Alpha 3.0 Production Schedule (updated 21st October)

1356730

Comments

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,778
    edited April 15
    rpmcmurphy said:
    Maybe not in those exact words but it was stated that 3.0 would be coming before the 19th of December as end-of-year content
    ...it wasn't, that was only your widely unsubstantial assumption.

    No need to go through this again.
    Post edited by Gdemami on
  • VrikaVrika FinlandMember RarePosts: 4,135

    Erillion said:



    Vrika said:








    Wasn't 3.0 supposed to go live last year? 'Cos well, if all they have now is the schedule for it, what was done about 3.0 all this time?






    Yes, they planned it to go live in 2016.

    They've been trying to reach live status all the time. The problem is that either they really suck at estimating the work needed, or they really suck at completing that work. I hope it's the former and not the latter.




    Or they ran into some problems ... which incidently they DID communicate to everyone that wanted to listen. That caused the delay.

    Their biggest bones to chew at the moment are the NSC AI  and network performance.

    More detailed information can be found in the monthly studio reports.


    I think we're talking about the same thing. They ran into problems with NSC AI and network performance because they had either failed to estimate the work needed, or failed to complete that work.

    They've failed so often and so hard that it's not normal problems with this kind of game development. It's because someone responsible for running the project sucks.
     
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Figueira da FozMember EpicPosts: 4,119
    edited April 15
    Some of the bits interesting to me that are more set to change how stuff plays on the PU is the higher level of persistence.

    The first iteration of insurance on 3.0 should already drive more play loop, especially if replacements take some time to be given. Then things as persistent damage, ammo, and missiles between game sessions also help to add more consequence and make peeps play it more seriously.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • kikoodutroa8kikoodutroa8 grenobleMember UncommonPosts: 319

    Gdemami said:

    rpmcmurphy said:
    Maybe not in those exact words but it was stated that 3.0 would be coming before the 19th of December as end-of-year content
    ...it wasn't, that was only your widely unsubstantial assumption.

    No need to go through this again.


    To be fair, CIG's communication could use some improvement cos I remember backers in various forums discussing how awesome it was that 3.0 was going live before 2017, and how full of new features it was going to be.
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Figueira da FozMember EpicPosts: 4,119
    edited April 15



    To be fair, CIG's communication could use some improvement cos I remember backers in various forums discussing how awesome it was that 3.0 was going live before 2017, and how full of new features it was going to be.



    This thread shows exactly CIG's communication improvement on this. By openly reporting the next update production reports now on a weekly basis instead of giving random dates at game conferences and then silence. Now we know what to expect, how it is progressing, when/if it delays and when to expect it.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 10,778
    edited April 15
    kikoodutroa8 said:
    To be fair, CIG's communication could use some improvement cos I remember backers in various forums discussing how awesome it was that 3.0 was going live before 2017, and how full of new features it was going to be.



    You can't stop anyone from filling the gaps with wishfull/ill thinking.

    Blind praise is as annoying and rigid as constant bashing on the game....
    Post edited by Gdemami on
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus BaatorMember RarePosts: 2,003

    Erillion said:



    Asm0deus said:


    Here's an update on the CIG forums.... now a twitter like clusterfuck....the only thing good about it is the middle finger emoji.




    Here is an update on @Asm0deus post -

    he is presenting his own personal opinion as "the universal one and only truth".

    Everyone - feel free to check it out yourself
    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/


    Have fun


    Actually the only fact I was bringing was that Recktum replaced the forums.  You seem overly sensitive about this old chap...

    Indeed the rest is just my opinion about it which if you actually hang in the CIG FORUMS you would know many many many people are not happy about the change.

    Some people, like Third, had to complain a whole bunch just to get more "boards" added like the hardware and simpit section.

    A few threads showing what I mean about Recktum not being universally loved:

    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/what-is-this

    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/5/thread/this-is-crap

    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/5/thread/spectrum-is-disorganized-incentivises-garbage-chat

    Have fun!



