Suggestion for the BIG 2.7

[Eagle7907]

This thought just came to me recently.

 

I remember back when the 2.5.6 lighting update came out and all the headaches that came with it and I’m thinking about the lessons learned from that. My question (or suggestion) is wouldn’t it be better to release new module features in one update, then release the new core stuff, like cloud stuff in 2.7? That way if the new core features causes bugs that are beta killing, then we can still go back and fall on the previous version with the latest fixes/newly implemented things for the modules. Yeah, that may add a bit more of a wait for the clouds, but at least it won’t put all the eggs in one basket. I’ve noticed that when something core related to the sim is changed, a lot of problems stir up and think isolating those updates may prove more beneficial than slamming a whole bunch of new stuff at once.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[LooseSeal]

They could do what you propose and add new features, but that implementation will probably create bugs regardless. Those bugs will need to be fixed. Do they then fix those bugs before moving to 2.7 even though moving to 2.7 may create bugs as well? I'd say you'd end up with 2 rounds of bug creation as opposed to the one, which would just be a waste of the team's time and resources.

 

My point is - the new features you talk of will probably create some bugs anyway as well as the bugs 2.7 will create, so why not just do it all at once and get it over with? You've got to break the egg shells to make the omelette.

 

Also... I'm not sure if I read it somewhere, but aren't some of the 'new features' like ATFLIR on the Hornet being tied to the improvements in 2.7? Or maybe I've just invented that in my mind...

[Eagle7907]

That’s a good point.

I know ATFLIR was mentioned for being pushed into development, but I’m not sure if that means ready for 2.7. Makes you wonder if that is the mysterious 2.6 that the public didn’t get?

Yeah, the mini-update thread says planned for 2.7, along with a whole bunch of other stuff.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[BIGNEWY]

Please remember open beta is a public test build, this is where we find issues using a wider user base. 

 

The stable version should be used to avoid potential development hurdles that may happen during the initial testing of 2.7

 

thanks

[Fri13]

8 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Please remember open beta is a public test build, this is where we find issues using a wider user base.

 

The stable version should be used to avoid potential development hurdles that may happen during the initial testing of 2.7

 

thanks

 

The problem is that the Open Beta is the priority marketing channel and tool, where all the new stuff and such are promoted and revealed. And that will of course drive people to Open Beta that shouldn't be using it but the Stable one. So the Stable branch is like left to "if you are wise and you do not get teased with latest and greatest...." but it doesn't help when even multiplayer servers go to Open Beta just because people want to be in the latest and greatest...

 

Why lots of people go to Open Beta, get the bugs they are not ready/capable to handle properly -> comes to forum to whine about bugs, problems and such in negative manner and it creates a bad reputation for ED and PR corrections are required, that leads to scenarios where now the Open Beta needs to be considered even more as a release candidate (no bugs) than Open Beta that people wouldn't come to whine about problems.

 

It is a self-feeding circle and cause is that Open Beta is too much hyped and marketed with the latest new modules, new features in modules etc.

Partial fix for this would be to offer the DCS only be able run as multiplayer server as Stable version, but then the multiplayer bugs wouldn't be so easy to find out.

 

The eventual result just is that people who should use Stable branch, is not using it as they can be 6-9 months late with all the cool new stuff or even longer before the maps and new modules hits there.

One of the problems is that each update is tried to be bag of new things at once. Instead dropping each new thing ASAP to Open Beta for testing and then quickly to Stable when problems are not found in "two weeks".

[Furiz]

I

8 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

 

The problem is that the Open Beta is the priority marketing channel and tool, where all the new stuff and such are promoted and revealed. And that will of course drive people to Open Beta that shouldn't be using it but the Stable one. So the Stable branch is like left to "if you are wise and you do not get teased with latest and greatest...." but it doesn't help when even multiplayer servers go to Open Beta just because people want to be in the latest and greatest...

 

Why lots of people go to Open Beta, get the bugs they are not ready/capable to handle properly -> comes to forum to whine about bugs, problems and such in negative manner and it creates a bad reputation for ED and PR corrections are required, that leads to scenarios where now the Open Beta needs to be considered even more as a release candidate (no bugs) than Open Beta that people wouldn't come to whine about problems.

