpoint it's more beneficial to see the game to be played the way it was intended.

    What's your thoughts on this Tots?
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
  • TheTotsTheTots Posts: 2,279Player
    Speaking personally, I see no issue with letting private servers run weapons how they want. The LDs have explained it to me before, but I can't say I remember an answer beyond 'it's hard coded to the map'. I regularly go to people with whatever questions I see posted on the forums. If someone asks it here, you can be almost certain I'm asking it in the studio.


    As far as a good response / reason as to why we don't / can't do this, well I don't have one. Honestly, I'm just not knowledgeable enough about it, but I will certain bug people about it and get an answer.
    The game wasn't made exactly to my specifications, so I feel it's broken.

  • [ENG]Uni-Sol[ENG]Uni-Sol Posts: 3,193Player
    edited July 2015
    I remember a time when you guys were going to do a community Q&A podcast.. and lots of people asked a bunch of stuff on the old forum..

    Is it possible that did happen.. and I missed that cast? or if it didn't maybe now would be a good time to rekindle that idea, I'm sure there's lots of subjects and random stuff people would like to know, certainly enough for a good lengthy cast I'm sure :mrgreen:
    If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.






Sign In or Register to comment.