    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Figueira da FozMember EpicPosts: 4,119
    edited April 15
    Asm0deus said:





    Actually the only fact I was bringing was that Recktum replaced the forums.  You seem overly sensitive about this old chap...

    Have fun!
    Many salts... 

    You remind me of those people that when  Youtube/Facebook/Twitter change anything on your layout they come out as a mob of angry people, some time after it's like it never happened. Some people just don't like changes lol

    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • Asm0deusAsm0deus BaatorMember RarePosts: 2,003

    MaxBacon said:



    Asm0deus said:


    Actually the only fact I was bringing was that Recktum replaced the forums.  You seem overly sensitive about this old chap...

    Have fun!

    Many salts... Your opinion does not become fact just because you do not like it, like anything is ever going to please everyone lol


    Indeed and the salt was a couple people here not liking that I don't like Recktum, I never said my dislike was some universal truth.

    I will repeat again for the really slow slow chaps, the forums was replaced by Recktum that is a fact, and the only one in my post. 

    The rest was simply my opinion and I never claimed otherwise so you and Errillion need to stop crying.

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Figueira da FozMember EpicPosts: 4,119
    edited April 15



    Asm0deus said:



    Indeed and the salt was a couple people here not liking that I don't like Recktum, I never said my dislike was some universal truth.
    There are people who are bound to dislike it, the same way some hate Discord, and others hate forums like this.

    I think it's too much over something superficial, Spectrum functionality is good, from the feedback I've read the issues are rather minor, mostly about the layout, organization, and quality of life improvements.

    Allowing stronger user customization of the app would be the best bet I'd say.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy DublinMember EpicPosts: 2,514
    edited April 15
    Gdemami said:...it wasn't, that was only your widely unsubstantial assumption.

    No need to go through this again.


    Not at all. Here's a transcript of what he said at Gamescom
    So it's our big end of the year release. So err you know, we're going to get it out end of the year...hopefully not on December 19th but like last year, but it is a big one so you know, so we're not making... I get shot for making promises but that's our goal.

    If you want to hear him say it yourself then skip to 24 minutes 14 seconds.



    Post edited by rpmcmurphy on
  • MinscMinsc Burford, ONMember UncommonPosts: 1,325
    edited April 15




    Gdemami said:...it wasn't, that was only your widely unsubstantial assumption.

    No need to go through this again.




    Not at all. Here's a transcript of what he said at Gamescom
    So it's our big end of the year release. So err you know, we're going to get it out end of the year...hopefully not on December 19th but like last year, but it is a big one so you know, so we're not making... I get shot for making promises but that's our goal.

    If you want to hear him say it yourself then skip to 24 minutes 14 seconds.








    You just literally quoted him saying it is not a promise but a goal. How did you translate that into a promise?
    Post edited by Minsc on
  • rpmcmurphyrpmcmurphy DublinMember EpicPosts: 2,514

    Minsc said:
    You just literally quoted him saying it is not a promise but a goal. How did you translate that into a promise?


    Did you miss the bit where I explicitly stated is wasn't a literal promise?

    Here's what I originally said

    "Maybe not in those exact words but it was stated that 3.0 would be
    coming before the 19th of December as end-of-year content and that they
    didn't want a repeat of 2015 where they were working to the last mnute
    to push the patch out.
    So it wasn't literally promised but the wording and context implied it was as good as promised."
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Chicago, ILMember EpicPosts: 5,747
    I notice everything they work on is first stated as being tentative, which gives instant deniability.  They stated the game won't be complete at launch and may only have minimum features.  The only thing which has a set date is S42 year of launch which has been moved back for the last three years.  

    "Change is the only constant."

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Figueira da FozMember EpicPosts: 4,119
    edited April 15




    I notice everything they work on is first stated as being tentative, which gives instant deniability.  They stated the game won't be complete at launch and may only have minimum features.  The only thing which has a set date is S42 year of launch which has been moved back for the last three years.  




