Re: A question of perception
A) It depends really on what game it is. If I knew absolutely nothing about RTW at all and had to evaluate it, I would expect it to have a general imcompleteness, but still be playable enough to where there are no more major changes coming, just tweaking and filling in the spots. By about version 7 or so of a open beta, I would expect it the major stuff to be done, with maybe a few exceptions as new limitations prompt.
B) I would expect .9, maybe a high version of .8
C) A beta. A full release to me implies all loose ends are tied up and there will be no missing features or even possible CTD's. It may not have all the features planned for the final version, but it is certainly playable to a full extent without noticing any lack in any sector. Instead of many factions have ethnicities, they all have them, or they all don't.
D) Why would they change the numbering system dramatically if they've used it this far? I could understand appending a few more numbers like .8045, but to switch to calling it EB .entirely new number seem odd, indicating to me that either there was a major shift in those running the mod, or else they have reached 1.0 and will now begin working on improving a already great mod.
E)
Actual popularity: Maybe. People probably want to play with a full release, no matter how limited in scope at that time period. No half features, all or nothing. Similar to what RTR does.
Willing to try the mod: I've seen it personally stated that people won't try it till 1.0 because they either want the full thing in all it's glory, or they just don't want to play with the knowledge that at some time it will CTD and cause them to lose their great campaign they were playing. Who would want to play with full units who's unit cards are peasants, and even in game representations are peasants.
Peope willing to assist: I don't believe the beta tag has hurt people willing to help out. I believe the scope and requirements of a RTW modder plus the tools and time is what limits people helping out.
Publicity in general: To some extent I would say yes, again because people want a finished product usually. If they know its a beta, it's still a work in progress, so we might feature it's plans, but a complete mod will get more attention because it IS complete. We can judge it in it's entirity, there's more points to go over.
Personal comments: I LOVE the fact that EB involves its players far more than most mods. To get to watch EB develop and learn about it as it comes along is to me far better than, and I don't mean to pick specifically, it's just the main other mod I've played, RTR's system of a full release every time all done behind closed doors. I understand why they do it, but it doesn't make it any less unappealing. This is not a corporation, its a fan mod. Keeping competitive with new ideas and feature's is good, but that's no reason to seal off your ideas.
I hope this helps, even if it is a bit more rambling on than probably what your looking for. Maybe a poll?
Re: A question of perception
A) I'd expect an open beta to have the most egregious bugs worked out, all features present, and that it'd been released as a beta for balancing and to work out the rarer bugs.
B) Not this high. Gazius went for .8/.9, but the last few missing features (unit cards, Sabaen troops, etc) keep me from putting it that far up. The balancing and bugs have been fixed to get it to this point, but I think that those should have been reserved for fixing after beta release, with the initial focus on making sure everything's there. I understand that the fix for recruitment in 1.5 delayed .8 a lot, but I'd put this at around a .7.
C) Beta, for reasons above.
D) That something drastic had happened among the development community. A decision that EB is good enough "as-is" and that development should start on porting to MTW2, or a major shake-up in the mod's administration. Something big.
E) I doubt it. RTW is a fairly old game at this point, and anyone interested in playing a mod would have heard of a mod with EB's scope. Most people, I think that the premise would have piqued their interest enough to check out the gameplay, look at screenshots, etc, and if it didn't, well, they probably wouldn't be interested in EB anyway, irrelevant of status.
Re: A question of perception
I will say that I as a member have been tired of hearing how EB is still so much a beta though, when it's as stable as most any mod out there (especially with some little pesky things cleaned up in the next patch that is about to come out) and when it has far more finished work than any other mod (hell, any other two or three mods) close to it. That's my opinion.
Re: A question of perception
For B), don't necessarily stick to the convention we have been using. Remember, I am asking for someone looking at this from the outside, not within our convention. For instance one of my favorite mods from another game has released with several integer releases...1.0, 2.0, and fixes...2.1, 3.1, and so on.
What I am looking for here is not what you think we are thinking of, but rather what someone from the outside would think. If they had never heard of our previously stated (1.0 is complete) convention. Are we the only ones who use that convention? Are we not? That is one of the questions I hope this addresses.
And D), the same is true. I'm not talking about incremental changes within our stated convention, I'm talking about re-evaluating the convention itself. Calling the current release 3.0, or 6.0, or 1.0, or something else entirely. Do you understand what I am looking for better now?
The goal is to understand what someone fresh from the outside, or a prospective journalist from a gaming magazine, or someone who plays other mods, and so on think. Granted, I am mindful of the audience, but I hope this can be approached somewhat objectively.
Thanks!
