Version 1.0 is content-complete

Started by Tynan, October 01, 2018, 10:29:21 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Yoshida Keiji

#75
Thanks guys but it wasn't neither of those...

Ser Kitteh, it's always good to see you around and you were the closest of both, but your point very valid.

Big head Zach brings in another more important detail than the number of enemies...


But what I am finding in need of adjustment is the team composition. I mean... if you were trying to capture a pawn...would you really go with 6 grenadiers and 7 rocket launchers? I assume you want the prisoner...alive...right? I think such a team should be compromised by Gunners mostly...Although all shooting has an equal chance to kill the target to a certain degree...this example of chasers look more like a "Sapper" team than a group of chasers...

So Tynan: Tune them down.

Maverik

#76
Speaking about the mods topic, I think the people who plays with mods already know the risks of playing with it, if you broke your game for some reason, its your fault, nobody needs to protect them, and the new method of updating mods is gonna be a pain for heavy mod users and for the modders.

And even if you dont agree with that, you should known not all the community is going to do that, so even if you idea is the best thing, your attempt is futile, in the best case scenario you can expect a 50% of the modders doing that, so you now have a new problem, you still have the problem of broken games and the people who blame you (who are wrong), but now you have pissed some of the community too.

Let the communty flow in his way and ignore toxic users who blame Ludeon for his own faults.

Excuse my poor english, its not my native laguage.

And congrats for Rimworld 1.0, its an amazing game, and I hope that in one way or another we can continue to expect new Ludeon content, be it with DLCs, expansions or whatever else keeps the development healthy.

bbqftw

In almost all situations raiders behave in unimmersive ways, not just in refugee raids. Just view them as abstracted agents of pawn permanent damage and property destruction.

They are simply instruments of storytelling.

Jibbles

Tynan: What about future updates.. would they work similar to how they were in the past?
Things such as:
        - informing the user if using wrong version number?
        - Would it be labeled as 1.1? 

For what it's worth, I didn't find the post disrespectful.  The reason is obvious why he suggested we update that way, and the intention of being disrespectful would be out of character.

I may experiment with updating the subscribed mod, and add the older version on workshop. Of course I won't do this til official release and I'd link old version in description/comments for users. I'm sorry, but I've been doing the way as suggested and don't like it. I do hate the clutter this brings in the workshop tho but this is steams fault really.

Marv, from what I've seen it all depends what's on the workshop at the time you upload, if it made to the top etc.  But if it's a small mod (under 8,000) then you'll most likely get about the same amount subs back if it was in the same situation.  However, I can't speak for mods who have like 40,000+ subs, so I understand why they hesitate doing it this way.

Dingo

Quote from: Tynan on October 03, 2018, 05:31:19 AM
1) Steam workshop has tags...

2) ...it's impossible to put the mod up during the current pre-release testing phase...

3) ...In-place updates don't add convenience for players...

4) ...now the old save is broken AND players need to hunt down and figure out new mods and deactivate the old broken ones

5) it seems much, much more straightforward to simply guarantee that a mod will always work for the version it was created for.

Preamble - try to read this post in a neutral tone. This is a good debate to have and hopefully we can all benefit.

1) Tags are pointless. They are the most lazy and uninspired mechanism in the Workshop by far. Go and click on the 0.15 tag, it's not as comfortable as browsing normally. If you want to make a real difference for modders and mod users you can try to involve Valve, maybe they'll listen to some of our ideas.

2) Modders who want to test their mods for 1.0 should definitely not do it on Steam unless they hate themselves. Forums and GitHub exist and feedback here is mostly well constructed.

3) As I have said before, part of Steam is updating and managing things automatically. I have been a Steam user for years and browse various Valve and Steam communities. This is ubiquitous across them all and the vast majority welcomes it without even mentioning the subject. If you think that in-place updates are not convenient for players then you are outing yourself as a complete outsider to what Steam is as a whole (no disrespect meant here).