 

It is a self-feeding circle and cause is that Open Beta is too much hyped and marketed with the latest new modules, new features in modules etc.

Partial fix for this would be to offer the DCS only be able run as multiplayer server as Stable version, but then the multiplayer bugs wouldn't be so easy to find out.

 

The eventual result just is that people who should use Stable branch, is not using it as they can be 6-9 months late with all the cool new stuff or even longer before the maps and new modules hits there.

One of the problems is that each update is tried to be bag of new things at once. Instead dropping each new thing ASAP to Open Beta for testing and then quickly to Stable when problems are not found in "two weeks".

 

I don't see this as ED problem but the problem of people who don't understand what Beta version of the game is for, and their problem with patience. Same goes with Early Access.

[Tippis]

11 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

The eventual result just is that people who should use Stable branch, is not using it as they can be 6-9 months late with all the cool new stuff or even longer before the maps and new modules hits there.

…and also that “Stable” rarely is much more stable than the beta branch — it's more that its… ehrm… quirks are a known entity, whereas the beta may change from one month to the next. So there's very little reason to use stable to begin with.

[Qiou87]

16 minutes ago, Fri13 said:

The eventual result just is that people who should use Stable branch, is not using it as they can be 6-9 months late with all the cool new stuff or even longer before the maps and new modules hits there.

I mostly agree with what you say, but 6-9 months is a gross exageration. You don't need to exagerate here to make your point, everyone know the shortcomings of the current system. But stable gets an update every ~3 months on average (at least in 2020). So the newest stuff waits on average 1-2 months until it is on stable (because new stuff is released over a few OB updates, and never right after a stable update).

 

I know because I use stable. I actually don't mind to wait and let people work out the bugs for me. I play ~1h per day, to have fun, not to make bug reports. I am sometimes tempted because I fly early access birds like Hornet and Viper, but in the end patience is a virtue.

[BIGNEWY]

The open beta is a public test branch, we have to test everything in open beta before sending to stable. 

 

Is stable perfect? no, but it has less stoppers / crashes. 

 

Fact remains open beta is and always will be a public test build, we try to make it a smooth process, but we wont make everyone happy. 

 

thank you

[Fri13]

4 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

The open beta is a public test branch, we have to test everything in open beta before sending to stable.

Is stable perfect? no, but it has less stoppers / crashes.

Fact remains open beta is and always will be a public test build, we try to make it a smooth process, but we wont make everyone happy. 

 

thank you

 

That is the great thing that DCS World does have a Open Beta. But that is not same thing as using it as a marketing tool for all.

Seriously now.

 

ED puts all the new hot modules to Early Access and so does the 3rd party studios for most of their modules. Then every new feature that is added to Early Access modules gets promoted and hyped. But it is all done only in the Open Beta. The marketing is based to Open Beta. Want a new Early Access aircraft or map?

It is all happening only in a Open Beta with plenty of videos and marketing with blogs, podcasts and what not.

 

How about going for a silent mode, deny the marketing to use Open Beta as the platform, and only the stable? If a new aircraft module is going to appear 1-2 months after Open Beta in Stable, then why not just hold off the marketing for Open Beta that time and only do it for Stable? You can still pre-order, purchase and install and run it with Open Beta, but it is not allowed to be used as marketing platform. Only when the product hits to Stable, is it allowed to be marketed as "it is finally here. It is coming. The new module/terrain/assets pack/etc" and talk about through podcasts, blog posts and so on.

Full force to the stable. All the effort in the Stable.

 

The Open Beta development is just hus hus... People would talk about it in this forum, but it is not made with YouTube videos etc. ED supports already officially many youtube channels by giving a early access to them. Same thing is with many other studios.  Just move it all to delay it to Stable. They can create the content in time in Open Beta but not to publish it.

 

ED has created this contest where now the development has moved more to the closed beta team, that is filled with a youtube content creators as well. To push unfinished, bugged, untested products to out with huge marketing. It is like shooting own foot by doing so. If there is a closed beta, then we don't need open beta if it is going to stay as primary marketing platform. And if the bugs gets through closed beta -> open beta -> stable, then there is a problem.

