Ludeon Forums

Pursuant to the blog post (https://ludeon.com/blog/2017/02/progress-update-on-alpha-17/), do you think we should release Alpha 17 as a refinements-only build? Or, should we complete our refinements, then add a new batch of content, then release?

The advantages of releasing refinements only is that you get all those refinements faster.
The disadvantage is that it'll break mod compatibility, and the release itself will consume some developer time, slowing long-term progress slightly.

The advantage of waiting is that we break compatibility less, and avoid the chaos/time consumption that an update brings.
The disadvantage is that the bugs/imbalances of A16 stay public for longer.

I don't consider this a binding poll or anything, I just want to get the community's general thoughts.

Thanks all.

I think waiting the extra amount of time is a better idea personally i mean just look what you guys produced last update and that took quite a while. quality over quantity!

I personally would be glad about a quick update, because the current disease/medical system takes a lot of fun.
Imho.

While just bug fixes and such is very tempting I think I'd enjoy an update with new content as well, even if it'll take longer.

I don't really mind one way or the other, but releasing Alpha 17 early would mean we would get used to the reworks  before any large features get added on top of that.

I think you should do it in 1 update because it would as you have said break mod compatibility.  I personally have 200 mods and waiting for them all to update would mean a very long wait indeed.
Or that you could add in the option to stay on the currect version of the game through the "betas" feature for at least a few weeks while mods are updated and release it in 2 updates.

Do I want things now or later? Yes :)

But seriously, if you're at a point where saves are still reasonably compatible, I'd rather have an "A16 1/2" now than a more content-full A17 next month. A16 gave us a ton of new content to explore, and I could happily spend quite a while longer exploring it provided fixes for the biggest issues hampering the experience.

in terms of mod compatibility, why dont give out a beta version or something so every modder can prepare their mods and ppl test the new stuff while knowing that the mods will break ???

btw atm moving a base to a different location is a big pain  :-\

New "Alpha" without new features feels kind of wrong for me. I would prefer to wait some more to get them.

P.S.: I dont use any mods, so they are not an argument for me.

I love vanilla Rimworld; however, in my opinion, mods make this game 10x better. I think it would be best to wait til you have new content so those of us that enjoy the mods can keep playing with them longer, and mod creators have more time to work on their content as well.

Quote from: Tynan on February 08, 2017, 01:05:49 PM
Pursuant to the blog post (https://ludeon.com/blog/2017/02/progress-update-on-alpha-17/), do you think we should release Alpha 17 as a refinements-only build? Or, should we complete our refinements, then add a new batch of content, then release?

Why not push out just the bug fixes with some kind of sensible semantic versioning system (http://semver.org/) to indicate it as such?  Save the big numbers for content updates that are expected/encouraged to break stuff, and call it 16.1.0 instead. 

The mods that break from that (most likely because they're already fixing the issues, e.g. Less Arbitrary Surgery) can put a [16.1] in their title, and the mods that don't break don't have to care.

I don't understand: release faster to break mods more AND have fewer new features ? What's the advantage ? Better performance ? I run 1x speed most of the time, and I have an ancient Core2 Duo E6750. It works fine.

Now if you said that you fixed several annoying colonist behaviors like:
- colonist coming from mining site / growing zone empty-handed
- colonist automatically cleaning hospital before operating
- colonists avoiding jobs in rooms that would disturb sleep
- sunlamp automatically turned off at night
- leftovers from deconstruction are hauled away from ALL nearby wall squares before construction is started
- colonists going to remote construction site empty-handed instead of with new batch of materials
- zero warning (not even barking dogs!) when there's a predator coming
- colonists prefering raw food over nutrient paste (it seems to occur when there are several going for paste at the time ? Or just distance ? Makes playing "no sowing plants in the ground" all but impossible)

Then it would make me MUCH more comfortable about running 2x speed, and I would push for releasing as soon as possible. As for serious balance issues, I'm aware of only one that will certainly be fixed: smokeleaf joints, and I don't feel obligated to make them.

For me your "poll" is too vague to make an informed suggestion.

Personally I feel you have the branching system in steam, release it as a different branch, if steam mods want to update they can, DRM free people can handle this in many ways so i doubt it would effect us in any way.

I am undecided as well.

I voted for an early release, because I think bug-fixes and performance enhancing is good.
I don't know why but my system slows down alot when it starts raining in game.

Also my guess would be that technical issues brake the save-games harder and are a bigger headache
for modders than content updates are.

Get the technical update out beforehand, so the transition for the new content can be smoother.
Complaints will be less, if people have to wait longer for mods because you broke their favorite exploit, than complaints about having to wait on technical issues for the mods while not getting the new content and the mods.

I can't quite remeber was it a13 to a14 or  a14 to a15 that had this issue and the forums went for the torches and pitchforks ?

I vote on waiting for a bigger release that includes Refinements and Content.

But considering what many have said above, i also feel like letting the players and testers get used to the new refinements could help with testing and feedback for the new content.

As such I recommend releasing the Refinement update as an opt-in Beta that those who want to play it can access freely and use for a Vanilla experience, and the Content/ Refinement Update later down the line as Alpha 17.

That would also make the wait for a new Patch more bearable. ^^

Thank you for the thoughts so far everyone!

I just wanted to address one thing that's a bit off-topic, but whatever.

Quote from: b0rsuk on February 08, 2017, 01:38:59 PM
- colonist coming from mining site / growing zone empty-handed
- colonist automatically cleaning hospital before operating
- colonists avoiding jobs in rooms that would disturb sleep
- sunlamp automatically turned off at night
- leftovers from deconstruction are hauled away from ALL nearby wall squares before construction is started
- colonists going to remote construction site empty-handed instead of with new batch of materials
- zero warning (not even barking dogs!) when there's a predator coming
- colonists prefering raw food over nutrient paste (it seems to occur when there are several going for paste at the time ? Or just distance ? Makes playing "no sowing plants in the ground" all but impossible)

This isn't an open suggestions thread, but just to note why none of these are changing. There are two main reasons.

1. They're defeated by balance. All of these are things that are essentially of the form, "add AI complexity to make AI perform more optimally and make the game easier". But, if we do that, we'll just have to make the game harder in other ways to maintain the same balance point. e.g. colonists automatically turned off at night? Well, now we just double the sunlamp power consumption to maintain the same balance. Ultimately we end up in the same place, with a bunch of new AI complexity and a bunch of new problems.

2. Any solution creates new problems which are often worse than the original issue. Of course it's easy to say something like, "colonist automatically cleaning hospital before operating". But if we do that, people will soon get pissed off because the patient died while the surgeon was busy cleaning the hospital instead of performing the damn operation. And now we have to add in some sort of player override control, or AI decision making, that can decide when to clean or not clean, and so on and so on. It's an endless regress of AI needing to solve the problems that the last solution created.

The same goes for something like, "sunlamp automatically turned off at night". By whom? When, exactly? What if you don't want it off? How far should they walk to turn it off, and can you control that? What does the UI for configuring all this look like, and what new problems will that create?

We can ask the same battery of questions about almost all these notions.

RW's approach to AI is to set up simple mechanistic rules that the AI follow, let them be suboptimal, and balance the game against those suboptimalities. I've seen other developers try to solve every tiny problem and it's just an endless cycle of problem creation and solving, with complexity increasing the whole time. And ultimately it's pointless, since all those optimalities just get balanced out per point 1.

The one main argument about these kinds of solutions is that they eliminate the incentive for micromanagement by "doing the micro for you". But, there is a point beyond which the downsides of trying to do this outweigh the advantages. Any game like RW is going to have places where players can micro-manage to get micro-benefits. Like many inherent problems in complex systems, this isn't something that can be totally eliminated without the cure itself destroying the whole system. All we can do is try to find an optimal balance where we keep the problem manageably small while also avoiding the huge costs of being too militant in trying to solve it.

I would be really open to specific suggestions about changes to make (in another thread in the suggestions forum) - but it's a lot more helpful to say *exactly* what changes you want. Remember the AI isn't people, it needs to have specific razor-sharp rules for every situation; it can't make intuitive decisions and doesn't understand anything about what's going on. It would be great to try to think through exactly what you want, and what problems that would or would not create, and present the solution instead of just the problem. Then you'll really be engaging in the design process! (and again, please do not make suggestions in this thread, they'll get removed as off-topic).

I'm a new player, but I think making one bigger bugfix+feature patch is more fun! Thanks for the great game so far.

I voted to wait but that's only because I want to selfishly wrap up my modded series before the next alpha. :)

I'd rather wait for a larger more dynamic update. I find they make for a greater impact when they come at you and add greatly to replay than smaller, less obvious tweaks. Except of course when boomrats were reskinned. Blew my mind, small, deadly, but now you can tell.

From my experience as programmer (and modder/player), a fast iteration cycle is usually beneficial for both player and developer.

Players get to play less buggy versions of your game faster and have more time to learn new mechanics without being overwhelmed by other new stuff.

Developers get faster bug reports (which can usually be fixed faster, since the relevant code is still fresh in memory) and continuous feedback that gives early warnings when steering into a wrong direction.

However, it puts more work onto modders as the game (and very likely modding interfaces) also change more often. One can try to give some basic consistency guarantees (like semantic versioning tries to), but even then mods will have to be re-tested and sometimes bug-fixed even for small additions.

There is no "best of all worlds" solution to this problem (sadly!). I really don't envy Tynan for having to choose this :/

If you are close to beta or release, I would recommend a faster bug-fix prioritization.  Those things have a habit of causing unforeseen outcomes or to bring the planning fallacy to the fore, which could then stack on even more from new content and pressure the quality of a later/release build.

However, if that kind of milestone is still a decent ways off, it would make more sense to hold off and do the update later.  Two patches gives more iterative feedback/ability to correct than one, but it's less efficient in pure developing.

Absent that being known I'd lean towards a bigger release later.  I'd love to try to break some new systems, but I want to see this game grow as much as it can long term.

Quote from: hoffmale on February 08, 2017, 02:46:44 PM
From my experience as programmer (and modder/player), a fast iteration cycle is usually beneficial for both player and developer.

Players get to play less buggy versions of your game faster and have more time to learn new mechanics without being overwhelmed by other new stuff.

Developers get faster bug reports (which can usually be fixed faster, since the relevant code is still fresh in memory) and continuous feedback that gives early warnings when steering into a wrong direction.

However, it puts more work onto modders as the game (and very likely modding interfaces) also change more often. One can try to give some basic consistency guarantees (like semantic versioning tries to), but even then mods will have to be re-tested and sometimes bug-fixed even for small additions.

There is no "best of all worlds" solution to this problem (sadly!). I really don't envy Tynan for having to choose this :/

If it really is just some additional content, most mods will have no problem with it. I think spreading out the releases into 17 and 18 will ultimately be better for modders as they will be able to see the optimizations (which really break mods) earlier rather than later, and then updating for content won't be too much of a problem.

I'm indifferent as well. I've worked around some changes like diseases with mods, so I'm fine. Updates are always nice, but it should be done neatly. If you feel like an update needs new stuff, go for it. Whichever your choice is, I know it'll be great. Also, I'm not yet done with my first A16 run and want to do the Sea Ice Community challenge before A17 comes out! DRM-free tho ;)

PS: Have fun in Venezuela!

I am in favor of waiting a longer time, although it is not a strong opinion, because of the mod breaking problem.

I love Rimworld, and I think it gets even better with the incredible modding community, which provides a whole lot more replayability than Ludeon's small team could implement in the same time.

I personally wouldn't have an issue with a purely refinement update to polish up some issues/balance, but I don't see the need to rush to get it out if there's potential for some new content along with all that polishing. The fact you posted an update on A17 should be more than enough to let people know you're still working and not to worry about abandoning it.

New features tend to bring back players who have become bored with the current state of things. Since this game is still in development, you would want the most people possible testing after a new release.

+1 Wait

...and thanks for letting our voices be heard!

I've noticed a lot of new players being discouraged when their colonists are hunted and killed by wild animals.  This could be addressed by simply tagging predators that are hunting humans as manhunters (with the accompanying popup message)...  Because they are hunting people.  Perhaps on higher difficulty levels such as Intense or Extreme, the popup warning could be disabled, for those who like the challenge.