4) A good point, but let's look at it from a different perspective. We're contemplating (previous version) saves breaking vs sending users to chase mods. Currently some percentage of players has to look for mods to accomodate whatever version they're running. What you're suggesting is we make 100% of the userbase chase 100% of their mod list to ensure they have the proper version. Does this really seem like a better, more convenient solution to you?

5) Some modders provide versioning (via GitHub releases, etc.) and some do not. Modders who do not will likely get flamed by users and either shrug it off or fall in line. My Workshop page for mod X is not "mod X on 2018-05-03", it's just "mod X". It's a service I offer to whomever wants a dedicated and up-to-date experience. I also include links where appropriate to make sure people can easily find previous releases.

I personally am not motivated by user numbers or praise. It's nice to have, but I mod because I get to learn from people who are better than me while giving something back to the community.

I will definitely be doing an in-place update to my mods on the Workshop. I am not going to answer questions, take feedback and respond to bug reports across 10 different Workshop pages. Some of my mods have pre/post B19 versions but that is as far as I go.

Tsunamy

Tynan, I feel like you're gonna have to bite the bullet here. A lot of the hard-line refusals in this thread so far are also from mod authors who have the most widely used mods. If you don't have them on board, this initiative to discourage in-place updates is doomed.

I wish I had a good suggestion but I don't.

Haplo

I'm a bit reluctant to admit it, but most likely I will also go the In-Place-Update variant.

For this I have the following reasoning:

1. It leaves my workshop collection small and tidy. One mod == One entry  vs.  One mod == X entries
    Same goes for the comments: One comment section per mod  vs.  X comment sections per mod

2. I am not asked to fix errors in an older version, as I only ever work with the latest version of my mods

3. I've done this for multiple versions now and only had a bunch of complains on the very first few days afterwards
    (And all could work in-between with the old mod versions from my GitHub)

4. With the new Mod Manager (by Fluffy for example) a backup in-time shouldn't be a problem anymore

5. My old versions can be found on GitHub, so whoever needs them I can still provide them easily.
    But I'm unwilling to use the current Steam Workshop to drop old versions that most likely will be unused 1-2 weeks afterwards
    (--> who for example still plays MODDED a17 games ? ? ? --> Unmodded, sure.. But modded? Relative unlikely).

Just my 2 cents..

Eldarin1

#82
A few observations from the peanut gallery:

There is a reason why I only play vanilla content; it keeps the responsibility for the product on the manufacturer where it belongs. It is the same reason why my vehicles are stock. If I modify them with after-market products and break them, I have no one to blame but myself.

The game as stated is Early Access. Subject to change frequently and without warning. No one has the right to complain about broken saves with this disclaimer. I have never "finished" a colony because of this, and I probably won't get to finish my current colony, but that is the consequence of beta-testing.


spyderwebsc

Quote from: Haplo on October 03, 2018, 04:05:03 PM
who for example still plays MODDED a17 games ? ? ? --> Unmodded, sure.. But modded?

*Raises hand*

In most cases, I have no sympathy for someone who complains about an updated mod breaking his savegame that he spent however many hours on, but he can't take a few minutes to copy his mods to another folder so things like that don't happen. There's a sticky on the steam forum that tells you how to do it and I'm sure if you asked on a forum someone would explain to you how to do it.

I'm 68 years old and if I can figure out how to do it, you would think someone who can't remember a time without personal computers could figure it out.





erdrik

Quote from: Yoshida Keiji on October 03, 2018, 10:57:54 AM
...
But what I am finding in need of adjustment is the team composition. I mean... if you were trying to capture a pawn...would you really go with 6 grenadiers and 7 rocket launchers? I assume you want the prisoner...alive...right? I think such a team should be compromised by Gunners mostly...Although all shooting has an equal chance to kill the target to a certain degree...this example of chasers look more like a "Sapper" team than a group of chasers...
...