 

We can already see that people have high expectations for upcoming 2.7 version. Lots of rumors why the 2.6 was skipped, and then when is a update coming to Steam and then when to stable etc. It could help a lot ED and partners to shift the marketing from Open to Stable, and prioritize the Stable as the visible and main branch. One way for this is that ED only is running the Open Beta servers for multiplayer testing, and only public available server is the Stable server. So if someone wants to run a own server, it is Stable branch. No marketing, no hyping about open but just stable. Put more weight on the Open Beta development to get things fixed more rapidly to Stable to keep the marketing power there.

 

Let the Open Beta be for the testers, those who are willing to do the bug hunting, testing, reporting etc instead just have fun.

If the Open Beta updates broke things, users needs to know how to fix it, roll back and report the problems and not care that they can't fly that version as they can always roll back.

That is why the Stable branch should be, to have fun and not required to do bug hunting, testing and reporting, but enjoy from quality.

 

 

[Padre Pio]

That's the clue... I do not want to write more.. I really appreciate the work that ED is doing, but... I will only leave a picture:

 

[Fri13]

9 minutes ago, Padre Pio said:

That's the clue... I do not want to write more.. I really appreciate the work that ED is doing, but... I will only leave a picture:

 

Being "complete" is different thing as "not crashing", and it is different from "correctly working".

 

We can have unfinished modules, without crashing, but with implemented systems working correctly - so we do not need to unlearn wrong habits in the future.

That is basically Stable branch.

We can have unfinished modules, with crashes, but with most implemented systems working correctly and new ones might work incorrectly - so we need to test and find the problems.

That is basically the Open Beta.

 

New clouds? We can have them, but when everything is hyped so hard as now, it will be negative if there are major problems. That is the risk in the marketing that you would need to get product out in such state that problems are only for < 1% of the customers.

 

[Padre Pio]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

Being "complete" is different thing as "not crashing", and it is different from "correctly working".

The text is just for fun ;] But to describe more clearly my feelings, "correctly working" would be the most accurate at the moment.

 

I returned to "Stable" yesterday, and I am just keeping having fun of flying and dog-fighting again 

 

Of course I agree with everything you wrote.

Edited February 24, 2021 by Padre Pio

[Fri13]

1 minute ago, Padre Pio said:

I have returned to "Stable" yesterday, and I am just keeping having fun of flying and dog-fighting. Greetings

 

I have stable for the missions etc. But lately I have not spent time to fly but more for a testing. Checking others bug reports and searching problem source in other, so Open Beta has been the version to run.

The major problem that I see between Stable and Beta is not that there is some features missing, but that in the stable there might be old wrong behavior or feature that has been changed or removed in Beta. So when you go to Stable and you look at the old behavior, it cause problem.  So lack of feature/capability is better than having a two differently behaving systems.

[Eagle7907]

Hey@Bignewy. I understand what you’re saying and I think the two branches work quite well. However, it doesn’t work as well as it should when all the newest stuff is on one branch and not pushed to the other for an extensive amount of time.

Let’s put it into perspective. The last time stable was updated was Dec 2020. Not too long ago, but we’ve had at least two updates to OB since then full of new content and fixes across many modules. Now before Dec 2020, when was stable updated again? October? How many OB updates were there then? My point is yes, we can fall back on stable when OB just simply gives out. However, now we are using a version that has content that’s missing lots of newly implemented features and fixes. This would be much better utilized if stable was more frequently updated is where I am getting at, or like I originally posted, to spread the risk when ED tries to plan big updates like the 2.7 update. I’m excited like any other guy here, and I look forward to new stuff, but when things don’t work out as planned, do we have to be pushed back so much?

Addendum: Also when you say the OB is used for testing, I agree it should be used for testing and to find bugs, however I don’t really see how a time span of 2-3 months of a stable update when an OB update was released two days prior? Saying it’s used for testing but then turn around and push OB to stable in a fraction of the time raises eyebrows. I don’t know, I mean I admit I don’t have the big picture, but from looking at it on our end of the looking glass, it doesn’t seem very consistent.

