some other people don't mind the small (some less small) glitches and are happy to report any issues.

but it would seem like every few last releases have had their number of glitches that keep some people from enjoying the game as much as they deserve/expect.

i personally think it's time for guild software to get out of the weekly release trap and start shooting for quality rather than quick-and-dirty jobs.

what i sugest is that the updater adds a "get pre-release versions" check box and that this skips or allows downloading "fresh hot" versions as it currently does.

the brave souls that wish to get them are therefore aware that this particular version isn't entirely tested by the user base and that some issues might arise.

those who to prefer to get less-tested version would know what they're getting into and would have less reasons to piss about and a moral obligation to report problems so that this release reaches a stability that's good enough for the unwilling user base get safely get.

this can only contribute to a better experience for the users who wish not to be beta testers and provide a better reputations for the "released" versions and guild software.

Someone would surely find a way to abuse the fuck outta this idea.

what's to abuse? the checkbox would only mark your installation for update if the server-side update is not bit-marked as beta.

anything else is just the same.

technically, if you dont want to mess with the beta, you can manually launch the client rather than the updater wrapper, until you're satisfied with the release reports on the web site.

it's just a convenience for those unwilling to deal with crasher released (or lsd-colored roids)

Things like multicoloured roids, lua errors, crashes, etc. usually get fixed with a .1 patch an hour or 2 after the update.

the point is that it makes vo looks like some poor open source program--the kind that has releases every 2nd day or so and never feels solid you wonder every time if it's worth using of if it wont bug you down.

a simple "beta" or "early seed" switch would avoid newcomers to be faced with pink roids, crashing missions and utterly unnecessary lua console errors.

keep in mind that every .point release forces the user to download the patch--that's poor performance for new users and they're right to bitch about the system when the system they're still evaluating, fails them.

In all my time I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about the weekly release cycle. And even with buggy updates, all I see is:

<Players> Hey devs, you broke this thing.
<Devs> Oh shit, here's a patch to fix that.
<Players> Yaaaay!

Some time later...
<Upper Case> grmbl grmbl, I'm a jerk and noobs shouldn't be subjected to weekly patches.

I would suspect that this whole thing would be very hard to manage change control wise.

The problem being, that almost every release has changes to both the user client, and the server side, and those things need to sync up.

So doing them separate would end up with more buggy behavior, not less. Clients requesting things that don't exist any more, or are handled differently. One example is the new add on stacking. I found a ship today with the old, non-stacked version, and when doing an transfer all, it got lost, and required my to undock/dock to fix it.

Try to imagine the time and effort it would need to take to hunt down bugs that only exist because someone was running an old client, and not the new one.

At least this way, most serious bugs get dealt with quickly, and everyone is on the same page client wise on new logins.

Lecter is right, someone would most likely exploit the hell out of old versions, find a way to miss report versions, etc. The whole "verifying files" is done every launch to make sure that everyone is on the same page client wise. If you do not enforce that, then someone will figure out ways to mis-report versions, and take all sorts of advantages.

Oh, right, I forgot to meantion VO_Beta stuff when we got the new lua-enabled client. Namely, people(me) on Beta versions of the client could teleport around using lua where older cliented people could not. The abuse of versionity goes both ways.

why are you on the defensive scuba? i'm simply suggesting a way to shield newcomers from the now-frequent annoying glitches of fresh releases. how's that detrimental to your manlyhood?

psy, i'm not sure where you got that about client releases being ties to server release.

i didn't find that to be true. test server isn't updated at the same frequency as the production server and bar exceptions, they've never been tied to specific releases.

for a while, i've actually began launching the application instead of the installer to avoid updating immediately after the friday release. it bugged me to have to re-update even hours later because of some last-minute untested oopsy.

what i'm suggesting is a way for developers to get out of the enslaving weekly release so they can concentrate on quality releases and perhaps more time-consuming jobs that require more attention than having to worry about the evening release.

i agree with upper case. if you're gonna release software to paying customers, please try harder to make sure there aren't obvious bugs in it. like the stations not updating, or stuff like that. i know it doesnt happen too often, but when it does its really annoying. im not sure there's a way to make these happen even less often or not at all, but cool if there is! lets do it that way!

upper case: The protocol version matching does (as far as I know) a pretty simple check: If the server's protocol version number is higher than the player's client protocol version (ie, 1.7.33 vs 1.7.32) then the player is required to update the client prior to logging on. The test server is a special case; the devs may be using internal builds of the client that have a different (read: newer) protocol version, whereas the rest of the players are not.

Also, to my knowledge, one does not have to update the client when the change would only be something like 1.7.27.1 to 1.7.27.2.

I remember a time when there were multiple versions of the game around. One allowed in-system jumping without having to recharge to 25%, the others did not.

Guess what happened at the Deneb Run?