I do tend to agree that my immediate reaction is that the raid composition is off.
But it could also be a symptom of a lacking description. The description doesn't really say why the refugee is being chased, only that they are. For all we know the raiders are just a bunch of jerks that are cruelly "having fun" blowing the crap out of one of their prisoners. Or the refugee could be an ex-raider that got kicked out for lighting their base on fire and is now being chase explicitly so they can get some violent revenge.

RemingtonRyder

Quote from: Tsunamy on October 03, 2018, 03:23:45 PM
Tynan, I feel like you're gonna have to bite the bullet here. A lot of the hard-line refusals in this thread so far are also from mod authors who have the most widely used mods. If you don't have them on board, this initiative to discourage in-place updates is doomed.

Tynan asked. He didn't demand. Pretty sure that every mod maker can make their own mind up.

Quote from: Jibbles on October 03, 2018, 11:57:56 AM
Marv, from what I've seen it all depends what's on the workshop at the time you upload, if it made to the top etc.  But if it's a small mod (under 8,000) then you'll most likely get about the same amount subs back if it was in the same situation.  However, I can't speak for mods who have like 40,000+ subs, so I understand why they hesitate doing it this way.

Well, since I have some numbers, let me hit you with them... :)

Sometimes Raids Go Wrong B18 peaked at about 23000 subs, 180 days after release. It got up to 20000 of those in just 90 days.

Sometimes Raids Go Wrong A17 peaked at just 6700 subs, 170 days after release. It managed almost 6000 of those in 90 days.

Sometimes Raids Go Wrong A16 peaked at nearly 7500 subs, 86 days after release (this was its debut release). It managed over 4000 of those in just the first 10 days.

If you want these kinds of performance metrics, you have to do separate versions. More importantly though, as long as you put a good mod out there, you shouldn't have to be worried about it not finding a following. 23000 is tiny compared to some of the mods on Workshop, but it's pretty damn significant in its own right. :)

Bozobub

Or, you know, you could not be a prat, and do as the dev just politely asked :P.  Seriously, people, it's NOT an onerous or unreasonable request.
Thanks, belgord!

Tynan

Quote4) A good point, but let's look at it from a different perspective. We're contemplating (previous version) saves breaking vs sending users to chase mods. Currently some percentage of players has to look for mods to accomodate whatever version they're running. What you're suggesting is we make 100% of the userbase chase 100% of their mod list to ensure they have the proper version. Does this really seem like a better, more convenient solution to you?

Put simply, the choice is between:

A) You can continue your old save to completion with your old mods. By the time you're done, mods will have their new version up and you can subscribe to those and start a new game. If you don't want to re-sub you can just keep playing the old version with your old mods as long as you want.

B) Most of your mods break upon the new version and auto-deactivate. Your savegame breaks and cannot be recovered. You are required to make a new savegame. You are required to re-check the mods you want and try to figure out if/when they'll update, and wait for them, or start the game without them. Some of your mods will get separate versions, but it's not clear which, and you have to hunt them down and re-sub to those ones.

As a player experience, A is much, much better.

Loss aversion: The impact of having things taken from you is much more than the positive impact of getting something.

I do intend to recommend players back up their mod lists before 1.0. But most won't. The vast majority of players never read forums, never read announcements, never post anywhere or contact any of us. Compare the number of commenters vs subscribers on your mods - you'll find the number of subscribers is many, many times more than the number of people you're actually interacting with. If you only pay attention to the people who are interacting, you will miss 95-99% of the actual impact of your mods.

Those are the people I'm trying to draw attention to - the vast silent majority of players who won't get involved in any of this. They just see their game is broken, and then they learn they can never get it back, and they're pissed off. Justifiably.

Having to do work backing up mod files so we don't trash your game feels like work. Now you're burdened with labor to prevent a loss.

Needing to re-sub to mods you want for a new game is not nearly as big a burden as that. Subscribing to mods is a fun interaction; it's like shopping for games but everything is free and instant.

