Some criticism

[crux]

only on beta 7 beta 5 and 6 I didn't have this problem
also there seem to be some Sync problems with beta 7 but not as bad as 6

also the score for the human players always stays at 0 but the AI's seem to work fine is this a glitch or part of the new patch?

yeah, I tried beta 6 and it had lots of sync problems. I wonder why they released that version without even testing those changes?
I don't really pay attention to the score since it looks like a random number generator to me. Wonder how the score is calculated?

Split from viewtopic.php?p=44701#p44701

[Zarel]

yeah, I tried beta 6 and it had lots of sync problems. I wonder why they released that version without even testing those changes?

What do you think betas are for? So you can test changes...

[crux]

yeah, I tried beta 6 and it had lots of sync problems. I wonder why they released that version without even testing those changes?

What do you think betas are for? So you can test changes...

Normal practice is to include features in alpha, and weed them out in beta then release.
This project does it weird.

In this case, you didn't even bother testing it at all. The sync issues are pretty obvious from the start.

[Zarel]

Normal practice is to include features in alpha, and weed them out in beta then release.
This project does it weird.

In this case, you didn't even bother testing it at all. The sync issues are pretty obvious from the start.

I don't think you realize, but this is an open-source project. If you want us to test before releasing a beta, then you should test unstable branches yourself, or pay us to test them.

I don't really understand our versioning system (I do think we rush into beta a bit quickly), but I have no control over that. But this is exactly what we are using the betas for - to weed out problems.

As it stands, we use betas so that users can test for us. The sync issues aren't very obvious at all, in casual usage.

[crux]

Normal practice is to include features in alpha, and weed them out in beta then release.
This project does it weird.

In this case, you didn't even bother testing it at all. The sync issues are pretty obvious from the start.

I don't think you realize, but this is an open-source project. If you want us to test before releasing a beta, then you should test unstable branches yourself, or pay us to test them.

I don't really understand our versioning system (I do think we rush into beta a bit quickly), but I have no control over that. But this is exactly what we are using the betas for - to weed out problems.

As it stands, we use betas so that users can test for us. The sync issues aren't very obvious at all, in casual usage.

I know this is a open source project but you want us to pay you to test things?
what are you smoking?

[Zarel]

I know this is a open source project but you want us to pay you to test things?
what are you smoking?

Well, I just mentioned that it was an option, for if you don't want to do what everyone else does: be quiet and let us fix bugs as they are discovered during the beta cycle. You know, that's kind of what the beta cycle's for.

Several points to keep in mind:
- We already test as much as we can before releasing. If you want us to test even more, that's what you'd need to pay for.
- Betas are for testing. To let users find bugs that we may overlook in our own testing. That's exactly what's going on here.

[Berg]

The stable version is on the download page If you like to use that.

I have fun testing the new versions and even the bugs are entertaining thats why I test them.
Sync issues are way better sinse the 2.3.beta's came out so progress is there.
Surely the name of the test version is a minor detail beta <> alpha still a test version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_r ... life_cycle

[Thyranim]

Normal practice is to include features in alpha, and weed them out in beta then release.
This project does it weird.

In this case, you didn't even bother testing it at all. The sync issues are pretty obvious from the start.

do you know what you are taking about ?
alpha -> internal test by developers or persons especially for this
this is, how they currently do it. they discuss some changes, try them out, test if it works and are done.

alpha-phase completed
-> next phase "beta"
beta is not done, it is neither a "release version" nor a release-candidate, it is a test-version to test out for everyone, if it works or if perhaps something was overseen, some bugs appeared or something else.
and that's exactly what the developers are doing right know.
exactly that, what it is meant for -> give us the chance to test everything, before they decide to give it a "release candiate state".
and you are complaining about doing it right ?!?
what are you talking about ???

[crux]

Normal practice is to include features in alpha, and weed them out in beta then release.
This project does it weird.

In this case, you didn't even bother testing it at all. The sync issues are pretty obvious from the start.

do you know what you are taking about ?
alpha -> internal test by developers or persons especially for this
this is, how they currently do it. they discuss some changes, try them out, test if it works and are done.

alpha-phase completed
-> next phase "beta"
beta is not done, it is neither a "release version" nor a release-candidate, it is a test-version to test out for everyone, if it works or if perhaps something was overseen, some bugs appeared or something else.
and that's exactly what the developers are doing right know.
exactly that, what it is meant for -> give us the chance to test everything, before they decide to give it a "release candiate state".
and you are complaining about doing it right ?!?
what are you talking about ???

That isn't the way it is supposed to work.
read this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_r ... cycle#Beta

Often this stage begins when the developers announce a feature freeze on the product, indicating that no more feature requirements will be accepted for this version of the product. Only software issues, or bugs and unimplemented features will be addressed.

Developers release either a closed beta or an open beta; closed beta versions are released to a select group of individuals for a user test, while open betas are to a larger community group, usually the general public. The testers report any bugs that they found and sometimes minor features they would like to see in the final version.

every time they add a new feature that means a new beta must come out. If they keep that up then they will never release a final candidate.
someone has to say enough is enough and release the thing.
then they can add the new feature(s) in the next release.

[Zarel]

Sync fixes are by definition bugfixes, not new features.

What's your point?

Also:

Often this stage begins when the developers announce a feature freeze on the product, indicating that no more feature requirements will be accepted for this version of the product. Only software issues, or bugs and unimplemented features will be addressed.

Hint: "often" and "always" are not synonyms. It doesn't even say "usually" - and the very next example they give (Windows Vista CTPs) were not feature-complete. And feature freezes in beta are usually fairly lax - usability fixes, etc can still go in (this is also true of Windows Vista CTPs).

[crux]

If it would in fact fix the sync then yes but that wasn't the case as could be seen with some simple testing.

I am not alone in this opinion it seems and I saw this on the mailing list.

We already have _7_ Betas for 2.3 and adding new stuff will take even longer for
a final 2.3 to be released. :/ Seriously, at some point we need to make a cut
and say: "No new features, only bug-fixes." If we go on with this way
(continuously adding new features) we will probably never leave the beta state
as there will always be somebody with cool new code that we should put into 2.3.

[Zarel]

If it would in fact fix the sync then yes but that wasn't the case as could be seen with some simple testing.

Simple testing, which was done by the beta testers, found not to fix the sync, and the changes were reverted. You know, pretty much exactly how the beta cycle is supposed to work.

We already have _7_ Betas for 2.3 and adding new stuff will take even longer for
a final 2.3 to be released. :/ Seriously, at some point we need to make a cut
and say: "No new features, only bug-fixes." If we go on with this way
(continuously adding new features) we will probably never leave the beta state
as there will always be somebody with cool new code that we should put into 2.3.

This was due to rushing into the beta cycle far too early. 2.3 beta 1 should've been 2.3 alpha 1. Some developers just like to inflate version numbers since it makes more people test the game.

Edit: Removed developer name.

[crux]

This was due to rushing into the beta cycle far too early. 2.3 beta 1 should've been 2.3 alpha 1. Some developers just like to inflate version numbers since it makes more people test the game.

Edit: Removed developer name.

is this a pass the buck deal ?
all betas should really be alpha versions?

[lav_coyote25]

ok fine all betas are now officially alphas. no such thing as betas anymore.

[cybersphinx]

Let's do some more quote-mining: "A "beta version" is the first version released outside the organization or community that develops the software, for the purpose of evaluation or real-world [...] testing." Which is exactly what we're doing, no?