Perhaps maybe it would be a good idea to have ED do an OB push to stable just before an update like 2.7?

I mean like everyone says, stable still has bugs as OB normally does. At least our insurance policy is more recent.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[HILOK]

11 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Being "complete" is different thing as "not crashing", and it is different from "correctly working".

 

We can have unfinished modules, without crashing, but with implemented systems working correctly - so we do not need to unlearn wrong habits in the future.

 

10 hours ago, Fri13 said:

The major problem that I see between Stable and Beta is not that there is some features missing, but that in the stable there might be old wrong behavior or feature that has been changed or removed in Beta.

 

i very much agree with the 2 statements above 

Edited February 25, 2021 by HILOK

[Fri13]

55 minutes ago, Eagle7907 said:

Let’s put it into perspective. The last time stable was updated was Dec 2020. Not too long ago, but we’ve had at least two updates to OB since then full of new content and fixes across many modules. Now before Dec 2020, when was stable updated again? October? How many OB updates were there then?

 

I have not installed Syria on the Stable (and not yet even tried as I keep it only on Open Beta). But at least the ED store page says that Syria is not available for stable and requires Open Beta:

 

So Syria was released August 19th, that is just little over 6 months ago. 

 

55 minutes ago, Eagle7907 said:

My point is yes, we can fall back on stable when OB just simply gives out.

 

The proper thing to do is to roll back the update in Open Beta if there comes a show stopper. That is the expected thing to do. The Stable should be for the enjoyment purposes and Open Beta for testing. 

 

55 minutes ago, Eagle7907 said:

However, now we are using a version that has content that’s missing lots of newly implemented features and fixes. This would be much better utilized if stable was more frequently updated is where I am getting at, or like I originally posted, to spread the risk when ED tries to plan big updates like the 2.7 update.

 

I could see the 2.7 version to come to Stable again in 6 months depending its quality. But to ED make a more rapid updates, they would need to split the updates smaller pieces in Open Beta as well, almost weekly if not faster even when possible. Meaning that when the feature is ready, you put it to Open Beta on next day the Closed Beta team has tested it (given 1-2 days time for them, after all it is their task to test all features and not have fun).  You don't do marketing for the features or such, you test them in Open Beta for, lets say 2-4 weeks, and then you push them to Stable, and you put marketing to that stable update that gets every month out. Some patches are smaller, some are larger. 

 

55 minutes ago, Eagle7907 said:

Saying it’s used for testing but then turn around and push OB to stable in a fraction of the time raises eyebrows. I don’t know, I mean I admit I don’t have the big picture, but from looking at it on our end of the looking glass, it doesn’t seem very consistent.

 

I have not kept track that what features the Stable branch really gets and when so closely since the major update cycle was changed as some impatient players get angry when Open Beta gets broken, like ???? It is suppose to be broken time of time, get rapidly fixed and modified and get code ready for the stable. If it gets broken on one update, no reason to get angry if it takes at least few days to get fix, it is not to go enjoy the new features but test them. 

 

55 minutes ago, Eagle7907 said:

Perhaps maybe it would be a good idea to have ED do an OB push to stable just before an update like 2.7?

 

So simply making current Open Beta as Stable. But that can be problematic depending how big change there is coming in the 2.7, as bigger the updates, more there is to get broken and more time it takes to get things fixed. The rapid and small updating makes things a lot easier, it is more controlled and more easily handled when each update changes can be reacted more quickly. So giving 3-4 changes a week is easier than giving a 100 changes in a two months. Of course these huge new features that gets bundled with a lot of other small changes can be catastrophic. 

[Qiou87]

1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

 

I have not installed Syria on the Stable (and not yet even tried as I keep it only on Open Beta). But at least the ED store page says that Syria is not available for stable and requires Open Beta:

 

So Syria was released August 19th, that is just little over 6 months ago. 

That's just a mistake in the product page. Syria has been available on stable since early october. They push OB to stable every 3-4 months, at that point both versions remain the same for a few weeks. Then they push new features to OB, try to fix the bugs... and the cycle continues.