It's true that separating versions is less convenient for mod makers. However mod-makers are outnumbered by players by at least a 1000-to-1 ratio. The huge downside to players, who are extremely numerous, is why I'm recommending against destructive updates.
Tynan Sylvester - @TynanSylvester - Tynan's Blog

HexCube

Look, as a long-time player of RimWorld, I know that I certainly don't represent the entire playerbase, much those of us who install mods, but I figure my opinion is probably similar to the collective one, and might be of some value here. Before I start, a little disclaimer: I don't intend on offending anyone, so my apologies in advance if I say something you don't like, the last thing I want to do is start a flame war, and I certainly don't want to piss off all you wonderful people who add to this game in ways I never thought possible until I saw them myself. I don't develop mods, and I certainly can't relate to the lost progress and subscription numbers, but I do understand the want to keep them. In a perfect world, Steam/Valve would have a system in place to prevent games from being broken across updates. However, they don't. I think Tynan's asking you all to upload a 1.0 version of your mods for more than one reason too, and I don't (personally, bearing in mind that I'm NOT a modder, just a mod-user, so take this with a grain of salt) think that it's all that unreasonable to upload a new version of your mod to the workshop just for 1.0 - it's a big milestone for Tynan and the dev team, it should be for all of you too, an opportunity to add just a little bit more polish to areas of your mods that need it (though, in all honesty, you all do an incredible job, and add a massive amount of enjoyability to an already amazing game.) 1.0 means you can also have a 'version 1.0' of your mods, where they, alongside the game, are a new version, and a new bunch of opportunities.

Onto my other point. As a long-time player (A10 if I remember correctly, I've been around for 3+ years) I've been familiar with mods for a long while, in fact, I only had a few stock playthroughs at first, and usually I have a stock playthrough with each new version. I usually do one playthrough of RimWorld, then don't touch it for a month or so. After that month, I delete all of my mods, and as Tynan mentioned above, I go 'shopping' for the mods I want for my next playthrough. Whether it's EdB's PrepareCarefully to speed up the early game a bit, or a no-raids storyteller for a more laid back playthrough - maybe even Zombieland for an added challenge, or half of fluffy's mods, a bunch from Mehni, and a few from Skully, or any number of mod authors. I can play with anywhere between 10 and 200 mods - then I begin the process of troubleshooting - between finding, downloading (I manually install), and troubleshooting so everything works as it should, I usually spend 2-3 lots of 3-6 hours getting the mods to work, and adding those I forgot, removing incompatibilities, etc. Then I begin my playthrough, and play the colony till it's destroyed, or overpowered to a point at which it is no longer challenging (anywhere from a few hours every day for two weeks, up to two months.)

It's the same process with games I use the workshop for (admittedly, very few) - before I do a playthrough, I wipe the modlist clean, and start again. People following your mods will do exactly the same thing, unless your mod is a staple, which, respectfully, is only very few of you - the rest add flavour, and a lot of good flavour, but it's the QOL mods that are staples - researchtree, hand me that brick, and a whole host of others. Even then, I download them afresh, just in case. My point is, apart from the odd user who plays with only 3-4 mods, all your subscribers will unsubscribe at some point - you may as well upload a new file to the workshop, because anyone who wants and uses your mod will find and subscribe. Or, like me, they'll come here to the forums and install it manually. Your subscriber numbers will be back to the level they were at previously before you even know it. I promise. Ultimately, I'm not a modder, so it's by far, not my decision, but as a player, it doesn't seem like an unreasonable request from Tynan. Again, I don't think you'd be expected to do this for, say, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., just for the big release, 1.0.

Before I go, congrats on 1.0 Tynan! It's been a long time, and I'm sure a mountain and a half of effort in the making, and I'm priveleged to have been a part of it.