    We all know why though... if they don't add the disclaimer at this point, some people will crucify them in the case of failure (feature didn't make it to the release, delays, etc...), they did learn that the hard way.

    I don't see that as a bad thing, especially when it comes to share internal schedules that by nature rely on the prediction of how much time will something take to create.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • coretex666coretex666 PragueMember RarePosts: 3,209
    Sounds good. 

    Can someone advice me on which "X.X" version of the game will be the full release? I mean does this indicate how far from release the game is? Am quite interested in how the final product will look like.
  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Figueira da FozMember EpicPosts: 4,119
    edited April 15




    Can someone advice me on which "X.X" version of the game will be the full release? I mean does this indicate how far from release the game is? Am quite interested in how the final product will look like.


    This does not indicate how close or far the release is. Before release, the Alpha will turn into beta, so we might have like now Alpha 1/2/3 and then Beta 1/2/3, until release that will be the proper "1.0".

    As for how the final game looks like, once 3.0 and a few professions are around would be the moment to try out the game as it would have some extent of the gameplay loop the game was always described as, the AI/Missions driving the game-world and its economy.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • VrikaVrika FinlandMember RarePosts: 4,135
    edited April 15




    Sounds good. 

    Can someone advice me on which "X.X" version of the game will be the full release? I mean does this indicate how far from release the game is? Am quite interested in how the final product will look like.




    It's not decided yet. The features of patches aren't locked down, but rather they move things up and down between future patches based on how they progress, and what they feel is best to include in next patch.

    Also it's likely that full release will be determined by whenever they need to get the money made by full release in order to continue funding their studio, rather than by how far along they're making the game.

    In that situation there's no meaningful way to tell which X.X version of the game will be full release.
    Post edited by Vrika on
     
  • TalulaRoseTalulaRose Long Island, NYMember RarePosts: 984
    How long has it been and they delivered a schedule and the cash shop.........
    How many new ship sales did it take for this to happen?
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Chicago, ILMember EpicPosts: 5,747
    This is pretty much the only schedule I would need from alpha to launch.
    Image result for you are here timeline

    "Change is the only constant."

  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Figueira da FozMember EpicPosts: 4,119
    edited April 15


    This is pretty much the only schedule I would need from alpha to launch.

    That would be just fine for a small project. 

    There's just no way they could do something that simple and straight forward on the scale and complexity of a game like this. Not on the long-term prediction.

    Those who did have one thing in common, the long-term reality vs the long-term schedule were two different things, and this is why delays swarm the industry from small indies to AAA titles.
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemMember RarePosts: 1,909
    edited April 15




    This is pretty much the only schedule I would need from alpha to launch.
    Image result for you are here timeline




    Too linear and too much accountability. Needs more colors, words, lines and vagueness so cult members can fill in the blanks.
    Post edited by FlyByKnight on
  • Viper482Viper482 Somewhere, FLMember RarePosts: 1,655


    Sounds good. 

    Can someone advice me on which "X.X" version of the game will be the full release? I mean does this indicate how far from release the game is? Am quite interested in how the final product will look like.


    I'd say at this rate.....about 2036. Give or take a decade or two.
  • HeraseHerase LondonMember RarePosts: 878
    Think whatever chart they show you guys would find a problem with it. It's too little info, it's too much info, it doesn't show the exact length in time they went to the toilet for, they must be hiding something. 

    The cycle goes on I guess


  • MaxBaconMaxBacon Figueira da FozMember EpicPosts: 4,119
    edited April 15
    Too linear and too much accountability. Needs more colors, words, lines and vagueness so cult members can fill in the blanks.
    First, the whining is "no open development they don't share things!"

    Now they did open up their production internals for 3.0 and a year of development scheduled on Core tech, FPS, Gameplay, AI, UI, Graphics, Weapons, Ships, Environments and backend services... Let's whine about that as well!

    .... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
    Post edited by MaxBacon on
Sign In or Register to comment.