I voted for two updates instead of one, since I like a more polished experience over a one with more features. I'm not a modder but if you're just doing some large scale bugfixing and rebalancing, I feel it shouldn't take the modders as long as it usually does to update their mods. And long wait times might look bad to people who aren't as involed with the game and only wait for Steam to update their game to remind them playing it, I certainly had that experience with other games.

I think branching it off would be ideal, players can get accustomed to the changes. Non-Mod players can use it freely and people who need their mods just stay on the old branch

Quote from: Tynan on February 08, 2017, 01:05:49 PM

The disadvantage is that it'll break mod compatibility, and the release itself will consume some developer time, slowing long-term progress slightly.

The advantage of waiting is that we break compatibility less, and avoid the chaos/time consumption that an update brings.

Ultimately those points make me vote "wait." It would be nice to have the refinement bug and balance fixes sooner, but we're in alpha and that's just the nature of the beast. The game is in a fun and playable place right now and virtually all of the major mods are updated, so I say wait to include more of whatever content you have planned for us to test/enjoy/suffer through in your next update. Cheers

First of all, I really really appreciate the general notion of doing a major balancing and fixing patch. Hopefully this will make another few "mandatory" mods superflous in the long term, similar to your relatively recent inclusion of a colonist bar, for example.

As for when to release next - personally I can wait, since I play heavily modded and would have to wait for the modders to find time to update anyways. I would likely wait out one update anyways if it came next week or so. But, since especially the medical system is a bit wonky right now, I can understand people that play relatively vanilla to want the tuning only update sooner.

I'd love to see a refinement release if it is save-game compatible. That would be amazing, as some of the gamey aspects of a16 (I'm looking at you, medicine) are frustrating in an otherwise complex and deep game.

If there's no save-game compatibility, I'm more on the fence. I'd still like to see optimization, but at the same time I'm quite happy with the game as it is despite some flaws. Setting aside wanderlust and the medical issues, A16 is still a better game than A15 in my book. I am perfectly happy playing it for a few more months waiting for new features to go with the rebalance.

Of course depending on the new features, some aspects of the balancing may be lost as the new features might cause problems.

Thanks as always for your hard work and dedication to the community Tynan!

As someone who's playing the game with 73 active mods I would rather wait a bit longer for a bigger patch. Vanilla Rimworld is cool but it's hard to live without so many of the quality of life mods I use.

Any chance we could know some of the changes already made on Alpha17?

I vote for refinements.  There are a lot of issues that need tending.  Thankfully all the mods I use have very active people behind them so I will use A16 right up til they completed.  Or maybe even jump and not wait for all the mods.  With balance maybe I won't even need some of them anymore.

I will gladly wait a lot longer for A17. If you ever have been playing 7 Days to Die and waiting for their Alpha releases it should be no biggie.

I voted refinements.

With as active of a modding community as Rimworlds, supporting it is important. Longer release cycles allow Tynan to both improve the quality and consistency of what he delivers, and to fill out new features with the content he wants them to have, properly test everything, and allows better mods to develop over the longer release cycle. Everyone wins in the end.

 i think more content it is what this game needs

If it'll help with mod creation and in general, then yeah, wait until you've got more coming along to release it.

I really enjoy mods so I'm all for longer but better mod support

In short, I voted 'wait and release A17 with content'.
I think if the release only has refinements and bugfixes but nothing new, it should not be called A17, rather A16b. But that doesn't seem to be something you're considering, maybe for reasons.

When A17 hits, it will get renewed interest and Youtubers and streamers will pick it up with hype. Viewers will come and will say 'okay, I'm watching, so what's new!??'. Don't want to have to respond with 'Oh, nothing new actually, just bugfixes and balancing'. ~yawn. Expectations would be more appropriate if it's an A16 revision. Every major version has come with some cool title, so without anything new, what could you possibly call it? And how would your (Tyan's) 'Hey look, a new Alpha!' video play out?

I vote release the refinements ASAP. It's an Early Access game, it's meant to be tested, and the mods will be broken eventually anyway.

But barring that, I agree with the previous poster's recommendation that you release a long-term Open Beta with the bugfixes & balance changes so we can individually choose whether to break stuff or not.

I'll second the suggestion of releasing a "16.5" opt in version via Steam's beta patch system.  Then, modders and players who want to play with the changes can choose to do so, while everyone else can keep using the current release without needing to do anything on their end.  This way you get the best of both worlds.

Tynan,

I'm going to challenge your point of letting the AI be sub-optimal for balance reasons.

Because there are places where the AI is not sub-optimal, but just insane. I've lost track of the number of hours I've spent on Please Haul Perishables. It's not a mod to reduce micro, it's a mod to reduce insanity.

Insanity being 'hey, look guys, there's a whole stack of corn over there waiting to be taken to storage, ooh here's two little bits of steel right at my feet, I'll haul those instead' x many iterations because the AI hasn't been told to do anything differently.

How does it even affect balance if corn is hauled away before steel is? I honestly can't think how.

Just try to keep an open mind, that's all I ask.

As for the topic at hand, I voted refinements but you could read that as refinements plus refinements and AI if you like. ;)

From someone that is in IT and works with software updates all the time, make the refinements only update, don't introduce new issues if your goal is to remove old ones. you will have nothing to test against for improvement with out contamination.

First of all, it's incredible how great this game is, especially given that it's developed by just a couple of people.
I voted for an incremental update (16.5)... and yeah  , I'd be fine with it being on the beta tab.  But so many sytems were put in place in v16... I think an update solely based on refinement is fine.  But, I don't use mods, FWIW.

On the subject of AI sub-optimality:
It's jarring for me when the AI makes decisions that seem really bad, so if it's easy to fix them I think it's worthwhile.

I'll just give one example:  If I tell a pawn to go pick up the contents of a crashed cargo pod on the other side of the map, once he gets there he aggregates multiple stacks and carries back what he's capable of , which is great.
But, if the same pawn is loading a launch pod that I'm sending to another colony, he will instead walk over to my corn field where I just harvested corn and take a separate trip for each tiny stack. 
I expect this is an oversight, I'm just giving it as an example.  But, if it were intended to balance launch pods, it would be a bad way to do so because:
1) it's inconsistent (pawns behave smartly when hauling, but less smart when loading)
2) it takes us out of the space of 'being in the game' because the loading is occurring in a way it never would in reality
3) it forces one to be gamist in order to work around it... making sure that everything is hauled from the field before launching the cargo pod.

Ken

Quote from: Jorlem on February 08, 2017, 05:24:06 PM
I'll second the suggestion of releasing a "16.5" opt in version via Steam's beta patch system.  Then, modders and players who want to play with the changes can choose to do so, while everyone else can keep using the current release without needing to do anything on their end.  This way you get the best of both worlds.

This would be perfect I think.  I'm concerned with several forums where I've seen people saying "avoid Rimworld due to bugs and balance" - due to A16 and this can hurt the long term sales and outlook of the game.  I'm a newbie (but quickly racked up 80 hours), and If I wasn't intimately familiar with how amazing the game is supposed to be due to reading fantastic stories, I would have given up in anger because things had been so ridiculous in my Cassandra "some challenge" games.  I lost all sense of fun in some colonies because of bugs and balance.

Release, please. Let the modders sort out their own messes. They are an outspoken, over-represented minority who give themselves constant fan service with bells and whistles that very generally speaking distracts and takes away from the game, which is anything but simple to begin with. The polishing you're talking about doesn't sound sexy, but it does so much more for new gamers and the core experience than a giant buffet of ten thousand and one weapons, animals, quality of life tweaks, and so on. Although maybe if you value your sanity you should not release or come to some kind of half release compromise. Fans are fanatic.

I personally think that refinements first would be nice.

It would be nice to have a release without many bugs...
Adding features would introduce new bugs/problems.

As much as I like hot and raw patches like War Thunder, which seems to update at least once a day even for minor things, I think a feature complete release cycle would be easier on modders as the modding scene is fairly prominent. Constant 1.x.x updates is a nightmare for that.

I prefer to wait.
So many people are putting a lot of effort trying to revive and create so many mods.. If you release now and break a lot of mods, this will end up biting you in the ___s... xD... I mean, seriously... You'll make modders feel their contributions are not appreciated...You can already see what updates like that can do to modder's motivation. Just scroll down through the amount of "abandoned" mods since the initial release.
I do agree with many here on what thing... you could release a beta branch for testers and modders and let the end users keep enjoying the modded experience with the current A16, until A17 is stable enough for the "official" release.
Finally, thank you for asking this to the community, even though you are not giving to much info on what precisely you have fixed now and what to expect... so... yeahh...
I mean.. Ik --- no spoilers policy is a thing, of course....
Anyway, I love your game and the mods that bring to the gamers what's missing and what could be interesting to experience in the game. :)
Danke sehr für Deine kontinuierliche Arbeit zur Rimworld's Verbesserung und Mod-Optimierung ;)

I think that in the same way you can administer luciferium to injured colonists is a bit unfair for people, who would prefer to administer something like psychite (I usually use psychite as a painkiller for my colonists).

I'm going to be honest, but I'll say it anyways:

I don't think the "hundreds of bugfixes" would exactly make for a good A17, to be honest. However, I wouldn't mind if you just called it A16.5 or something like that, to relieve much of the confusion. Don't listen to my vote, and release A17 as a content patch, and reserve an A16.5 or A16.1 update for major bug patches.

For those interested, I have a thread that you guys can read up if you want to see some of the wacky things I've come up with since A15. And it's expandable, so have fun...
https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=26155

I voted to Release Sooner (yay better game!), but that was before I read your post. You make excellent points about the reason to wait. I'm pretty middle-of-the-road, but I'm leaning more to the side of Wait For Moar Content.

PS - I've been keeping the Want to see YOUR mod in RimWorld (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=29505.0) thread nice and clean for ya.

It makes the most sense to wait, since this will break mods less and we can have the refinements and save time and aggravation in the long run.

The bugs and balance have already been around for awhile, they really aren't a major issue, and slowing long-term development is ultimately more harmful. I hear more people saying they don't want to invest in Rimworld because there are too many small updates which is relatively disruptive, than I hear anyone claiming the balance and bugs render the game unplayable (which is not at all). All of my friends who would play Rimworld are avid modders, the less mod compatibility is broken the better as far as attracting new players.

Additionally mods are, especially in a game like this, a source of lifeblood. The more modders are burnt out by their mods constantly being broken by updates, the better, as mods help attract and maintain interest in a game. Hell, I still load up Morrowind and Oblivion for a modded game and those two are ancient, and there's no way I'd do that without mods.

And finally, more development time is always good, so include the refining with the new content, especially so that the game is being refined with the new content in mind. What's the point of fine-tuning everything when the very next update is going to upset it all once more? Do it all at once, and then there is less time wasted.

Quote from: kilgoar on February 08, 2017, 05:47:24 PM
Release, please. Let the modders sort out their own messes. They are an outspoken, over-represented minority who give themselves constant fan service with bells and whistles that very generally speaking distracts and takes away from the game, which is anything but simple to begin with. The polishing you're talking about doesn't sound sexy, but it does so much more for new gamers and the core experience than a giant buffet of ten thousand and one weapons, animals, quality of life tweaks, and so on. Although maybe if you value your sanity you should not release or come to some kind of half release compromise. Fans are fanatic.

I thing that the majority of Rimworld gamers play with mods... calling that a "minority" is completely unrealistic.... and Rimmodders in general are not like you describe them.... well there are some dicks like in every game community, but those are the exception... many modders in these Forums seek a more in-depth game experience or just adding something that can make the experience feel near and complete... and those are the mods I have... so... you should try some cool mods that introduce new worlds in Medieval, Mars, Alien Races, a realistic ammo system (CR), etc and then see what Rimworld can look like :)
Besides, some "quality of life" mods are only the response to extremely annoying bugs and/or erratic AI behavior... so yeah... mods kinda contribute to look for the places the game needs improvement....

How important is content creators coverage for RimWorld? It tends to spikes with the release of every alpha, building up a sort of acquired expectations that there's new content to try out. Thus I think it would be beneficial to have new content to keep up with the tradition so to speak.
And I'm not saying that it's rule that each update should have more content, I'm just arguing that doing so would ultimately give more coverage.