Fluffy (l2032)

Quote
Put simply, the choice is between: ...snip...
This is such a red herring, and yet you keep repeating it. I can easily make up some player experiences that tell the opposite story;

A) You're excited about finally playing RW 1.0. You play a vanilla game to see what it's like now. For your next game, you decide you still want to use some of the mods you played with before, so you open the mod screen, activate them, and are ready to go!

B) You're excited about finally playing RW 1.0. You want to use some of your favourite mods, but you can't, because they've all been taken away from you. You don't know if mods have updated somewhere else, or if their authors have abandoned the mod. You search steam for hours, but you can't find the mods you're looking for. You get frustrated and take it out on RimWorlds' reviews.

As a player experience, A is much, much better.

QuoteLoss aversion: The impact of having things taken from you is much more than the positive impact of getting something.
Yep, agreed. So don't take away people's mods!

The point is that this is not a modder vs. player argument. It's not about 'lazy' modders breaking peoples savegames. And it's not because modders are vain numberwhores who don't want to see our statistics thrown out.

Steam Workshop as a content delivery system does not deal with versioning. Either way, some players are inconvenienced. We should be focussing on an alternative. Making local copies of mods is such an alternative.


QuoteI do intend to recommend players back up their mod lists before 1.0. But most won't. The vast majority of players never read forums, never read announcements, never post anywhere or contact any of us. Compare the number of commenters vs subscribers on your mods - you'll find the number of subscribers is many, many times more than the number of people you're actually interacting with. If you only pay attention to the people who are interacting, you will miss 95-99% of the actual impact of your mods.
I'm glad you're considering recommending making backups. I'd suggest you put that notification in-game, for players who use mods. It should be trivial to push out a small patch, no?

QuoteBut most won't. The vast majority of players never read forums, never read announcements, never post anywhere or contact any of us. Compare the number of commenters vs subscribers on your mods - you'll find the number of subscribers is many, many times more than the number of people you're actually interacting with.
And yet you're assuming that modders are any different and that you can reach them all just by posting a single thread in ludeon/general? Also, we're aware that people don't read, we've been dealing with the same steam community you have.

QuoteIf you only pay attention to the people who are interacting, you will miss 95-99% of the actual impact of your mods.
Exactly, so why are catering to (what I assume to be) the vocal minority who wants new versions? From what I've seen and heard from my own mods and other modders, most users understand the reason behind updating-in-place, and are fine with it. As Dingo mentioned, auto-updates are the expected behaviour for anything on Steam.

QuoteThose are the people I'm trying to draw attention to - the vast silent majority of players who won't get involved in any of this. They just see their game is broken, and then they learn they can never get it back, and they're pissed off. Justifiably.
Stop with the hyperbole, as this is another red herring. Stuff will get broken no matter what we do, you're just advocating we don't break things for a more vocal group of people. The 'silent majority' doesn't even know about the beta switching button, and will just start a new game.

Quote
Having to do work backing up mod files so we don't trash your game feels like work. Now you're burdened with labor to prevent a loss.

Needing to re-sub to mods you want for a new game is not nearly as big a burden as that. Subscribing to mods is a fun interaction; it's like shopping for games but everything is free and instant.
Bullshit. In my ModManager mod, creating local copies of your entire mod list is literally one click. I spent about two hours on that particular feature. I'm sure you can do something even better in half the time, if you put your mind to it. People with 200+ mods will not enjoy that shopping trip as much as you might think. Not to mention that you're suggesting creating many versions of the same mod, cluttering up search results. Or that all these new versions will break all the item collections out there, creating thousands of zombie collections where it's unclear what version the collection or the mods in it is for.

QuoteIt's true that separating versions is less convenient for mod makers. However mod-makers are outnumbered by players by at least a 1000-to-1 ratio. The huge downside to players, who are extremely numerous, is why I'm recommending against destructive updates.
Yes, it's inconvenient to me. It's also inconvenient to a part of your players. You keep framing this as a modders vs. players argument, but it just isn't. The real problem is how to work around the Workshop's flaws.