RWG Just When you think it can't get any worse

[khzmusik]

Yeah, and? There's a few of us floating around in here.

 

As for the rest, there's no way Trader changes would be mixed in with RWG changes aside from the .xml config stuff which is minor. Why? Because that is core and used in both RWG and Navezgane.

 

For the record, the "I'm a developer" comment was just to show that I knew at least a little bit about what I spoke. Nothing more.

 

Also, if you truly think that the RWG is mainly just the XML stuff, then you can just revert it yourself. Take the A16 rwgmixer.xml file and copy-and-paste it to the A17 rwgmixer.xml file.

 

Think you'd have a playable game this way? Think TFP should have released it to the public this way?

 

Probably not - because RWG isn't just about biomes or XML or other "minor" changes, it's about how every other part of the game interacts with it. Like generating the POIs necessary for trader quests - and that's just off the top of my head, a TFP dev could probably give a hundred other examples.

 

...and now I'm going to stop posting here for the night, obviously I'm getting too argumentative.

[The Gronk]

My fear isn't that RWG will always look terrible, that's preposterous, it's still being worked on so it logically follows that the generation algorithm will improve.

 

My main fear is that the underlying system isn't very scalable. From what I can tell the size of the generated map on the disk will be directly proportional to the size of the map in the game. Bigger map, more disk space, longer to download the data from the server. What you're gaining in loading speed you're losing in system resources elsewhere.

 

It doesn't need to be that way, it wasn't that way. If I remember correctly a floating origin was implemented to allow for larger maps but then that work was largely wasted because you can't generate a map big enough to use it.

 

I'm failing to see how pre-generating an entire map will make it look any better than one generated on-the-fly. Certain things like rivers will be easier with a pre-generated system but that wouldn't be impossible if generated at runtime, just a bit harder to implement.

 

Let's face it, the current terrain system is basically a voxel engine with a terrain smoothing algorithm layered on top and static objects such as trees placed around. When all is said and done it's all just metre square blocks underneath and always has been.

[Ranzera]

Nobody is asking you to do anything. Opting in to 17.2 must be manually done and is completely up to you. Complaining about unfinished features in that experimental build that nobody forced you to download is really beyond the pale. The only reason you think the development patterns are unorthodox is because your obvious expectation is that "Early Access" and "Experimental Branch" are not real terms that have actual meaning.

 

They do and TFP fully embraces those definitions.

 

The game has not gone public as a published product. It is in development. The warnings on the store page make it clear that you are playing an early build of an unfinished game. If your experience with other early access titles has led you to believe that early access doesn't really mean "still under construction" and so you have erroneous expectations about what is going on around here I'm sorry. Reassess and decide if you want to continue experiencing the development process or wait until the game is finished. I just started playing a game that left early access late last year and am enjoying it. This is a viable strategy for enjoying games.

 

A17.2 is in the experimental branch. Opt in and experience it at your entertainment peril. The experimental branch is for those willing to test those areas requested by the developers. If you want to download it and try and play a long term game that's fine but there is no need for chastising and ranting against the development practices of TFP. I tried the experimental branch of Space Engineers when they were working on their planets and I tried the experimental branch of Empyrion at one point. They were as expected quite buggy and in the case of Space Engineers I immediately reverted to the stable branch as I found the planets unplayable for me. I bet there are other examples of other studios using an experimental branch that is strictly voluntary as TFP has done. I bet it is pretty established actually...

 

You are really good at making incorrect assumptions about people. Like rock star level.

 

I don't care what label you put on your game's life cycle stages. There is a software development cycle. Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing (in your model this would be experimental releases) -> Release. Every one of those testing cycles has an option arrow back to development for bugs found. You go through that process in that order or you are doing it WRONG.

 

Your own dev told you that a feature was not ready for QA testing, because it had not passed HIS testing. You short circuited not 1 but 2 layers of testing before you hit UAT. And you're on here having a conniption fit while getting basic industry terminology wrong.

 

Then you get upset and throwing condescending sounding posts about how everyone else doesn't get it. No, YOU don't get it. If this is how the company runs, then the company runs incorrectly and you've laid bare as to why ♥♥♥♥ takes so long to do. You can't get your testing done right because you don't have a coherent development path.

 

But please, tell me again how I don't get it because I don't understand what you mean by Early Access. Surely you'll be more correct next time *roll eyes*

[Royal Deluxe]

There is a software development cycle. Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version-> -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version -> Development -> Dev Testing -> QA Testing -> UAT Testing -> Release. next Build or version

 

Fixed that for you

[Ranzera]

During the a17 dev process, you very same people were asking for access to the process no matter how broken... Now you have it and you complain.

 

Venn Diagrams bro.

 

Honestly, only morons would listen to a user request like that. TFP didn't do that (thankfully).

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

For the record, the "I'm a developer" comment was just to show that I knew at least a little bit about what I spoke. Nothing more.

 

Also, if you truly think that the RWG is mainly just the XML stuff, then you can just revert it yourself. Take the A16 rwgmixer.xml file and copy-and-paste it to the A17 rwgmixer.xml file.