My personal opinion is to work on both as inspiration dictates...however I think that fixes and refinements should take priority over new features for inclusion.

Please for the love of god wait to release new content. New content always adds more bugs and you won't know if something that is broken is because a fix didn't work or the new content screwed it.

Release bug fixes first.

If you release new content and a bug fixes, you cannot determine if the issues are from the new content or the previous content.

It makes no sense to potentially create new bugs while detrimentally affecting your ability to identify and fix them.

My two cents... asking for two patches.

I'm on the fence. I voted for all-in-one, though, because the bugs I've seen aren't really rage-inducing for me, and the ones that would be, somebody's already put out a mod to fix in the meantime. I'm generally in favor of giving modders a longer stretch between alphas to refine/develop mods in progress, and to reduce the frequency of mod-users' frustrations with waiting for their favorites to update.

But in particular, I'd be in favor of whichever method is more helpful for, or less disruptive to, the Harmony/HugsLib/CCL/whatsit integration/collaboration efforts. I mean, I'm not really understanding the technical details, but it sounds like it's going to significantly decrease cross-mod incompatibility problems.

I'm all for releasing bug fixes sooner rather than later- especially if it means a round of Name in the Games getting in  ::)

Getting to remove my own organs when I capture myself with a higher chance of success? Yes please. More features are great, but better working features are where it's at- especially since the content we have is already quite a bit since A16 added so much.

Quote from: Tammabanana on February 08, 2017, 08:28:49 PM
But in particular, I'd be in favor of whichever method is more helpful for, or less disruptive to, the Harmony/HugsLib/CCL/whatsit integration/collaboration efforts. I mean, I'm not really understanding the technical details, but it sounds like it's going to significantly decrease cross-mod incompatibility problems.

Harmony is entirely RimWorld version independent - in fact, it's entirely RimWorld independent, and can be used with other Unity games. So it shouldn't be a big impact for it either way.

I see no reason to avoid finer grain iteration. You'll actually be giving people the choice that you're polling for right now. If people want fixes sooner and don't care about mods, they can update. If people want working mods, they can wait for the next update. By going with finer grain updates, you effectively give your players more choice in the matter. You also get feedback faster.

There will be a subset of mods that will be affected by update 17 but not update 18. Those modders can get to work updating their mods sooner rather than later, so the people who claim they have a ton of mods and would rather wait would actually have to wait *less time* for their mods to port if you go with finer grain updates. This is especially true if you're transparent about what you're changing. That way a modder will know if it's worth the effort to update to Alpha 17 compatibility or if they should hold off because Alpha 18 will require an overhaul.

good things need time.

Personally, I'd prefer to wait for a more comprehensive update rather than quick fix releases. There are Mods out there to circumvent some of the balance issues so its not such a big factor.

Also, it allows us to have more time to enjoy the current state of the game rather than having to keep restarting due to the update breaking saves and mod compatibility.

Yeah no, How about mods don't dictate the update schedule for an Early Access game.

As much as the users with over 100 mods might hate waiting for them to get updated, This game is still early access and this is just part of the package for mods to get broken with each release, you the user know this and so do the mod authors.

I rather we don't hold back game imbalances, bugs, and performance issues being fixed that are going to plague not just mod users, but also the vanilla users for months just because some people can't handle waiting a week or two for mods to get updated. Performance improvements especially can be the difference between playable and unplayable for some users, game play balance only serves for a better experience for everyone and so do bug fixes. Don't hold that further back because you want more stuff.

I would say hold off on an official release, but push to unstable branch with no plan to update other than the most major of bugs until A17 official is ready to come out. That way you can get some feedback, and people with mods that break can continue with A16 as the latest stable release.

I say wait. Having an Alpha be nothing but bug fixes and balancing doesn't seem right.

I know we don't prescribe Alphas to a cycle in contrast to a monthly update process (a la Introversion) so I'm inclined to feel an Alpha should add features and feel like a significant step forward in the game.

That said, performance, especially game balancing, is a feature, IMO. A refined game experience that adds more logic to existing systems (how characters react, relationships, combat, etc.) sounds like an Alpha update to me.

I like the idea of an optimization release.  even if you delay A17 and add even more optimization, that's alright by me.  new content is fun and all, but a solid game is the foundation for everything.
thanks a bunch!

I voted for longer and it is purely a Mod not be broken desire.  The Vanilla game is good, but I find it slightly thin in depth. I.E. I end up burning through the tech tree to fast, not enough joy objects and furniture, and needs a bit more end game.

Don't get me wrong love the game. Just Mods take something that is a solid 8/10 and make it a 10/10 in my book. I was just thinking recently with how much I have been playing when you were going to drop the next alpha and I was going to have to take a forced couple week break to give the modders time to catch up.

But thank you for asking us our opinion and whichever way you go I'll be back regardless.

Quote from: Bullet25 on February 08, 2017, 08:07:52 PM
Please for the love of god wait to release new content. New content always adds more bugs and you won't know if something that is broken is because a fix didn't work or the new content screwed it.

Quote from: tem112 on February 08, 2017, 08:12:51 PM
Release bug fixes first.

If you release new content and a bug fixes, you cannot determine if the issues are from the new content or the previous content.

It makes no sense to potentially create new bugs while detrimentally affecting your ability to identify and fix them.

My two cents... asking for two patches.

Quote from: swizard on February 08, 2017, 05:29:28 PM
From someone that is in IT and works with software updates all the time, make the refinements only update, don't introduce new issues if your goal is to remove old ones. you will have nothing to test against for improvement with out contamination.

I personally was on the fence until I really considered these points.  Release the bug-fixes now before the new content so that you can figure out what went wrong and how you broke things.

Push for the big release, if it saves your time. We are in Alpha after all, and the last thing we want is to stay here for long. :)
There is enough fun to be had with Alpha 16 to keep us entertained (and to be fair, a dozen of other games).

I've seen this happen to Starbound - developers dancing around modding and trying to not break save-files, meanwhile almost stopping the development of the game. I'd much rather have the game broken for some time and then being fully released half a year later than it being in a stasis for years because Timmy might cry about his save file being broken. :V

I loved the alpha 16, bug I think it is the versions with most bugs since alpha 7!
Normally there are a couple of hot fixes as soon as a new version is released... This is not the case with alpha 16!
Traveling and loading caravans is impossible right now, you need to launch everything...
Also, multiple animal area are not working, something really bad if you life to create several types is animals!
And the medicine nerf made several pawn died to sleeping sickness, I didn't know before it could kill!
I play rim world a lot, but those 3 fixes is essential to me if I will continue to play!
If you are afraid of breaking mods, I suggest something like Stellaris, on the beta tab you can select any version of the game to play it! I am a vanilla player...

As a modder with a silly amount of mods. Id like to state that i want the update. Working around bugs and not quite polished systems is no fun. Also as others have said it makes no sense to delay from a software development standpoint. Release early release often. Also a smaller set of changes is easier to update than taking a load of under the hood changes then applying a load of new content that the mod may need balancing against. If it all came at once.....thats a lot of work and means slow updates for modders. If the code is ready, release.

As a modder, I'd prefer you update now.

1) A16 is kind of a mess (e.g. caravans, medicine), so it desperately needs an update.
2) I'd prefer to do several smaller updates to my mods where I have a reasonably good idea of what changed rather than one huge update where I have to go hunting for all the changes.

On a side note, some people are suggesting semantic versioning. PLEASE don't do that. Semantic versioning is great if you have a proper dependency system, but the workshop (and RW's own version check) are not a proper dependency system. I would much rather have not updated mods fail hard, then have them load buggy as all heck.

For comparisons' sake, look at the workshop for Cities: Skylines. It's a jungle of mods that are compiled for different target versions, and the user has to read each mod's descriptions to see if it's compatible with his game. Adding the alpha number as a tag and filtering by that was a stroke of genius if you ask me.

Don't worry about save games, it's an alpha after all.

edit: I swear I can do English! (typos/grammar)

out of the perspective of somebody who is playing Rimworld daily, i say we wait for additional content. A lot of people will get pissed with a bugfixing patch since they need to wait for mods to update and don't really have new content to play with

But youll just have an EVEN longer wait when the larger alpha drops....using "i dont wanna wait for mods to update" is not a sensible excuse.

Please release bug fixing & balancing ASAP as 16.1 like any other decent software company would do.


Other than that, take your time.

I would prefer to release fast and often. Easier to keep the mods updated and quickly released through workshop updates.

The best refinement for this game would be adding content.

The lack of content currently constitutes the lack of refinement because there aren't enough jobs and skills, so 90% pawns are absolutely useless while 2% are very useful and the other 8% are situationally useful.
Adding different skills for carpentry/siegeworks/electrician/etc to diversify the "build" skill, adding "weaving/armormaking/wtc" to diversify the "craft" skill, are the most necessary refinements to the game.


(Leaving 99 out of 100 drop pod survivors to die doesn't make the very best storytelling, and you know you probably haven't polished things enough when you implement a "wanderer joins" event as a punishment rather than a boon)

If I could choose I would say to wait and release the update with new features.  Alpha 16 is really entertaining as it is and if you wait to release with a bunch more content, it makes the next alpha that much more exciting.  Personally I think that the game is bug free enough to wait patiently till a more featured release hits. 

Also, is it safe to assume that if you wait to release the alpha with features that it would speed up development?  If that's true, that is a nice benefit.  Good job on this game, it has taken far too many hours of my life ;D

Surely testing 2 small updates is quicker and easier than testing 1 large one, its definitely the case in professional software development, so the larger release "speeding up development" I believe is false.

I voted for. I don't see a point in waiting to release refinements and fixes. We could all use them.

Even if you have decided to designate it as new alpha, instead of an in-place update. I'm pretty sure you have a great reason for that.

I really think faster smaller updates are better than slower longer ones. I can't see why it would take a total longer time to not release it now? Because you will have to answer questions about it? And bug fix it? Well you will have to do it for a bigger release too, but a lot more.
Work Skrumm/Agile as more and more do nowadays.

Is it not selfish/short term fix for people to think - don't update now because then MY game will not work, I want to play NOW, not later!

I don't think waiting will help modders have to do less work updating their mods. There are other ways of helping modders, like stating all the names that have changed.

In the modding channel there seam to be an agreement to not wait with the release.

I look forward to the fixes: https://ludeon.com/mantis/view_all_bug_page.php?page_number=1
Theres some things fixed there I'd love to see deployed soon. Especially once 2782 is fixed.
I'd can help test builds if invited.
For me, content can wait.

I voted for bug-fixes. ("kind" pawns insulting everyone annoys the hell out of me)

I could not care less about mods being broken after updates.

New content? I guess content that makes the mid-end-game harder, or content that adds a fulfilling end-game reward are out of question... In this light I don't think I care much about additional *and potentially* useless / forced production chain showed down on our throats as "new content" (e.g. components :P)

In my opinion this is an earlie access game, getting a large refinement patch out would benefit the game both those who already play it and those who are going to buy it because those who're going to buy it (typically) Aren't going to load their game up with mods so waiting on some big feature (which could add in other exploits and such which the refinement patch is trying to iron out) is putting them in a game that isn't as optimised or working as it should.

Yes I play with mods and yes I'd feel a bad about them having to update their mods but they're going to have to do that anyway, like I said this is earlier access and they should already be aware updates are going to break their stuff. even if they do get mad they can't, this isn't their game and yes it's good to take them into consideration but if the refinement patch comes out then their mods can become even better with everything that gets fixed.

Yes it's more work for the modders but I want to play Rimworld in the best form that it could possibly be in, mods or not.


Edit, also to all those who want to wait. why not just select the beta for A16 once a A17 fix patch is released that way your game isn't affected and those who want to play the fixed version can.

What I would personally like to see is even better mod compatibility than it currently is. Would make a lot of sense to me if features from hugslib would be included in the base game. I'm also pretty sure that this would create a good base for improving and adding new features to the core game. It took the mods a long time to recover from the loss of ccl and I would have to see it happen again with two fast updates.