Lecter is right.

one clientversion please. that is the one the devs concentrate on, the one that is the last, with hopefully less bugs then before.

another topic is testing before releasing it.
no matter what or how the devs work, there is always room for improovement viewed by a cusomer.
thing is, guildsoftware patches weekly and till now they do a very good job, in my humble opinion.

i would recommend instead bringing the client to a stable releaseversion. with just the actuall features.
and offer a paralell universe for testing. after a certain patch you get asked "want to play release version" or "want to play testingversion"

Releaseversion gets major fully tested patches once in a while...
the testserver gets patches when they are ready any day the week.

when switching to a new release version both databases get merged
and you are asked again.
but you can just play one or the other because otherwise a merge would be prevented or going to be very difficult. see, in one universe i bought 14 more ships then in the other but in the other i raised my standing ... how to merge these? so one or the other...

In my opinion upper_case idea has merit and I agree with it, but not for all the same reasons.
Having less frequent, more substantial, and more stable releases (rather than dribble-ware) would be a good improvement for V.O., for Guild Software and for the player base (customers).

However
- It is not clear to me that having main branch release version of client and beta testing version of client in play is a good thing; it may be a bad thing (as mentioned by Psyra and Shaded). It increases the problem of version management, and increases possible inter-version bugs.
- I don't agree with having separate parallel VO universes, because the player base is too small. We can't have like 14 players on release server and 11 on beta server. (There is already a test server BTW. I don't play there, there are too few players)

Therefore I would prefer just 1 main version of VO at a time.

Some people could argue that VO is effectively still in Beta test. (see other posts on this). If this is the case it should be made clearer as a caveat to players (customers) when signing up. If not, then releases need to be slightly better and less frequent.

In my experience, getting out of the weekly release cycle trap and having bigger, monthly releases should give Guild Software more space and more time to do actual design, coding, integration and testing work, and worry less about regression testing and release packaging.
IF that be the case - that it results in productivity improvements and efficiency gains in their software development process - THEN they should do it.
As I don't observe their software development process, I can't definitively say that it will. (I hope it would, but I don't know).
Therefore Incarnate and A1k0n should consider the suggestion.

Having said that, thanks Guild Software for your efforts, and I agree with slime73 and ScubaSteve that they are very responsive about fixing buggy releases with EBF (patches) very swiftly.

Lately most bugs are occured mostly because of server-side stuff. I can live with colorful roids (of crap, I missed them actually >_<) or not-working chat. But major problems are actually non-working missions and sector crashes. I was very upset when I couldn't use one of my characters for the whole day

So if we want production server/client to be really stable, than we need to do all testing on the test server. But playerbase is not large enough for big group of players to spend a lot of time on test server. If fact, everyone who starts playing VO eventually raises a question == Why there are not many players around? And he is told, that game is quite "not yet finished". So everyone knows, that he plays a game which is in development, and not actually ready for masses. Your choice is play this "coz it's beta than nothin'" game, or wait for a stable release. Of course, I expect that once we see a stable release, all testing stuff will be done on the test server (and there will be actually enough players to do that testing).

But currently, even those people on production server are not enough to do proper testing 99% of the time (example)

And by the way, using only lowercase letters on suggestion forum is a lame approach to RP

yeah everyone knows my rp is lame. now get back on track.

i believe the update process is a simple file check, server-side, that contains the current version (that's how i remember it being detailed, long ago).

i obviously dont have the specifics but having a check box in the updater could simply alter the directory (or file name) of the file being checked for the new release. it shouldn't need to involve any complicated measure.

the devs prepare a new release as they always did but shove the version file into the "pre-release" directory.

users willing to have the best-and-latest end up getting it the moment it's available as it's done right now.

users preferring to wait and avoid pink roids (or whatever) simply continue using their copy.

at one point, if the release is considered viable (usually within 24h), the devs can simply move (or rename) the version file so all remaining users get updated.

the extra week (or more) that the devs can concentrate on development rather than stressing out for the next release and dealing with pushing the release and then scrambling to fix last-minute (and sometimes embarrassing) bugs, is all time they can use for more serious development.

I like the sound of that.

I also can't login :(

uc, you're completely ignoring the problem of diverging versions in regard to exploiting certain glitches.

Or did I not understand well, and you meant to say that people playing the 'vanilla test' version, as it were (as opposed to the real test server), do not play in the same 'realm' as those who stay with the stable version?

I also can't login :-(

i dont think it be necessary that "beta" users be locked into a test cage.

of course, depending on the nature of the update, all users can be brought forward by not marking the release as beta if said release depends on server update as well.

but for those releases that have potential abusive bugs, well, it's already being done. when there's an abuse, it doesn't spread to everyone. the few retards who decide to exploit will, regardless of the version and weither everyone has it or not and apparently, this is something the devs are willing to live with. there's been countless use of exploits in the past and i recall only one instance when the devs actually decided to do a database sweep to get rid of offending items (avalon thing).

other exploits have remained unfixed (eg, half the users with ultra charge batteries dont deserve them).

tosh, the problem that you are ignoring is that this weekly release cycle puts too much of a strain on the devs.