 

Think you'd have a playable game this way? Think TFP should have released it to the public this way?

 

Probably not - because RWG isn't just about biomes or XML or other "minor" changes, it's about how every other part of the game interacts with it. Like generating the POIs necessary for trader quests - and that's just off the top of my head, a TFP dev could probably give a hundred other examples.

 

...and now I'm going to stop posting here for the night, obviously I'm getting too argumentative.

 

I said the Trader stuff that could be packaged with RWG changes would be .xml stuff at most. I'll let the rest of your incorrect tangent rest on its own.

[JaxTeller718]

 

A17.2 is in the experimental branch. Opt in and experience it at your entertainment peril. The experimental branch is for those willing to test those areas requested by the developers.

 

Sounds good. So where is this list of areas that the developers would like us to focus on. We have a Trello for our mod, where each update we list specific areas we want our testers to hit and focus on. Id love to get in on focused testing.

[Ranzera]

Fixed that for you

 

Well yeah, but I did cover that in the following sentence..

[OzHawkeye]

But please, tell me again how I don't get it because I don't understand what you mean by Early Access. Surely you'll be more correct next time *roll eyes*

 

Is A17.2 RWG borked? Hells yes!

 

Are A17.2 RWG maps enjoyable? Hells no! Unless you get VERY lucky on the seed.

 

Did TFP put a gun to your head and force you to play A17.2?

 

I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

[Ranzera]

Did TFP put a gun to your head and force you to play A17.2?

 

This isn't about that, but thanks for playing.

[The Gronk]

Did TFP put a gun to your head and force you to play A17.2?

 

Given the HAARP arrays generated by the non-experimental version they may not have put a gun to my head but it certainly made a game of Russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol seem like a good idea :-)

[OzHawkeye]

This isn't about that, but thanks for playing.

 

Yes it is. All your complaining is based on somehow treating A17.2 like it was a stable version of the game released, in your very own words "to the public".

 

It was made publicly available to those willing to test it out by opting in to it. If that difference is simply one you cannot see, or do not care about, then get ready to be disappointed a lot, because its one that the Pimps and many other developers, including many games in my own library, see a really big difference in.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Given the HAARP arrays generated by the non-experimental version they may not have put a gun to my head but it certainly made a game of Russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol seem like a good idea :-)

 

No doubt - generating a map in A17.2 RWG and not inspecting it right now is like playing Russion roulette. Odds are you'll get a terrible map!

 

And since the whole reason I like playing RWG is precisely to not know whats over the next hill, I don't preview maps before I play them, and since doing that right now is a recipe for an unejoyable game, I'm not playing A17.2 - at all.

 

I don't have an issue with someone saying A17.2 RWG is terrible (even if I didn't agree with them, though in this case I do), it's when people demand TFP not release an experimental build until all major systems are in a hunky dory state that I get puzzled by their attitude.

[Royal Deluxe]

And since the whole reason I like playing RWG is precisely to not know whats over the next hill, I don't preview maps before I play them, and since doing that right now is a recipe for an unejoyable game, I'm not playing A17.2 - at all.

 

Open the steam seed thread

Choose a seed of the 1 Post without looking on the picture

 

Tadaaaa

 

I help

perfectworld = Prefab.xml = 343 Kb

gimme good map = Prefab.xml = 284 Kb

A17 2 3 = Prefab.xml = 273 Kb

1902102 = prefab.xml = 252 Kb

Apachi = prefab.xml = 219 Kb

trybigger = prefab.xml = 212 Kb

 

Or you mean you are a masochist

Island = prefab.xml = 7 Kb

[OzHawkeye]

Open the steam seed thread

Choose a seed of the 1 Post without looking on the picture

 

Tadaaaa

 

I help

perfectworld = Prefab.xml = 343 Kb

gimme good map = Prefab.xml = 284 Kb

A17 2 3 = Prefab.xml = 273 Kb

1902102 = prefab.xml = 252 Kb

Apachi = prefab.xml = 219 Kb

trybigger = prefab.xml = 212 Kb

 

Or you mean you are a masochist

Island = prefab.xml = 7 Kb

 

I suffer from a particular form of OCD in this regard - hehe.

 

I don't like using other peoples seeds, because then, even if I don't know the exact poi's in the map, I still know the general map layout, or that it's "a really great map" in one way or another, and even that detracts from the "exploration of the unknown" feel I like.

 

What I like to do is pick a seed name, generate the map, and start playing without the slightest clue of what I may (or may not) find. In A17.2 that'd be a recipe to a likely very unenjoyable game, which is why I'm happy to sit back and wait for RWG to get fixed and give some attention to some of the other titles in my library that gather dust, unloved and unplayed... hehe.

[Roland]

Sounds good. So where is this list of areas that the developers would like us to focus on. We have a Trello for our mod, where each update we list specific areas we want our testers to hit and focus on. Id love to get in on focused testing.