Is there any chances to see some kind of backward compatibility in future? We all know that mods are the fuel of this game. When the most advanced modmakers will get tired of playing it, it would be hard.

As a vanilla-only player I hope for any official refinement to be immediately released, sorry for mod lovers!

Hi Tynan,

Thanks for A16, best ever! As a player who loves a certain 10 mods, I would prefer the latter option. There is also more content to add in your release video, otherwise it's just "fixes" and no one wants to watch that video...

I'm fine with either of them.

Also, npc's bases are currently really kind lame and shallow. Do you guys have any plan on working on that?

I think that we should get the refinements sooner, because I value bug fixes and an unbroken game more than content a broken one, but I don't care very much overall. Then again, If there are refinements and content equally then the game's condition would not move, unless the refinements are significantly more than the content  :-\ .

I suggest waiting a little longer for some more features - it'll be easier on you no doubt, and besides I use mods to fix imbalances right now. That said I haven't encountered any game-breaking bugs either so I may be talking from a point of privilege.
Also I've found the dev menu a little confusing and illogical, dunno if it's just me though - might be something to refine.

Generally speaking, for a game in Alpha I would much prefer more frequent updates, especially in this case given how much it sounds like has been fixed and tweaked. In alpha you want feedback and the best way to evaluate the bug fixes and balance changes you've done towards A17 is to release them without new features to focus players on those changes.

As a player specifically I would prefer more frequent updates for similar reasons...I want to be able to evaluate the changes without the distraction of new features.

As a modder I prefer more frequent updates because it makes it easier to update my mods. Sure, I have to update more often, but the set of changes is easier to manage and allows me to get an updated version out sooner. The more often RimWorld is updated, the more involved I remain on a regular basis, making the turnaround time for updating my mods faster.

content is second rate for me personaly, how the game runs and the preformance is what count.
so far really good job on the game, love it and have loved it from the very beginning.

Given that the poll looks quite even, I want to weigh in with the people arguing that you should release a "16.5" and let players choose whether to update to it, or wait until a "17" with new content.

I haven't updated to 16 since I am still enjoying 15, and it sounds like some things (eg surgery) were out of kilter in 16. So I'd love to see a 16.5, I'd probably go for it.

Now that my favorite Rimmodders have spoken... I feel like I have to change  my opinion on the topic.... They really want the update ASAP and their reasons are valid: they might be able to identify errors quickly if the changes are less... makes sense to me....
I really don't see why these changes need to be part of a whole new alpha... If there is no content most companies call that fixes or updates... a new Alpha should have new content IMO. So, please release the fixes :)

If it is going to breaks mods then I think it should be a new Alpha version.

The game marks mods that are tagged with a different Alpha version as incomparable and highlights them in red. Same with the workshop it only tags mods by the alpha version not and sub version like 16.5  Also is it certain to be save comparable for vanilla games, this is implied if it is released as a point release.

Do i don't think that 16.5 is a good option as some have suggested.

Now to wait for content or release soon. I think that depends on what kind of delay we are talking about. I would suggest 1 month as a cutoff. If it will take more than 1 month to add the content then release a bug fix alpha. If the content can be done in lell that a month wait and release it all together.

Quote from: Jaxxa on February 09, 2017, 03:16:01 PM

Now to wait for content or release soon. I think that depends on what kind of delay we are talking about. I would suggest 1 month as a cutoff. If it will take more than 1 month to add the content then release a bug fix alpha. If the content can be done in lell that a month wait and release it all together.

This brings up a good point I'd like to further discuss.  I'm under the impression that the new content update will also include ALL of the refinements and stuff?  Well if we're talking about a 2-3 week extension then we should totally wait.  If the content + fixes ie. full A17 is looking like it won't hit til April or later then definitely do the v16.5 deal.  I mean, either way modders are going to have to update their mods as A17 "new content" will break mods as well won't it?

One more very important thing.  If releasing refinements ie. 16.5 means the new content patch will be delayed by anything more than 2 weeks then we should wait.  The sacrifice for a patch vs. that kind of extra time commitment isn't worth it, unless A17 new content is months away.

wouldn't it make the most sense to release the refinements just as an update to A16, just as you've done in past alphas, and then wait until there is new content to call it A17?

Releasing the fixes and balance issues, etc. could resolve issues where mods are needed to supplement the problems of the vanilla game. I for one know that the fixes of balance might make 16 more playable, but I have to resort to mods. While I like mods for some gameplay, playing it in it's true fashion without having worry about balance issues or problems that happen, I whole hardly support a fix release and then two separate update features. It could be more of a problematic when it comes to balancing out the original problem, just to bring in more balance issues in the future.

Quote from: FreyaMaluk on February 09, 2017, 03:00:27 PM
Now that my favorite Rimmodders have spoken... I feel like I have to change  my opinion on the topic.... They really want the update ASAP and their reasons are valid: they might be able to identify errors quickly if the changes are less... makes sense to me....

Yeah, I'm also inclined to defer to more experienced modders. Move mine from "all in one" to "release in pieces", too. (Thanks for the clarification on Harmony, Zhentar!)

Whatever the decisions, just wanna let yall know some of us appreciates the in-depth discussions that occurred here. A dev team that communicates with and listens to its player base is a successful one.

I'd be happy with the game as is if it never updated again... so I can wait for an update with some content added.

Small suggestion.

Make the fix update 16.5 available to download on a Beta branch that way

1: Vanilla players who want a game that runs and plays better and they get what they want.
2: Modded players can stay on the current build and get what they want. (unfortunately if they want both then they have to choose, can't make everyone happy)
3: Modders don't have to update their mods as it's a beta build.
4: You've done your best as a developer/s to keep your game as up to date running as well/bug free as you can.
5: once you have content for a big update then release them both into stable at the same time, this also gives modders a chance to look at what's changed in the 16.5 update and work out what they need to update.

I think this would be the best "as many people happy as possible" I for one would immediately switch to said beta and play without mods to play Rimworld in its best form as Rimworld is "only" Rimworld, once mods are added I'm no longer playing how the game is designed to be played.

I'd recommend and would like to see refinements , then additional content. just like building a tower the more stable existing floors are the more stable the next floor will be. ie: if you build on bugs and things that aren't right then that bug / logic / balance isn't there when you add to it and it can become a lot harder to change. it'll also give us time to comment on the rebalancing etc. before additional content , that way you can do any minor adjustments needed prior to expanding on potential flaws.

Quote from: BlueSteelAU on February 09, 2017, 10:48:16 PM
I'd recommend and would like to see refinements , then additional content. just like building a tower the more stable existing floors are the more stable the next floor will be.

but that's not how games are made....in fact its the opposite...each new feature has a chance to completely break some or all of the previous work, often unexpectedly due to oddities in the way different features reference or change each other or the same other data.

it doesn't do much good to finalize the lower tower floors and polish them up, only to realize the next floor you make has to punch a bunch of holes in the smooth finish of the lower floors for connections and support.

Feature, polish, feature, polish, feature, polish takes far FAR longer than feature, feature, feature, feature, polish all at once now that all the big coding is done.  Obviously the first one gives a game that is significantly more playable throughout the stages of its development, but the second one gets an impressive, strong performing product out SOONER.

Considering that this is a highly played alpha game, the first option will probably keep players happier, but doing a 16.5 polish, then a 17, then a 17 bug fix will likely take significantly longer than doing a 17, then a 17 bug fix and polish, since the first one will have to REFIX some stuff already addressed when A17 comes out.

Sorry to harp on what probably feels like semantics, but the analogy to construction just hit me funny.  I don't personally have a big problem with the clean, then release timeline, but I think people should know how the two options actually differ, not just in the process, but in the final timeline.

Personally, I think using an unstable branch is probably the middle ground between the two options, but I understand that it does come at a heavy price, time wise; So, if it is an either or choice, I'd want it to come in two patch, large feature pushes and balance fixes. Incidentally, I voted incorrectly on the poll. Not having the ability to change it, I felt I should mention it.

Quote from: Tammabanana on February 09, 2017, 05:26:33 PM

Quote from: FreyaMaluk on February 09, 2017, 03:00:27 PM
Now that my favorite Rimmodders have spoken... I feel like I have to change  my opinion on the topic.... They really want the update ASAP and their reasons are valid: they might be able to identify errors quickly if the changes are less... makes sense to me....

Yeah, I'm also inclined to defer to more experienced modders. Move mine from "all in one" to "release in pieces", too. (Thanks for the clarification on Harmony, Zhentar!)

Hearing them out, I also changed my mind. :D
BUT, to be honest, I think Tynan will know the best, no matter what vote will look like. :P Given the decisions made so far, I trust he knows what he is doing. :2

This is an interesting question, and although both options sound good, I think I'd personally prefer a bug fix/balance update then another update with new content.

I'm with other suggestions of having a balance patch as an opt-in beta or non-steam version (alpha 16 and a half?) so people can choose to play that version or wait. A balance update could balance and fix certain systems which some mods might currently be used for (like lowering the power usage of lights from a whopping 75 down to 25). Balance power usage, drugs/medical system, food, and other systems (like deconstructing an entire wall while another pawn hauls instead of running half way across the map to deconstruct a single wall and carry just 4 blocks back).

With a more balanced vanilla game some mods may not even be needed (as their reason for being would be fixed in the vanilla version). Sure modders may have to update their mods twice which could be annoying but surely having a more stable and balanced base game to mod from should make future modding easier. 2 updates over 1 should also give more opportunity for community feedback.

So as much as I'd like new stuff to play with I'm personally on the side of a bug bash and balance update then a content update later.

A bugfix only update would be very good, since RimWorld hasn't had one of those yet. However, if you can squeeze in some new content too on the top of the bugfixes, then you should wait with the release until then.

I wouldn't mind a bug fixing release.  I'd like to be able to keep my currently going colony with that release too, but some of those bug fixes might make that impossible.  Still, it'd be nice to have.

Since I cant troll comment in the blog I answer here.

QuoteSo far we've fixed hundreds of bugs.

You gotta be kidding me. Where are those bugs? I have encountered some but hundreds!? I bet you are spending the money of RW in drugs and beer with a monk in Venezuela. Or worse, playing Counter Strike.

Tynon pls

Quote from: Alenerel on February 10, 2017, 07:41:42 AM
Since I cant troll comment in the blog I answer here.

QuoteSo far we've fixed hundreds of bugs.

You gotta be kidding me. Where are those bugs? I have encountered some but hundreds!? I bet you are spending the money of RW in drugs and beer with a monk in Venezuela. Or worse, playing Counter Strike.

Tynon pls

Pls dude, you need to know that when you fix a bug, two show up. When you fix 2, 4 come up. And it goes on until you have to take a flamethrower and burn the shit up and rebuild.

So yeah, a hundread seems pretty reasonable. See the "bugs" part of the forum.

Quote from: Listen1 on February 10, 2017, 08:14:52 AM
Pls dude, you need to know that when you fix a bug, two show up. When you fix 2, 4 come up. And it goes on until you have to take a flamethrower and burn the shit up and rebuild.

So yeah, a hundread seems pretty reasonable. See the "bugs" part of the forum.

Dont fall in his game. Hes just an attention whore who says "omg look at all my bugs" and wants us to say "no ure not, ur perf". Also he wants to create an addictive game so he can control us, and sadly its working.

omg Im getting a refund

/troll

Bug fixes need to happen anyway, so why not ASAP? It's not like you're going to stop producing content...

Speaking seriously I think that you should release the bug fix A17 if the new content is going to take 2 months. Why? Because this time, as you said, its just bug fix and rebalance and its not even going to break saves so probably a lot of mods will keep working just fine, and the one that doesnt probably need just a tiny fix. Its not like a world remade like A15 to A16 which made some modders to almost completely rework their mods.

Tynon pls

I honestly think that a bug fix release should be made, but I think the game has grown so large now that I really think you should create a "Beta" Steam version. Like many other games, this would allow you to implement new features and get feedback faster, without ruining the experience for those who like a more stable version to work with. It's also great for modders as they can make the changes necessary to update to the new version before it's actually released.