 

Stable will most probably get an update to the latest 2.5.6 OB right before moving to 2.7 in OB, so I'm guessing sometime in March. If nothing else than because they are "leaving behind" Windows 7, so some customers refusing to update might be stuck with 2.5.6 for a while. 

Edited February 25, 2021 by Qiou87

[Eagle7907]

On 2/25/2021 at 1:43 AM, Fri13 said:

I have not kept track that what features the Stable branch really gets and when so closely since the major update cycle was changed as some impatient players get angry when Open Beta gets broken, like ???? It is suppose to be broken time of time, get rapidly fixed and modified and get code ready for the stable. If it gets broken on one update, no reason to get angry if it takes at least few days to get fix, it is not to go enjoy the new features but test them.

 

 

OB dated 12/23/2020 (copy and paste)

 

• MP. Barrage Balloon does not show for clients - fixed.

• AIM-120. Midcourse guidance - fixed unwanted target id reset, fixed seeker los rotation in midcourse phase and restored protection from LOS rate surge.

• AIM-7. Loft trajectory initialization corrected.

• After ejecting player can still control aircraft - fixed.

• net.lua2json generates error if table indexed numerically has missing index - fixed.

• GBU-24 does not explode on impact - fixed.

DCS F-16C Viper by ED

• Update of the Taxi and Take-Off Mission.

• HARM POS/RUK does not track SA-2 track radar - fixed.

• No TOT in CCRP mode after firing off 2 Harms - fixed.

• Post-release CCIP point is no longer there with the weapon release button still held down - fixed.

F/A-18C Hornet by ED

• Not losing lock on STT When turning off the radar, Guides missile all the way. Still an issue if radar set to standby - fixed

• GBU-24 does not explode on impact - fixed

• AIM-7MH not lofting when LOFT is turned on - fixed

DCS P-47D by ED

• Aircraft will continue to climb on dead engine - fixed.

• Updated PG, Caucasus and Channel IA Missions.

DCS Bf 109 K-4 by ED

• Updated Channel IA Missions

DCS Spitfire IX by ED

• Updated Spitfire Channel and Caucasus IA Missions

DCS P-51D Mustang by ED

• Updated Channel, PG and Caucasus IA Missions

DCS Fw 190 D-9 by ED

• Updated Channel and Caucasus IA Missions

DCS Fw 190 A-8 by ED

• Updated Channel IA Missions

DCS SA342 Gazelle by Polychop

• Added possibility to enable/disable NS430 in mission (additional tab in SA342 properties in ME)

DCS F-14A/B Tomcat by Heatblur Simulations 

• NEW! Added F-14B Campaign “Operation Reforger - The Iron Heel”

• Fixed TWS tracks clashing with datalink in multicrew. 

• Added TGTS size keybinds for RIO. 

• Updated AIM-7 to parity with ED’s AIM-7. 

• Fixed AIM-7 dogfight LTE to 0.7s (was accidentally immediate). 

• Prevent AIM-54 continuing to track target if TWS track was deleted and later re-acquired (new track technically). 

• Fix: ensure that AIM-54 active command is only sent while radar is transmitting. 

• Livery fixes for VF-102 and 103 Hi Vis. 

• Small fixes to A liveries. 

• Added hog to VF-11 droptank on B version. 

• Fixed mirroring issues on Last Ride and Grim Reapers liveries. 

• Fix for engine fire at continued M1.1. 

• Adjusted transonic drag for F-14A.

  DCS MiG-21bis by Magnitude 3 

• Fixed radar causing a huge FPS loss when turned on.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stable dated 12/25/2020 (selected copy and paste to show my point)

 

DCS World

MP. Barrage Balloon does not show for clients - fixed.

AIM-120 Midcourse guidance - fixed unwanted target id reset, fixed seeker los rotation in midcourse phase and restored protection from LOS rate surge.

AIM-7. Loft trajectory initialization corrected.

After ejecting player can still control aircraft - fixed.

net.lua2json generates error if table indexed numerically has missing index - fixed.