 

It’s not hard to find. Just go to the A17.2b20 experimental thread in news and announcements and read everything listed by Richard until you get to known issues and then stop. Anything in that list is fair game to test and report if it isn’t working properly. You’ll have to give up A16.4 and opt in to A17.2 manually in order to do that focused testing. Oh, and I highly recommend doing the testing in Navezgane(same as the internal testers btw).

 

Thanks in advance.

[Roland]

You are really good at making incorrect assumptions about people. Like rock star level....

 

<sigh>

 

Heheheh....We goofed folks. RWG is broke and we pushed it out to you anyway. I’m sure we’ll be back on track for A17.3. Let’s have a chuckle, now.

 

#justforyou.

[stasis78]

<sigh>

 

Heheheh....We goofed folks. RWG is broke and we pushed it out to you anyway. I’m sure we’ll be back on track for A17.3. Let’s have a chuckle, now.

 

#justforyou.

 

Lol

 

This is definitely going in to Roland’s Breakfast list now!

[Aldranon]

When it will be possible to generate maps like this one on purpose, I know that I will do a test. It's a real survival map, in a vast and empty world. The current concern is that it's difficult to find a map that fit exactly to our taste, but all maps are playable.

 

Oh. My. GOD sir! What an amazing idea! That could change gaming forever, in a wonderful way!

 

 

Map Options:

 

1) Predominate biome, Organic or random.

2) POI dispersal (urban, rural, or metropolis)

3) Devastation level (Percent of destroyed buildings)

4) Initial zombie level and initial population.

5) NPC level and if factions are present.

 

 

6) Factions

-Set number of factions (three would be interesting), zero or random.

-Percent of map controlled by factions.

-Aggressiveness of factions.

 

 

 

Ok I'll stop here as a wall is forming.

 

But another great idea Hek.

[JaxTeller718]

It’s not hard to find. Just go to the A17.2b20 experimental thread in news and announcements and read everything listed by Richard until you get to known issues and then stop. Anything in that list is fair game to test and report if it isn’t working properly. You’ll have to give up A16.4 and opt in to A17.2 manually in order to do that focused testing. Oh, and I highly recommend doing the testing in Navezgane(same as the internal testers btw).

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Nice assumption. Im on 17.1.

[Roland]

Nice assumption. Im on 17.1.

 

Sorry if I missed that announcement. Last I remembered you claimed you were playing A16.4 so as not to send the wrong message to the devs. So not so much an assumption as a missed post. Apologies.

 

But regardless, you can get started on focused testing now. 👍

[JaxTeller718]

Sorry if I missed that announcement. Last I remembered you claimed you were playing A16.4 so as not to send the wrong message to the devs. So not so much an assumption as a missed post. Apologies.

 

But regardless, you can get started on focused testing now.

 

No harm, no foul. It was posted on my Facebook, but I don't think we have a connection there yet

[Skydog]

I've read through this thread and others about 17.2 exp RWG issues. And I'm left scratching my head as I'm a bit confused. Hopefully someone can tell me if this is correct:

 

1: RWG in 17.2 (experimental) is pretty borked.

2: 17.2 experimental was knowingly released with the borked RWG.

3: If you don't like that then play 17.1 or past versions of 17 or even 16.

 

Okay all that is fair enough. It is an alpha game and the experimental branch is exactly that, experimental. There will be issues.

 

Where I am confused is... when 17.2 goes from experimental branch to stable branch will the RWG be in it's current state or vastly improved over the current state? Some comments seemed to suggest it won't be 'improved' until 17.3.

[OzHawkeye]

I've read through this thread and others about 17.2 exp RWG issues. And I'm left scratching my head as I'm a bit confused. Hopefully someone can tell me if this is correct:

 

1: RWG in 17.2 (experimental) is pretty borked.

2: 17.2 experimental was knowingly released with the borked RWG.

3: If you don't like that then play 17.1 or past versions of 17 or even 16.

 

Okay all that is fair enough. It is an alpha game and the experimental branch is exactly that, experimental. There will be issues.

 

Where I am confused is... when 17.2 goes from experimental branch to stable branch will the RWG be in it's current state or vastly improved over the current state? Some comments seemed to suggest it won't be 'improved' until 17.3.

 

I would certainly hope RWG would be substantially better before A17.2 was declared stable.

[OzHawkeye]

Really ?

i love the last map i played

 

As a test, I checked this map out - more than half the POI's were radio towers. A good number of POI's to be sure, but not sure I'd rate this as "enjoyable" just yet - hehe.

[Royal Deluxe]

As a test, I checked this map out - more than half the POI's were radio towers. A good number of POI's to be sure, but not sure I'd rate this as "enjoyable" just yet - hehe.

 

Well sure

- Only 3 trader

- Tons of radio towers

- Too much green for my taste

+ over 3000 POIs so no matter if 300 are radio towers (must be on Cuba)

+ Straight streets

+ Even ground

+ Not too much wasteland

[DaVegaNL]

All arguments about publishing/developing/Alpha/Gamma/Beta aside;

 

I think the current system in the current latest_unstable version should not have been included in this unstable version. Yeah, I know, we are supposed to test for bugs, yada yada, but the current RGW is clearly a broken WIP. So why include it?