I vote for a refinement update, with a new steam branch for content testing and feedback for those who like bugs. Which would also end the need for you to ever ask this question again! :)

Quote from: Kregoth on February 10, 2017, 02:07:03 PM
I honestly think that a bug fix release should be made, but I think the game has grown so large now that I really think you should create a "Beta" Steam version. Like many other games, this would allow you to implement new features and get feedback faster, without ruining the experience for those who like a more stable version to work with. It's also great for modders as they can make the changes necessary to update to the new version before it's actually released.

I vote for a refinement update, with a new steam branch for content testing and feedback for those who like bugs. Which would also end the need for you to ever ask this question again! :)

This.

Additionally, it's madness to implement major content changes before bugfixes are applied.  Not doing so simply increases the chance for more secondary bugs, in a potential cascading apocalypse of errors that eats coder man-hours like church picnic fried chicken.

Nor should most simple bugfixes break mods, except those that were stopgap measures for the bugs in the 1st place.  Occasional occurrences are perfectly understandable but if this happens a lot, your API for modders is CRAP.  Yes, content changes can necessitate extensive API changes, but unless a bug is quite dire, it damn well should not.

Not fixing known bugs before slapping on additional code is silly, at best and badly counterproductive, at worst.  Why go there?

Honestly, I find that we're clearly missing too many important information to choose which one of the two option we'll prefer. Here's the choice :

Option A :  [Bug Fixing Update] + [Content Update]
Option B :  [Bug Fixing & content Update]

In my eye, the real question is how long will the content update will be set back if you release the Bug Fixing update now?

For instance, let's say you can release the Bug Update now and the Content update will take 2 month. If you decide instead to release only 1 update, how sooner will this update be? If in both case the final update will be in approximately in 2 month, I see no reason to not sent the Bug Fixing update now.

And about the modding argument, if your game is full of mod and you want to kept then, just deactivate your update until the mod are updated. Releasing the Bug Fixing now is only giving you a new choice :

Without Bug Fixing Update
- Play mod with A16   

With Bug Fixing Update
- Don't update and play mod with A16   
   OR
- Update and wait that mod are updated.

Quote from: Bozobub on February 10, 2017, 02:17:12 PM
Nor should most simple bugfixes break mods, except those that were stopgap measures for the bugs in the 1st place.  Occasional occurrences are perfectly understandable but if this happens a lot, your API for modders is CRAP.  Yes, content changes can necessitate extensive API changes, but unless a bug is quite dire, it damn well should not.

It doesn't matter how good the official API is, we modders don't constrain ourselves to the bounds any API would impose upon us. Among the many tricks in our books, we use "detours" to overwrite core RimWorld code with our own. It's impossible for Ludeon to change anything at all without risking mod incompatibilities. (The new Harmony library has potential to significantly reduce this problem for mods using it, so it should get better in the future but it will never go away)

edit: That said, the work required for mods to update depends on how much things change in a release, so a smaller bug fix update won't take as much work to update for as larger content changes

Quote from: Tynan on February 08, 2017, 02:03:52 PM
Thank you for the thoughts so far everyone!

I just wanted to address one thing that's a bit off-topic, but whatever.

Quote from: b0rsuk on February 08, 2017, 01:38:59 PM
- colonist coming from mining site / growing zone empty-handed
- colonist automatically cleaning hospital before operating
- colonists avoiding jobs in rooms that would disturb sleep
- sunlamp automatically turned off at night
- leftovers from deconstruction are hauled away from ALL nearby wall squares before construction is started
- colonists going to remote construction site empty-handed instead of with new batch of materials
- zero warning (not even barking dogs!) when there's a predator coming
- colonists prefering raw food over nutrient paste (it seems to occur when there are several going for paste at the time ? Or just distance ? Makes playing "no sowing plants in the ground" all but impossible)

This isn't an open suggestions thread, but just to note why none of these are changing. There are two main reasons.

1. They're defeated by balance. All of these are things that are essentially of the form, "add AI complexity to make AI perform more optimally and make the game easier". But, if we do that, we'll just have to make the game harder in other ways to maintain the same balance point. e.g. colonists automatically turned off at night? Well, now we just double the sunlamp power consumption to maintain the same balance. Ultimately we end up in the same place, with a bunch of new AI complexity and a bunch of new problems.

2. Any solution creates new problems which are often worse than the original issue. Of course it's easy to say something like, "colonist automatically cleaning hospital before operating". But if we do that, people will soon get pissed off because the patient died while the surgeon was busy cleaning the hospital instead of performing the damn operation. And now we have to add in some sort of player override control, or AI decision making, that can decide when to clean or not clean, and so on and so on. It's an endless regress of AI needing to solve the problems that the last solution created.

The same goes for something like, "sunlamp automatically turned off at night". By whom? When, exactly? What if you don't want it off? How far should they walk to turn it off, and can you control that? What does the UI for configuring all this look like, and what new problems will that create?

We can ask the same battery of questions about almost all these notions.

RW's approach to AI is to set up simple mechanistic rules that the AI follow, let them be suboptimal, and balance the game against those suboptimalities. I've seen other developers try to solve every tiny problem and it's just an endless cycle of problem creation and solving, with complexity increasing the whole time. And ultimately it's pointless, since all those optimalities just get balanced out per point 1.

The one main argument about these kinds of solutions is that they eliminate the incentive for micromanagement by "doing the micro for you". But, there is a point beyond which the downsides of trying to do this outweigh the advantages. Any game like RW is going to have places where players can micro-manage to get micro-benefits. Like many inherent problems in complex systems, this isn't something that can be totally eliminated without the cure itself destroying the whole system. All we can do is try to find an optimal balance where we keep the problem manageably small while also avoiding the huge costs of being too militant in trying to solve it.

I would be really open to specific suggestions about changes to make (in another thread in the suggestions forum) - but it's a lot more helpful to say *exactly* what changes you want. Remember the AI isn't people, it needs to have specific razor-sharp rules for every situation; it can't make intuitive decisions and doesn't understand anything about what's going on. It would be great to try to think through exactly what you want, and what problems that would or would not create, and present the solution instead of just the problem. Then you'll really be engaging in the design process! (and again, please do not make suggestions in this thread, they'll get removed as off-topic).

Those are all good points, and I mostly agree but here are two counter points:

1. There already is a great mod with a day/night switch, it takes a bit more effort for the player to setup, but UI wise it is pretty clean and just works as an automated manual switch. If you want to make it less "good" you could require it to be manually operated but instead just let it create a job to be switched.
2. About hauling. I know a lot of people are complaining about the colonist AI, but I think this one major complaint is easy to solve and has little effect on overall efficiency. You could have check that lets potential haulers check if something needs to be hauled the same way (with at most 10% longer route) when they need to take a particullarly long walk. This will make everything look better to the players, but those long walks are actually not that common, so in effect it just means a minor takes one extra handfull of rocks with them after a whole day of mining. Or one corn farmer takes a single stack of corn with them. It will not solve any significant fraction of the overall hauling need after a day of mining, or harvesting an entire field, but it will LOOK better to players, who will feel the colonists are now so much smarter and well behaved.

Um...  You're kind of tonedeaf, eh?

I think it's contagious  ::)

Quote from: Bozobub on February 10, 2017, 02:17:12 PM

Quote from: Kregoth on February 10, 2017, 02:07:03 PM
I honestly think that a bug fix release should be made, but I think the game has grown so large now that I really think you should create a "Beta" Steam version. Like many other games, this would allow you to implement new features and get feedback faster, without ruining the experience for those who like a more stable version to work with. It's also great for modders as they can make the changes necessary to update to the new version before it's actually released.

I vote for a refinement update, with a new steam branch for content testing and feedback for those who like bugs. Which would also end the need for you to ever ask this question again! :)

This.

Additionally, it's madness to implement major content changes before bugfixes are applied.  Not doing so simply increases the chance for more secondary bugs, in a potential cascading apocalypse of errors that eats coder man-hours like church picnic fried chicken.

Nor should most simple bugfixes break mods, except those that were stopgap measures for the bugs in the 1st place.  Occasional occurrences are perfectly understandable but if this happens a lot, your API for modders is CRAP.  Yes, content changes can necessitate extensive API changes, but unless a bug is quite dire, it damn well should not.

Not fixing known bugs before slapping on additional code is silly, at best and badly counterproductive, at worst.  Why go there?

• You'll be pleased to know that there is a Steam beta option! (It's been there for quite a while now.) ;)
• Content isn't changing before bugs are being fixed. It's the other way around.
• Pro Tip: Alpha means nothing is set in stone yet
  
  • Game mechanics, internal structure, etc are all subject to change until the game is done
  • Consider how that might affect mods
  • Consider the man-hours involved in maintaining support for deprecated functions/methods
  • Consider the debugging nightmare that would be
• I seriously got a really good laugh out of your "eats coder man-hours like church picnic fried chicken" comment. I genuinely thank you for that! :D

Quote from: skullywag on February 08, 2017, 01:42:55 PM
Personally I feel you have the branching system in steam, release it as a different branch, if steam mods want to update they can, DRM free people can handle this in many ways so i doubt it would effect us in any way.

I like to enjoy and play through when the mods start updating and the content is new.
But branching could solve or reduce the damage here.

Quote from: Alenerel on February 10, 2017, 07:41:42 AM
Since I cant troll comment in the blog I answer here.

QuoteSo far we've fixed hundreds of bugs.

You gotta be kidding me. Where are those bugs? I have encountered some but hundreds!? I bet you are spending the money of RW in drugs and beer with a monk in Venezuela. Or worse, playing Counter Strike.

Tynon pls

You can actually look at the Bugs forum to see some of what's gone on. I think there are about 300=400 A16 reports in there (almost all of which are fixed). :D

Yes it amazing how many problems can hide in a game like this.

Don't know much about coding and such, but I really like rimworld. 

I think you should do the bug fix first, I'm willing to wait for the modders to catch up. (and my favourite modders here say they prefer that)  It's an early access game, and the assumption should be mods will break. 

My main reason is the let's plays people sometimes have lags and sometimes bugs and this makes the game look bad to prospective buyers.  Bugs are what turn people off the most, the gameplay, people already love.  It also makes it look like the developers take stability issues seriously.  (many early access games don't seem to) My 2 cent's, but you know best, cause game is already great.

Quote from: milon on February 10, 2017, 07:24:30 PM

• You'll be pleased to know that there is a Steam beta option! (It's been there for quite a while now.) ;)

Son of Ahhhh! I had not noticed the "Alpha 16 on public unstable branch" post had an UPDATE.

Quote from: TynanUPDATE: Unstable version is being updated more or less (week)daily. The forum thread has the ongoing discussion and update details.

Ooops, my bad! Good.... good I'll just slip back into the void now!

I vote bug fix patch.

At this point in time the content given to us from A16 should keep everyone busy with gameplay as there's plenty to do and I find it hard to believe that the majority of players utilised every aspect of the content. Then there are the challenges in the game which people strive to overcome. You can easily do 2-3 years just travelling the globe in the tribal stage not researching.

What's reducing the enjoyment of game is not the lack of content but the performance and bugs/crashes. Once these are fixed then players can expand their gameplay to do larger challenges like multi-colonies for example.

+1 for the beta branch on permanent grounds. It will allow modders to update their creations beforehand. Moreover, may be every update should be something like Intel's tick-tock strategy: for one big upgrade – one refinement?

I voted to release the refinement patch then new content later.

I wouldn't worry about mod users such as myself, we know to rollback until our fave mods are updated. Playing with the refined build itself may uncover remaining bugs etc, fixes for which can then be included in the new content update right? As well as finding out how the fixes to exploits have gone down :-)

Whenever a new Alpha is released I typically play vanilla RimWorld for quite a while until my favorite mods have been updated. With that in mind I would prefer a delay in Alpha 17 until new content can be added. The jump from one Alpha  to another is always great due to the great additions added to the game. It is always exciting to receive that email saying RimWorld has been updated. You get to go and see what has been changed/improved and the new aspects to the game. I never feel that excited when I get that email saying to download the alpha b or c update which fixes major bugs.

While I am sure the work Tynan has put in will make the game run far better if added right now waiting a bit longer seems well worth it.