Re: A question of perception
I see what you mean, however I find it very difficult to apply that sort of numbering to EB, because as I've stated before, integer releases imply to me that its a all or nothing build, with .# for very minor things that were overlooked or adding limited scope features, maybe now it's easier to get the imperator trait. The largest possible addition maybe being a entire new set of traits like ethnicities. New graphic material would warrant a wait till the next integer.
I don't see why calling it a .# also requires it to be called an open beta. Just drop that part of the title? The Total Realism Project for Hearts of Iron DD uses a .# release, but in no way are they like the notion of an open beta. From my experience at least. I'm still rather new to the mod and haven't been around the community often enough to see it referenced that way anyhow.
Re: A question of perception
Hello,
A) I would have to say very buggy, lots of CTDs, many missing units (and unit grapics) and perhaps even missing buildings and building graphics. Very unfinished.
B) I would say 0.9878.
C) If the Saba/Saka were more finished then I would say a finished release. Sadly, due to that, I have to say a BETA.
D) I have no opinion on this matter.
E) In my opinion, yes it has. People are turned away when they see BETA. It makes them think "CTD" instantly.
Good look with your survey,
Avlvs
Re: A question of perception
A) I think there are two different things here. Overall *finished-ness* feeling and singular, very obvious, game-killing bugs (like the old re-inforcement CTD).
The singular bugs warrant a beta tag on their own imo even if everything else is perfect. Overall I wouldn't call EB a beta if I'd come to it new at 0.8 but until you're absolutely sure about game-killer bugs then it still counts as one imo.
B) Version 0.99999 (lol)
Though it is hard to be fair here as the EB team set the bar *very* high. A mod which set out with lower ambitions would be expected to provide less. If it was any other mod I'd have said version 4.0 or 5.0.
C) Definitely a full release in most areas. Some of the problems aren't really problems but will be percieved as such by people who don't know the historical background e.g roman recruitment. From looking at the bug forum though (and my own experiences with the getai) I think there are still some game-killing bugs in there. (Revolts being my guess)
D) I'd see it as lowering your (impossibly high but admirable) standards.
E) Definitely harmed popularity and reduced players but imo that is a good thing. The people put off by the beta tag would probably be put off permanently by game-killing bugs like the reinforcement CTD and then told all their friends EB was no good. Hard to get back from that first reputation.
The people who'll play a beta will fight through a lot of the CTDs.
Re: A question of perception
A I'd expect a 0.8 open beta to have most fundamental features and plenty of content in place, but containing a few crashes, a large number of bugs and a general level of unpolishedness. It'd be playable but gameplay would be unbalanced and not entirely representative of the final product.
B From what little I've seen I'd say 0.85. There are quite a few glitches, unfinished things and factions that still need a fair amount of work, but in general the level of polish and playability is high. Just the occasional jarring moment in many cases and needs for balancing.
C Beta, certainly. There are bugs that need finding and ironing out, not to mention balance.
D It'd change. If you switched to version 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 etc it'd raise the impression of a finished mod; but games released as 1.0 frequently need patches to smoothe things over, so I'd say it's a more honest and representative system the way it is now and 1.0 is the truly final version.
E Yes. Whatever the state of release the monicker beta lowers expectations, with thoughts of crashes and unplayability; personally I waited until the worst bugs were fixed in .74 before deciding to play and I can understand those who wait for 1.0 due to the impression of unfinishedness. It might be an idea to make clear exactly which factions are considered the most complete or at least to state that the mod is playable with most key features in place.
Re: A question of perception
A,C) To me 0.8.0 seems nearly a non beta. Only knowing some of what is planned, do I know that it is not complete. Summing it up: I have played officially released games, by devolpment companys and sold by publishers, that were buggier and less finished than EB.
B) I would use version numbers as release numbers rather than a percentage of change from vanilla to EB. ".30" in my system (no saying ther are 7 major releases to go, just initial internal(unplayable?) and two major releases so far).
D) Do it!
E) I avoided this mod for a long time due to the "beta" tag.
Re: A question of perception
A) Eh? :sweatdrop:
B) 0.6
C) Beta
D) It wouldn't really matter. So long as we get the finished product within the decade. :inquisitive:
E) Definately. With younger mods it isn't a big issue, but given EB's age it almost seems silly. Though understandable once you look closer, when looking at the project for the first time and seeing how long it's been 'in development' can be something of a put-off.
Re: A question of perception
Quick reply from work, sorry if I don't exactly respect the form but I go to the point:
For me:
- EB 0.72 was EB 0.9 Beta; with the bug fixes (officially "0.74") it became, for me, 1.0.