GBU-24 does not explode on impact - fixed. (I found this under the Hornet fixes)

 

 

F-16C

Update of the Taxi and Take-Off Mission.

HARM POS/RUK does not track SA-2 track radar - fixed

No TOT in CCRP mode after firing off 2 Harms - fixed

Post-release CCIP point is no longer there with the weapon release button still held down - fixed

 

F/A-18C

Not losing lock on STT When turning off the radar, Guides missile all the way. - fixed

GBU-24 does not explode on impact - fixed

AIM-7MH not lofting when LOFT is turned on - fixed

 

P-47D

Aircraft will continue to climb on dead engine under certain conditions - fixed.

Updated PG, Caucasus and Channel IA Missions.

 

Bf-109

Updated Channel IA Missions.

 

Spitfire

Updated Spitfire Channel and Caucasus IA Missions.

 

P-51D

Updated Channel, PG and Caucasus IA Missions.

 

Fw-109 D-9

Updated Channel and Caucasus IA Missions.

 

Fw-109 A-8

(This wasn't completely the same text but....)

Added and updated IA missions.

 

SA342

Added possibility to enable/disable NS430 in mission (additional tab in SA342 properties in ME)

 

F-14A/B

NEW! Added F-14B Campaign “Operation Reforger - The Iron Heel”

Fixed TWS tracks clashing with datalink in multicrew

Added TGTS size keybinds for RIO

Updated AIM-7 to parity with ED’s AIM-7

Fixed AIM-7 dogfight LTE to 0.7s (was accidentally immediate)

Prevent AIM-54 continuing to track target if TWS track was deleted and later re-acquired (new track technically)

Fix: ensure that AIM-54 active command is only sent while radar is transmitting

Livery fixes for VF-102 and 103 Hi Vis

Small fixes to A liveries

Added hog to VF-11 droptank on B version

Fixed mirroring issues on Last Ride and Grim Reapers liveries

Fix for engine fire at continued M1.1

Adjusted transonic drag for F-14A

 

Mig21

Fixed radar causing a huge FPS loss when turned on

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Again, I understand what OB is for and what Stable is for, but again why is it on this particular week, they immediately decide to push an OB update to Stable after two days?  Sure, you can say it was tested, right!  However, did the OB update prior on 12/17 need as much time?  What about the one on 11/23  or  11/18?  The previous stable update to 12/25 was 10/9.  More than two months.  But yet, ED decides they push over OB to stable without any cadence and I ask myself why?  I mean if they say we should fall back to stable when OB just simply doesn't run, but then that could force us into playing something that's over two months old, when alternatively they update stable at a more frequent rate.  They just did in December, why not make it a usual thing?  I'm sorry, I just don't get the large vasts of time then suddenly two days 'yeah its good'.

 

Another thought:  I really do feel sorry for ED though.  I mean, they do try to cater to so many demands from a swath of many different users.  Ha!  I find it humorous when someone brings up a political topic either here or discord and everyone (rightly) discourages it.  But DCS World itself has created its own political realm of SP vs MP, OB vs Stable, Steam vs Standalone, Hornet vs Viper, etc.  Anyways, I think it would be wise if maybe they spruce up the Stable updates more, then perhaps people who like OB and people who use Stable, might be happier with any situation that a major update kills the OB branch and still can keep the most up to date gameplay.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Eagle7907

[Fri13]

7 minutes ago, Eagle7907 said:

They just did in December, why not make it a usual thing?  I'm sorry, I just don't get the large vasts of time then suddenly two days 'yeah its good'.

 

There is no logic in that, why you can't find it.

 

If we take a basic order of updating, it goes: Internal -> Closed Beta -> Open Beta -> Stable

Now if there is requirement for testing, it is time. So example between Closed Beta and Open Beta should be around 1-2 weeks. This requires that those who are in Closed Beta does specifically that kind testing that is asked for, every up coming change is tested by everyone before it gets to Open Beta.

Now, the Open Beta could be one month or two months if wanted to make huge updates. And only after that should it be pushed to Stable by the parts that are confirmed to be properly done.  Those that are still broken or didn't fix things gets withdrawn and put back to To-Do list for Internal -> Closed and then back to Open Beta.