Quote from: Tynan on February 10, 2017, 08:06:36 PM

Quote from: Alenerel on February 10, 2017, 07:41:42 AM
Since I cant troll comment in the blog I answer here.

QuoteSo far we've fixed hundreds of bugs.

You can actually look at the Bugs forum to see some of what's gone on. I think there are about 300=400 A16 reports in there (almost all of which are fixed). :D

Yes it amazing how many problems can hide in a game like this.

Tynan, @fluffy is one of the most talented modders in Rimworld.  If you're asking the community - I think you should listen to him.  He suggested you release ASAP bug fixes as A17 and I think think you should too.  I trust you, I trust him and several other prolific modders have also said release it ASAP as it would be easier to update mods in smaller pieces then to release a content patch with fixes.

I've changed my mind several times on this, but @fluffy's post should really hold more water than just some average player like myself.  Also, though I pushed heavily for a 16.5, don't do it.  Go a17.

Please do this.

I am going to preface this by saying I'm one of those people who have a LOT of mods. That said, I understand the advantages of both releases.

If you release all the bug fixes, people get a smoother, less buggy game faster. They also get some time to get used to the changes. Of course, their beloved colonies will be rendered unplayable by the update and mods breaking. Modders will scramble to update and if it's just a bug-fix release most updates should be relatively trivial. However, "bug-fixes and performance increases" isn't a very exciting changelog.

But, if you release a bug-fix update with just one or two new things to get people excited, I think it would go much smoother. It'll give people more time to enjoy and explore A16 and the mods that showed up for it. It'll give modders some more time to rest and actually enjoy the game they're modding. When the update drops, eventually breaking compatibility, people won't be so upset because there will be new features to explore.

So, in conclusion, I think you should wait and release later.

QuoteTynan, @fluffy is one of the most talented modders in Rimworld.  If you're asking the community - I think you should listen to him.  He suggested you release ASAP bug fixes as A17 and I think think you should too.  I trust you, I trust him and several other prolific modders have also said release it ASAP as it would be easier to update mods in smaller pieces then to release a content patch with fixes.

I agree. Initially I voted for one big update with additional features because I thought it would feel more rewarding and complete, but if Fluffy and other modders think an earlier fix-only update is for the best, then I'd say go for it.

I personally voted for a refinement update but would like to use my voice to support the mod authors. I suggest deferring to them (disclaimer; I have not had the time to read the posts). Also, big thank you to everyone (are there more than Tynan?) at Ludeon Studios. Rimworld, as it stands now in alpha, is among my favorite games of all time (not for nothing, I have been an avid gamer since 1988). Thanks go out to the mod authors as well. You make a great game even better.

I think waiting for new content would be better.  I know myself and probably a lot of people get bored with the game after they have played for a while with each new update and having new content to experiment with keeps us playing longer.  Just getting some bugfixes won't draw as many people back to the game as content will.  Although I think small patches that don't constitute a new alpha update that fix small things should come out fairly regularly.

Now that you people say it I also agree that pro modders should have more voice in this.

Quote from: Tynan on February 08, 2017, 01:05:49 PMthe release itself will consume some developer time, slowing long-term progress slightly.

Wait then. I'd prefer new content faster, even if only slightly. Bug fixes are great, but it's alpha and not really expected, or honestly that exciting. Content updates are what people get hyped about and brings renewed interest in the game. Most of the major issues in A16 are fixed by mods anyway.

If you've got fixes, people will undoubtedly want them.
If they're ready to roll out, there's no reason not to do it.

If you're hung up on the name "A17" not being a monumental change to the game, don't call it "A17".  Call it "A16b" or "A16.1" or "The February Update to A16"

I agree that the fixes should be released first. This should be an A16.1 release. Bug fixes allow veteran players get used to the adjusted systems on their own merits. Which can provide valuable information about balancing which can be addressed in the A17 release, which would contain new features that will break other things - there are always big bugs after a big release, no blame. That's just the way it is these days, we are still in alpha. Not all mods will need to be changed. And there is no pressure on the players that may not want to update to do so. They could wait until the A17 comes out. Same with modders. I wont hate it if my fav mods wont update just for the A16.1. I completely understand the desire to wait it out for the 'real' update.

TL:DR - small update with fixes now

if a release (whatever may be in it) is going to break mod compatibility, please make sure the workshop and the in-game version checker will highlight/reject mods that haven't been updated. The easiest way of doing that is just calling it A17.

My opinion: IF alpha17 (without NEW content) improves the game experience SO SIGNIFICANTLY that the difference can be noticed by all who play, the i would say "release it without new content". That way, the devs can concentrate on alpha18 with the new stuff. IF however, the changes of A17 would only be noticed by "hardcore, 23 hour a day" players, then i would say "lets wait for the new content".

HOWEVER, i still think, the devs should do it, as they see fit ^^ get opinions and all, in the end, its your baby, its your gem, its your time, your work, your devotion. And by god has rimworld been an exciting journey so far so... however you guys do it, im happy ^^

oh WINDOWS! (i know i know not the place for this) but why not add build-able windows? big ones (2 squares) and small ones (one square)! With and without metal bars (for the prisons? and those who suffer from paranoia a bit too much)? Would let in light, cool down the inside of the house in hot days? make colonists happy? some could sit on a stool, when its raining outside, watching the rain (meditating)?
love rimworld! been spreading the word in 3 languages since alpha 1 :D

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on February 13, 2017, 03:53:02 AM
if a release (whatever may be in it) is going to break mod compatibility, please make sure the workshop and the in-game version checker will highlight/reject mods that haven't been updated. The easiest way of doing that is just calling it A17.

That is now my biggest concern/worry. A lot of people are wanting 16.1 or 16.5 or something, but that just seems bad. It seems likely some mod will be broken. Because I think the A16 Tynan is proposing is bug fixes and refinements. Refinements seems like something that could easily mess with mods. (not that bug fixes couldn't as well)

Better safe than sorry! A17 please with either result you end up using please!

Tynan, you asked to the community about a serious doubt you had and now people are arguing about whether calling it A16.x or A17! You cant just trust the community! Its like giving a monkey a shotgun!

Tynon pls



(  excuse me but I love to write "Tynon pls", dont ban me :(  )

Having just recently gotten my copy of this game, I feel I have little say in the matter. However, since I do officially own a copy, that does entitle me to voicing my opinion. Please read the whole thing rather than telling me I don't know what I'm talking about or I'm on the wrong forums... I choose my words very carefully for a reason.

I started playing minecraft about 8 years ago, and stopped playing vanilla when I realized just how awesome mods made minecraft. I have continued playing modded version of minecraft ever since (close to 7 years now). I am currently stuck on playing 1.7.9 version of it because the mods which I enjoy playing so very much have ceased updating. The current version of minecraft is something like 1.11 or something like that.

Now, I said that to say this:

Rimworld is AWESOME as is! I've been playing it for about 2 weeks so far and just last night managed to scrape enough $$$ together to get my own copy of it (not easy on an extremely limited income). I so far have downloaded close to 25 mods and, as soon as I am done posting this, plan on spending several more hours enjoying the new ideas that the mods bring. However, the mods are enhancements not originally added to the game, though they may later on. (example would be I played with horses in Minecraft before horses were actually released thanks to a mod).

However, I have noticed multiple times in a LOT of games, (not just minecraft) that when you rely on modders to make your game greater than it might already be, then you (as a player) are cheating yourself out of a LOT of really awesome and hard work put forth by the developers. I, myself, have been working on building my own game and I gotta admit, it's not easy. I can't imagine the scale Rimworld has taken but I have noticed a few bugs. While I would love to see more content updates, I am reminded of Electronic Arts and Sims 3.  They constantly released new content and never gave two hoots about content patches. Even to this day, it's virtually unplayable to me because of all the bugs. Skyrim, a great game, is flawed with bugs that Bethesda simply overlooked and continued to compile with "new content". I say: Fix the problems that there are now. Release new content when the current content is less buggy. That way, you know that if the new content ends up with a bug, it's something that was added new and not being caused by an older problem. It will ultimately save time because of the fact that you'll know where the problem lies.

As for those who "don't want to wait for mods to update." It's really simple:  DON'T USE MODS! If you mod your game, you place your advancement in the hands of someone else who may have a death in a family, or may get so sick they can't get out of bed, or their computer gets fried by lightning, or (probably the most common) windows releases a screwed up update that wipes everything they have been doing because it views their mod coding as a virus or some other dumb crap. If you insist on using mods, then you may be stuck playing Minecraft 1.7.9 and missing out on a LOT of additional stuff just because your mod team has ceased working on their mods.

Bottom line: I want to see bugs fixed more than I do new content. I lose interest if a bug prevents me from enjoying a game like in Sims 3.

LET'S WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIT FOR NEW CONTENT :D

Quote from: Fluffy (l2032) on February 13, 2017, 03:53:02 AM
if a release (whatever may be in it) is going to break mod compatibility, please make sure the workshop and the in-game version checker will highlight/reject mods that haven't been updated. The easiest way of doing that is just calling it A17.

i'll agree with this.

I don't feel there are gamebreaking issues right now so I'm fine with waiting a little longer for new content.

Definitely wait for a new update no need to only have refinements, you had many refinements with alpha 16 but you also released wanderlust so something like that would be ideal.

I think the game is perfectly playable in it's current state.  My only gripe would be with surgery success chance but once your understand the changes it does give Glitterworld Meds more of a purpose.

With that said, I would suggest waiting.  Any release is bound to have some bugs/hotfixes which would mean a bigger overall delay, and features in A17 could affect/break those fixes...  Also there is nothing better than seeing a massive game-changing update :)

Any new content WILL contain bugs, so even if you fix current bugs you will implement new ones. Thus I would recommend a patch to fix bugs and then a content patch, giving you more time to adapt to bugs you may have missed. A clean build would be great overall to have a base on which you can improve on. And let's be honest: sometimes the AI is just straight aids.

 I think a 6 month break to gather thoughts, then new content.

Hi there, I just made an account to say that I'd love to see a fix to the absurdity that is failed surgery. I love playing this game but when a surgeon with a med skill of 15+ can kill someone with full health by inserting a peg leg on a excellent medical bed with a monitor and using regular medicine it makes me want to physically attempt the same retarded surgery on myself.

I think quicker fixes would lower the possibility of people feeling put off by the game anyway.

Now to take a few deep breaths and get back to things (In the end either option is fine, I'll keep buying people this game on steam).

Quote from: Sylevar on February 13, 2017, 05:43:34 PM
However, the mods are enhancements not originally added to the game, though they may later on. (example would be I played with horses in Minecraft before horses were actually released thanks to a mod).

Interesting to note that mod ideas being integrated into the base game has also happened in Rimworld, usually not exactly how it was in the mod but off the top of my head we had mods for Turrets/Mortars using Ammo, Personal Shields, Wind Power, Vents (I Think), Deep Drilling and my Stargate mod allowed you to send Pawns onto a new map similar to the Wonderlust update all before they were released in the Vanilla Game.

Quote from: Sylevar on February 13, 2017, 05:43:34 PM
... Even to this day, it's virtually unplayable to me because of all the bugs. Skyrim, a great game, is flawed with bugs that Bethesda simply overlooked and continued to compile with "new content". I say: Fix the problems that there are now. Release new content when the current content is less buggy. That way, you know that if the new content ends up with a bug, it's something that was added new and not being caused by an older problem. It will ultimately save time because of the fact that you'll know where the problem lies.

The difference here is that the choice is not bug fixes or new content, it is sooner bug fixes or bug fixes and new content.

Quote from: narkul on February 14, 2017, 08:04:29 PM
I think a 6 month break to gather thoughts, then new content.

too long

Hi there, I also created a new account just to post in this thread.  Firstly, I have to say thank you for Rimworld, I've only been playing it since January, but I am absolutely hooked.

Personally, I would love to see Alpha 17 released sooner rather than later with any tweaks and bug-fixes, because there are obviously minor refinements that can be made to the current engine, and some of the things Tynan has highlighted in his initial post sound great, and I'd hate to have to wait longer because we're waiting for new content.

Just my thoughts, I understand how mod-makers would hate to have to re-do all their mods.

Quote from: Jaxxa on February 14, 2017, 08:48:02 PM
The difference here is that the choice is not bug fixes or new content, it is sooner bug fixes or bug fixes and new content.

True, I misspoke on that part. My apologies and thanks for the clarification. I would still rather see the current bugs fixed before new content is released. But then again, I'm perfectly fine without mods for this game too.

The problem with fixing too many bugs is that some fixes might become useless if you replace that system. For example, if he fixed surgery bugs before A16 they all went to waste since in A16 surgery was redone.

I suppose that our lord and savorer already takes that in account, but Im just saying... If he plans to replace something, dont waste time fixing it, even if the plans are for long, unless they, ofc, are unplayable bugs.

Quote from: Alenerel on February 15, 2017, 08:24:07 AM... our lord and savorer...

We have a Cannibal Overlord now? Wait... it's Rimworld, of course we do!

I'm posting another reply for more info, but my opinion still stands. Bug fix/balance, then more content later.

So first off, if it's just going to be a bug bash only then I vote wait for more content. But based on what Tynan said in this initial post it sounded like it would be a bug fix AND a balance, or a bug fix, balance, and new content. If this is the case, I vote for a bug fix and balance of the current systems in game, then add new content later.

This would allow for the base game to be more stabilized and balanced, which would mean later updates would have a more stable base game to update. Many other games frequently do a bug fix/balance update every so often, like Prison Architect did (I'm not comparing the two in gameplay). This would mean that some mods would be obsolete since some mods are there simply to balance out existing gameplay/systems and not add anything new (e.g. changing the power usage of lights from 75 to 25 power).

So again, I'm for a bug fix/balance and a separate content update later. We're currently at Alpha 16. Time to rework/balance most of the current in-game systems. If Tynan has an idea or knows a certain system will be modified in the (near) future then either do minor adjustments or ignore that system currently until the updated system gets put in place. Otherwise I'm sure there are changes that can be made with future revisions in mind.

There are numerous systems in game that should be balanced/revised, including medical/healing, hauling, food, combat, and more. Balance the systems that are already in game before adding more. I don't personally use any food mods but I do see the appeal in more types of food for example. Although more types of food would technically be new content, it would primarily be working on and balancing existing systems. Maybe add more of a 'combat realism' system with atleast some minor changes, but wait for later updates of weapons/armor/whatever to fully balance it (while making some changes now to better support future modifications/systems).

The base game, although awsomely fun, does require some modifying of the vanilla base game version. While mods can make a game even more fun, the base game should be plenty of fun and balanced and stable without mods.

please please please please for the love of  [insert belief system here], cut meats and textiles down to 4-5 types each at most.

I will change my vote to "bug and balance fixes" in a heartbeat if (in my opinion) pointless space-wasters like this were fixed...when i want to make a duster and have 5-35 of 12 different types of leather....but can't make a duster which requires 80 of the SAME item, it annoys the crap out of me.

Quote"mass" column in each character's "gear" tab, so you can tell how heavy each stack is.

^from blog update.

i was wondering if pawns would be able to craft incendiary/explosive/deadfall traps and then place it in their inventory for rapid deployment? (of course bringing items like that in inventory has movement penalties for the pawn)

or perhaps even bring a secondary weapon, that the pawn can switch to. (again, overall weight will affect movement speed)

i was also wondering, if this weight system will be expanded to allow the use of backpacks (to allows more items to be hauled by pawns when traveling)

Quote from: keylocke on February 16, 2017, 11:49:15 AM

Quote"mass" column in each character's "gear" tab, so you can tell how heavy each stack is.

^from blog update.

i was wondering if pawns would be able to craft incendiary/explosive/deadfall traps and then place it in their inventory for rapid deployment? (of course bringing items like that in inventory has movement penalties for the pawn)

or perhaps even bring a secondary weapon, that the pawn can switch to. (again, overall weight will affect movement speed)

i was also wondering, if this weight system will be expanded to allow the use of backpacks (to allows more items to be hauled by pawns when traveling)

irl people that carry a light backpack (a few things like some books, around 4 kg maybe) wont get a speed penalty, they instead get tired sooner and need more take more calories so... Instead of slowing down the firsts kgs in the backpack, keep the normal speed but make pawns to be just a bit more hungry and a bit more tired (rest need).

I think its an interesting idea instead of slowing down the pawn for just carrying 1-10 potatoes or a sidearm.

I personally believe that you should ask the big editors of mods, since the problem of content or change supposes to start almost 0, there are mods type hardcore sk that to the minimum change supposes days or weeks of work and players that alone They play with those types of mods. A greeting from Spain (sorry for my English is very bad)

tynan so my question is once you do release a17 can we still play the older versions such as some do with a14 and a15 on steam.or will be all be forced to use the new version .some of us prefer playing those until mods we use are updated for higher up versions and for our old saves

Quote from: darkewrathe on February 16, 2017, 11:08:04 PM
tynan so my question is once you do release a17 can we still play the older versions such as some do with a14 and a15 on steam.or will be all be forced to use the new version .some of us prefer playing those until mods we use are updated for higher up versions and for our old saves

JFGI...damn people are inefficient.

I vote for getting refinements-only out sooner, but then, I neither use nor create mods. 

Speaking of refinements, can we get a "minimum skill" slider for operations?  I'm tired of my backup-backup doc accidentally cutting someone's head off while trying to fit them with dentures (...) all because I got distracted and didn't micromanage the operation.

(While I'm on the subject... options to allow medicine to be used for certain injuries, but not for, say, bruises, would be nice.  That's another big micro task)

Quote from: Selvek on February 17, 2017, 03:19:25 PM
I vote for getting refinements-only out sooner, but then, I neither use nor create mods. 

Speaking of refinements, can we get a "minimum skill" slider for operations?  I'm tired of my backup-backup doc accidentally cutting someone's head off while trying to fit them with dentures (...) all because I got distracted and didn't micromanage the operation.

(While I'm on the subject... options to allow medicine to be used for certain injuries, but not for, say, bruises, would be nice.  That's another big micro task)

That's not a bad idea but Tynan said he is not looking at suggestions in this thread because that's not what the thread is for. I recommend you post in the suggestion forum.

I vote for releasing A17 as just the fixes.

I'm on the fence about this one... but from my limited experience with modding communities on indev games, waiting for content updates may be the best choice. Minecraft for instance, when Mojang released bugfix updates deep into a release cycle like this it ended up splitting the modding community between those who wanted to wait/not wait for a major content change to update mods and kinda forced the community to split into two versions of the game... repeatedly... until you have the hot mess that is current Minecraft with legacy versions out the wazoo and different sets of mods for all of them. I don't want to go through that mess with another game. lol

IMO release the bugfix patch first. Sure, it creates some community chaos, but new features inevitably also create more problems. It'd be preferable to have the game stable for a shorter amount of time while you work on newer features. Besides, it's better software development practice.

Maybe consider making Alpha 17 a refinement build PLUS an incorporation of "vanilla" mods that want to officially be in RimWorld at this point as outlined at https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?topic=29505.0

I voted for waiting to take longer and that is strongly based on the fact of this quote from Tynan:
"The advantages of releasing refinements only is that you get all those refinements faster.
The disadvantage is that it'll break mod compatibility, and the release itself will consume some developer time, slowing long-term progress slightly."
I am looking at the end of development of the game and the finished product. I would prefer to wait for a bigger update if it will help the game get finished sooner and with less interruptions. Mods shouldn't affect the time table on when the game updates are released. Mods are important to people and provide extra gameplay or refinement, etc., but they are built on top of the base game and shouldn't impede its progress. When a new update releases, Rimworld doesn't allow you to play an older saved game with the newer version. That would hit mod users twice if they want to play their modded game in the newer version, which would make them even less likely to play a new game right after an update(Once by mods breaking and once by the save game not being usable in the new release).

I'd rather go for a refinements-only release.

New features comes with new bugs. Having Alpha 17 as a solid bugless release sounds better to me.

All games eventually do a bugfix and balance release. Not every release has to be big and come with a ton of new features. Sometimes you need a stable base to build on.

Refinement only is good enough for me.
What I would like to see are resizable menus. Albeit something that isn't needed in vanilla it would help in Modding as some Mods add stuff which would be outside the visible area of the menus

In favor of waiting, keeps modders happier and I am a big fan of mods.

Playing "wandering" with a Little bigger map and on a half world with the "development built" Setting  for the first time in Rimworld I really have Performance Problems. Maybe it´s just the unstable "development built" Setting that is responsible, maybe not this alone.

For me rebalancing-Alpha faster alone would do it for the moment. Wandering contains enough new Features and I like the idea of small improvements after this great new update. Nobody playing with mods would be forced to start a new game only because a new Alpha is released. Players can upload it whenever they like. For me the confusion is not really an Argument against a smaller Alpha 16 without new Features. I also would like to have some improvements/bug fixes to wandering first before new Features are a Thing in a future Alpha.

whatever means I get to wait the longest before I have to update my guide

Quote from: Karrade on February 21, 2017, 11:15:10 AM
In favor of waiting, keeps modders happier and I am a big fan of mods.

Actually the most prolific modders said to not wait.

I'm in favor of waiting longer : yes this update was a bit glitchy, and unbalanced, but it was also slightly bare (I honestly think traveling, while an awesome idea, is barely a functional concept so far, for trading and raiding, and nothing else, making it a somewhat moot function IMO)

I also want the dev time being as efficient as possible, and if this means waiting slightly longer, I am ok with this idea

I understand with the modding aspect, some might say that its better to fix a few glitches, but I've not noticed them as a big issue.

So please, wait, and have it a few months out, I want to make sure Tynans time is spent as efficiently as possible, since his time is valuable, and I want rim-world to be as large as possible.

I would absolutely love if there was ever a family update, Kids, babies, etc. I think it would be a fantastic update I understand it would be a lot of work and very difficult with moods, personalities, traits, things like that but it would be amazing to not have to rely on chance or capturing people just so I can get more work done, faster... all I'm saying this could be a possible game changer and I know of Atleast other person who thinks that this would be a fantastic addition.

Quote from: ForsakenNeel on February 22, 2017, 07:15:00 PM
I would absolutely love if there was ever a family update, Kids, babies, etc. I think it would be a fantastic update I understand it would be a lot of work and very difficult with moods, personalities, traits, things like that but it would be amazing to not have to rely on chance or capturing people just so I can get more work done, faster... all I'm saying this could be a possible game changer and I know of Atleast other person who thinks that this would be a fantastic addition.

That may be a good update, but I fail to see how it relates to this thread.

Quote from: Jaxxa on February 22, 2017, 07:29:35 PM

Quote from: ForsakenNeel on February 22, 2017, 07:15:00 PM
I would absolutely love if there was ever a family update, Kids, babies, etc. I think it would be a fantastic update I understand it would be a lot of work and very difficult with moods, personalities, traits, things like that but it would be amazing to not have to rely on chance or capturing people just so I can get more work done, faster... all I'm saying this could be a possible game changer and I know of Atleast other person who thinks that this would be a fantastic addition.

That may be a good update, but I fail to see how it relates to this thread.

Agreed. It belongs in Suggestions (https://ludeon.com/forums/index.php?board=6.0).

---

I believe dev team should spend as much time working towards getting RW out of "Early Development" as possible. Think about this from a sales angle: Who wants to buy an unfinished game? But that's what this is, for now, so the "Early Development" label is accurate. Tynan, finish this game and get that paper, homeboy! 💲💲💲

I honestly think a separate release is better. Many people say that there aren't any game breaking bugs around, but I do think there are quite a few that make it unbalanced. Like caravans collapsing before they are able to be sent out, OPed trading without an economy balance. Unbalanced multiple colonies (I know the game isn't meant to handle this, but really, who didn't disable that option). As for mods, the only extra work would be for mods which are not impacted by the changes, but then it's only a change in the build version and a reupload, for mods that are impacted, they'll have to face those changes eventually, it's better to have them separated to lower their workload. People also won't have to wait as long between updates for mods to update as well. Unless making it a separate update gives Tynan a lot more work to do, I'd say separating them is better

Wait since it will mess up peoples mod productions aswell.

A little off topic: Can we view the usernames of everyone who has voted? Because I am a busybody really wish to know what my favourite modders think.