 

But when you don't have small rapid small updates that can be released at any day to Open Beta, but you do a huge massive updates that delivers tens of changes in one package, it will be painful job to actually fix and confirm that it is working to be released in Stable.

 

This is the reason why small updates are preferred as you can roll back a individual update, or put it on hold. And if it is not tied to other features, it is not required and other updates can be pushed forward in their own time. This way Open Beta could be updating every workday in a week, but on the last week before Stable update 1) the Open Beta is frozen so that there is not coming any new features or 2) the Open Beta receives updates but they are not to be pushed to Stable. And then only the patches to Open Beta that are confirmed to be working ones gets pushed to Stable, while new unsure ones gets delayed or next update period.

If at any given time there is some error in the small feature that came in Open Beta, it can be separately fixed and updated.

[Eagle7907]

I respectfully disagree.  Even with what I've laid out above, there has been plenty of time to deliver a Stable update.  I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it.  Yes it wouldn't probably be the latest OB, depending on how vast the update is, but still there was time for testing for any one of those previous updates rightly back to beginning of November.  That still doesn't explain why a stable update wasn't done sooner than 12/25.  Again, though I'm not an ED employee.  Whatever.  Just trying to bring more balance to the force with huge updates to the core game and breaking OB which ED very heavily relies on.

 

Worthless customer, out.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Eagle7907

[Eagle7907]

To the ED team:

Thank you for the stable update. I am much more confident that IF something goes wrong with the OB 2.7 update, those will have something more current to use. I really think this is a wise strategy, again, thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Mars Exulte]

I have a suggestion for everyone: why don't you quit armchair developing and let the professionals do their job the way they want to? They don't need this kind of input, and literally no matter how they do things, there are pros and cons and people are going to bitch incessantly regardless.

 

@Fri13

  You really need to give up the ''wall of text'' complaints about stable vs beta. It's completely pointless. People will use whichever version they want to, and what version ''a half dozen popular servers and the couple hundred people that play on them choose to use'' is completely and utterly irrelevant. It doesn't ''hurt ED's reputation'' in some grand way and equates nothing more than the typical, incessant, and frequently obnoxious, whining of a handful of vocal but irrelevant forum users. For ''new people coming in'', if they can figure out how to switch over to Beta, they're on their own. If they can't handle the ''shock'' of encountering bugs in the game in general, then they should probably piss off back to Candy Crush or wherever the hell they came from @@

[Tippis]

1 hour ago, Mars Exulte said:

I have a suggestion for everyone: why don't you quit armchair developing and let the professionals do their job the way they want to? They don't need this kind of input, and literally no matter how they do things, there are pros and cons and people are going to bitch incessantly regardless.

Conversely, they're professionals and don't need to be protected against the nasty ebil customers who say naughty mean things about the product they're buying.

 

If there's anything they do need, it is the input from those customers as to what would make a large transition like this go more smoothly. Any issues identified now are issues that can be forestalled and resolved rather than being a huge problem later. This has been demonstrated time and time again, and coming out guns blazing in being thoroughly toxic towards those customers because they are giving ED free advice is a very very very very… ehrm… silly thing to do.

Edited March 5, 2021 by Tippis

[Mars Exulte]

Feedback on features etc is one thing, spitballing how to run the company is no more reasonable than standing over your mechanic's shoulder telling him what to do on your car, and is about as welcome.

 

Besides which, every two weeks somebody comes up with ''advice'' over the *insert concern* that is practically a never ending seesaw. Remember when we went from infrequent patches, to weekly patches, then back to infrequent patches, each shift driven by community rabblerousing? Pepperidge Farms remembers.

 

It's not about ebil customers or white knighting ED. The whole scenario is ridiculous. It's like the guys that get the Nvidia newsletter and rush to forums to request the features they saw in the brochure that are virtually guaranteed to provide a 9000% increase in performance and ED would never think to do it if they didn't bring it to their attention... cause... they don't get the newsletter, too, or something, I guess.