I kind of wish I still had some work log so I could see the kinds of fixes you are trying to implement. I think Caravans need a whole ton of work to make them functional. If that is what your working on then go for a 16.5. I don't know what 'new features' your planning, so its hard to judge what I would prefer.

Quote from: Wraithling on February 24, 2017, 11:45:59 AM
A little off topic: Can we view the usernames of everyone who has voted? Because I am a busybody really wish to know what my favourite modders think.

Think most modders want the release asap. I know the ones i speak to daily on the modders discord do.

Quote from: Limdood on February 16, 2017, 01:05:55 AM
...cut meats and textiles down to 4-5 types each at most.

+1

I'm totally for waiting on this one, since i exclusively play with mods.

My suggestion is waiting for the big patch, but make sure there are less bugs by making letting the community test it without making a promise to mod makers that nothing will break in the near future. That seems to be the problem here.

Can people stop saying "wait because mods" when the modders themselves have said that a bug fix/refinement patch would actually be better for them.

Why don't you just release a nightly build, buggy as hell version? or some kind of beta branch if you are in steam?

Getting a bug fix out is the most important thing. If the fixes that are stopping peoples games from crashing and loosing their progress/saves are complete, their release shouldnt be delayed.
Content can take a long time to be fully fleshed out. Which means we could be waiting a long time for fixes that are effecting our game right.now.

My concern is that a large number of people who are voting to package them together are thinking that itll mean we get more content quicker and doing them separately will delay the content release.
But realistically it could mean getting bug fixes a month sooner while getting the content only a week or so later than we would have otherwise.

Just release the refined version, hopefully with native 64 bit support.
If many of the mechanics are to be changed, a longer beta testing would be appreciated.
ALSO
Release a list with the the tags you changed/modified, i think it would make the life of modders easier (with A16 many people didn't realize some worktomake tags changed to wortobuild for instance).

Quote from: faltonico on February 27, 2017, 06:58:33 PM
Just release the refined version, hopefully with native 64 bit support.
If many of the mechanics are to be changed, a longer beta testing would be appreciated.

64 bit builds would be a pretty large change. And frankly, a waste of dev time at this point. Which makes that a high-investment, low-yield idea. Not something we want right now.

Gotta say I know I'm just another voice in the crowd but I'd like to see refinements and optimization before new content. Hell I'd love to see an alpha where all you did was bring in all the best mods, give the authors proper credit, but streamline them right into the game itself, plenty of them are more then ready quality wise. Anyways, thanks for reading, & thanks for the amazing game! :)

'Goblin

I just want to see more stability and optimizations for larger colonies on larger maps.  I'm constantly getting jittering and slowness with just 15 pawns on a 300x300 map.

YES,bug fixes
now we just need:
multiplayer
vehicles
way to zoom out on research screen
trenches,towers and other height stuff
something to make water useful in the game
BABIZ
executing a prisoner with a gun(would be cooler instead of just quiet murder)
and last but not lease
SPACE TRAVEL
OTHER PLANETS
and ALIENS

Quote from: iareBirdie on March 02, 2017, 06:30:11 AM
YES,bug fixes
now we just need:
multiplayer
vehicles
way to zoom out on research screen
trenches,towers and other height stuff
something to make water useful in the game
BABIZ
executing a prisoner with a gun(would be cooler instead of just quiet murder)
and last but not lease
SPACE TRAVEL
OTHER PLANETS
and ALIENS

I think most of Rimmers would scream Nooooo to over half of your demands,  yeech.

I'd say more than half.....probably all of those features.  Stabilize the current features, then move onto adding more content.

I think waiting until more content is ready would be the best choice. For a lot of people the updates are fairly big things to look forward to, and while bug fixes and rebalancing are nice, in a way it would sort of come across as slightly disappointing. Alongside the fixes something that focuses on the smaller features of the game would be nice - e.g. more weapons, clothing, furniture, food etc added to the game.

Has Mr. T decided yet ?

What will it be ?

And has word from above reached us lowly dregs on the rim ?

The sooner we get the balancing/refinement patch, the more feedback the dev can have about the balance of the game, all of this, while he work on new feature.

Can you develop your game faster? Look at thousands mods, he give so much stuff but your shitty updates give nothing or 1,2 possibilities

Quote from: Pepelnica1488 on March 15, 2017, 01:12:10 PM
Can you develop your game faster? Look at thousands mods, he give so much stuff but your shitty updates give nothing or 1,2 possibilities

So you've got a grand total of 8 posts, and basically all of them are complaining/demanding/rage-caps. Yep, Tynan will single-handedly double his coding speed, resolve bugs, & add a ton of new content all for you. Oh, and he'll also solve world hunger while he's at it. ;)

Quote from: Pepelnica1488 on March 15, 2017, 01:12:10 PM
Can you develop your game faster? Look at thousands mods, he give so much stuff but your shitty updates give nothing or 1,2 possibilities

Like the thousands mods are made by the same and unique person? How can you compare hundreds of modder's work vs a single dev work?
And most mods are imbalanced and close to cheating.
Oh, and without Tynan work, the base game would not be here, and the mods would be useless.

"Most mods are imbalanced and close to cheating" is a sweeping statement which does a disservice to some of the talented modders I have come to know.

Watch Tynan's talk at GDC: http://gdcvault.com/play/1024232/-RimWorld-Contrarian-Ridiculous-and

Quote from: MarvinKosh on March 15, 2017, 06:18:26 PM
"Most mods are imbalanced and close to cheating" is a sweeping statement which does a disservice to some of the talented modders I have come to know.

Watch Tynan's talk at GDC: http://gdcvault.com/play/1024232/-RimWorld-Contrarian-Ridiculous-and

"Most" is different than "All".

If you aren't specific when you tar modders with your brush, don't be surprised if they're all unhappy with your comments.

I say wait. Im not in a hurry for A17 if its only to get bug fixes. Not aware of any major gamebreaking ones either.

Quote from: Ruisuki on March 16, 2017, 12:02:33 AM
I say wait. Im not in a hurry for A17 if its only to get bug fixes. Not aware of any major gamebreaking ones either.

I've read that it is as much bugfixing than balancing, haven't played since a14 or was it a15, but i've read that disease make a16 very unbalanced. Is the situation that dire that it require a "emergency patch" or is it as playable as before?

Quote from: Fleurs on March 16, 2017, 08:47:59 AM

Quote from: Ruisuki on March 16, 2017, 12:02:33 AM
I say wait. Im not in a hurry for A17 if its only to get bug fixes. Not aware of any major gamebreaking ones either.

I've read that it is as much bugfixing than balancing, haven't played since a14 or was it a15, but i've read that disease make a16 very unbalanced. Is the situation that dire that it require a "emergency patch" or is it as playable as before?

It's just as playable. There is no emergency patch, look how long this thread has been running. Disease is slightly worse , but surgery is the real thing that took the nerf hammer hard. The lower medicines were lowered enough in potency that, going from memory here, a level 3 doctor with glitter meds is about as good as a level 20 doctor with regular meds. Glitter meds weren't increased, regular and herbal just took that hard a hit.

Quote from: Pepelnica1488 on March 15, 2017, 01:12:10 PM
Can you develop your game faster? Look at thousands mods, he give so much stuff but your shitty updates give nothing or 1,2 possibilities

Hundreds of people making mods of varying scale and quality during their free-time can typically produce content faster than a 3-4 man dev team who go through quality control and testing stages that last weeks while bug testers try to the break the game as much as possible so said dev team can release a stable update with some content and fixes.

Mods go through testing too. Quite often it's just the modder doing the testing, so they do not get the benefit of having extra testers.

IMHO we should wait.

To be honest, I think that we should get two separate updates, simply because otherwise, any new bugs introduced by new content will be indistinguishable from old bugs, and as a large many of the modders have said, they will likely only have to make a few small changes to their mods to become compatible with the next version, as it will likely just be bugfixes and optimisation and balancing. Either way, Tynan and the team will do what they think is best, and continue to develop an amazing game. Best of luck with the decision Tynan

Seems like Tynan decided to wait and add more content for A17.

https://twitter.com/TynanSylvester/status/844328268870438912

QuoteA wide variety of stuff, including more content for the world map. More places to go, stuff to do, reasons to make caravans, etc.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RimWorld/comments/60rw07/alpha_17_will_have_new_content/df8wqsp/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=RimWorld

Mmm, A17 is going to be awesome!

Quote from: Pepelnica1488 on March 15, 2017, 01:12:10 PM
Can you develop your game faster? Look at thousands mods, he give so much stuff but your shitty updates give nothing or 1,2 possibilities

Wow, talk about ingrateful aholes. I was kinda hoping they weren't a thing in RW's community, since Big T is so great a guy, who pays attention to his game's fans.

I am with those who want to get refinement build a bit earlier rather than a big update later. But I guess T already decided to make it big and late. Oh well, it will be good anyway.

Watched that GDC video on Rimworld where the Tynan talked about his game/story generator. Really interesting to see that amount of passion in making Rimworld.

Quote from: Birdy on March 25, 2017, 09:38:05 AM
Watched that GDC video on Rimworld where the Tynan talked about his game/story generator. Really interesting to see that amount of passion in making Rimworld.

Yeah it's heart-warming like he handles Rimworld.
It's really awesome to see that he is actually caring for RW and the community and not only looking for making a quick penny.

And he can take his time to develop.
I prefer that over a rushed-out, buggy release like some AAA titles do.

Quote from: Pepelnica1488 on March 15, 2017, 01:12:10 PM
Can you develop your game faster? Look at thousands mods, he give so much stuff but your shitty updates give nothing or 1,2 possibilities

Wow, that's just... rude. I hope that it's a joke.

Quote from: grrizo on March 26, 2017, 11:36:39 AM

Quote from: Pepelnica1488 on March 15, 2017, 01:12:10 PM
Can you develop your game faster? Look at thousands mods, he give so much stuff but your shitty updates give nothing or 1,2 possibilities

Wow, that's just... rude. I hope that it's a joke.

...and ignorant. Both rude and ignorant indeed.

Quote from: Andy_Dandy on March 27, 2017, 02:23:22 AM

Quote from: grrizo on March 26, 2017, 11:36:39 AM

Quote from: Pepelnica1488 on March 15, 2017, 01:12:10 PM
Can you develop your game faster? Look at thousands mods, he give so much stuff but your shitty updates give nothing or 1,2 possibilities

Wow, that's just... rude. I hope that it's a joke.

...and ignorant. Both rude and ignorant indeed.

I did some research on pepelnica. he is a troll.

---

anyway, this thread is over.

Quote from: Andy_Dandy on March 22, 2017, 03:38:58 AM
Seems like Tynan decided to wait and add more content for A17.

https://twitter.com/TynanSylvester/status/844328268870438912

Quote from: Jaxxa on March 22, 2017, 06:01:17 AM

QuoteA wide variety of stuff, including more content for the world map. More places to go, stuff to do, reasons to make caravans, etc.

https://www.reddit.com/r/RimWorld/comments/60rw07/alpha_17_will_have_new_content/df8wqsp/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=RimWorld

I doubt the poll influenced the decision much. Tynan seems decisive and independent about Ludeon (business) decisions, though pretty open to our influence regarding RimWorld (creative) decisions. A strong leader is just what we need in these troubled times ;)

Add stuff from the Vegetable Garden mod and be able to make prosthetic organs and body parts!!!

As others have already mentioned, it appears Tynan has decided that A17 will be a content and refinement update, rather than just refinements. Here are links to the relevant comments by Tynan from Twitter and reddit regarding this (I have shamelessly stolen kindly borrowed the links from earlier posts by Andy_Dandy and Jaxxa)

https://twitter.com/TynanSylvester/status/844328268870438912
https://www.reddit.com/r/RimWorld/comments/60rw07/alpha_17_will_have_new_content/df8wqsp/

In light of this decision, this thread has now both served its purpose and run its course, so it's time to close it. Plus the last few pages of posts haven't exactly been on-topic at times. Thank you to everyone who offered their opinion and feedback in this thread. It was greatly appreciated. Now we all just need to top-up our supply of patience, and sit back and wait for A17  to be released :)