- This one, officially 0.8, should be called EB 2.0; the next small update will be 2.1, 2.2 etc.
- EB 3.0 should be EB on the next engine... that is EB on BI if it was planned, or maybe EB on MTW2.
This would allow for a better marketing, and would actually better describe the reality of the MOD status according to the standards in use within the MOD community.
To comment on previous remarks: EB's "competitors" are not games but MODs... There is a different culture there than in games... So norms existing in commercial releases should not be used here but rather the norms created in the specific field of amateur MODs. Look at almost all other MODs, whether they may be for RTW or Paradox games (from what I know): they are all 2.x, 3.x, 4.x, ... 6.x, even though their completion status is, to say the least, no more advanced than EB's.
Re: A question of perception
A- I see .8 as being a stable, but pretty incomplete build- a little like RTR 6. It's 100% stable but has yet to touch some factions and add some touches (can't wait for 7.0 though :2thumbsup: )
B-I'd call it .9 or even a pre-release Beta. It has no crashes, almost all the features stable and working, and only a few units/buildings for one or two factions need redoing. It has music, hundreds of units and buildings, it's MORE finished in my mind than RTR, which has unit cards for every unit, but then they haven't even touched Gaul, Iberia, or Dacia (besides small reskins) so, for me, that's not much better than a faction full of peasant unit cards
C- I wouldn't call .8 a full release, but a 99% full release- just spend two weeks finishing all the unit/building cards and THEN call it a full release. Lots of mods do that- they polish then add, then polish then add- so just finish up the last units and you could safely call it a first release. On the other hand, it does seem a little late in the game to just radically change our naming system...
D- I think some people would think EB is just trying to get more people, and some people might get kinda confused. I'd suggest staying with the present naming- but make sure to call 1.0 GOLD Edition
E- That is something we need to fix- the number one reason people but EB second to other mods is "incomplete" or "buggy". Thanks to EB .8 that is no longer the case and we need to fix that up. I for one, refused to play because of what I thought was an incomplete and buggy bug. EB's reputation is one of incompletion and that ought to be fixed because, in fact, EB is extremely finished
Re: A question of perception
A) i dont fully understand this point, sorry :oops: , i try to interprete it:
you know MAME32? well i think to that, when i think to EB 0.74/0.80, somethink that try to reach an "ideal" 1.0 point of perfection, 1.0 should be an "idea", not the reality, you can make steps further, but 1.0 will always be a point in your mind.
B) as the point A, i think it's an awesome product, but i like that kind of version number.
take present that MAME only in recent period reached 1.0 version, but they were so fond of the 0.x think, that they didn't call it 1.0, they called it 0.100, and now they are to 0.110 version if i remember well.
C) as point A and B, it is a full relase, but the 0.x numbers show the progression on increasing the product, and i think it could be nice if it never reach 1.0 version, just as in MAME, when you think it has reached the point, dont call it 1.0 but just 0.100. And further upgrade should be 0.101, 0.110 etc. (anyway it's just an idea)
D) my perception would not change, but i think to call a mod 7.0/8.0/10.0 it's a bit a smart-ass think, i dont like. (ive seen mods, upgrading from 7.0 to 8.0 like they were creating a totally new product, i think this is just positive for the modder ego... and the only think revolutionary in this upgrade, were only some "cool" photoshopped loading screens with oplites and legionaries...)
E) well i've not so confience in people intelligence, it depends on their age, cultur etc. (I think a lot of RTW mods fans are just videogame/forum people, etc. i think EB tryed to mark a step further in this direction... it cant be called a game anymore. But the reality is still that, videogame addicted, that can become fans even if you just add a new "cool" unit. (try to put a spartan hoplite in your title screen, call it 8.0 and you will see...)
As i sayd im not so positive on this point. It's a side of my charachter. But i think EB has already a conscious base, and on the long period will get an even more conscious base.
Regarding the pubblicity etc., i think it depend on internet, and internet is like TV, a big chest where everythink is mixed-up and everyone can say whatever he want... the matter is to have the skills to filter all this, so i think if you know what you are searching for, you will get for EB.
My best wishes for your great mod developing, and my congrats! (dont ever stop!)
salut!
Re: A question of perception
Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
Hi guys, I want to test something out with you, as an interested party. Consider this like a marketing survey. Please answer each question if you intend to participate.
You betcha!
Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
A) If you knew absolutely nothing about EB, based on your experience with games, mods, and software in general, what would your perception be of what a 0.7.4 or 0.8 "open beta" release would contain, and how playable would it be?
At a .8 stage I'd expect it to be playable with minor crashing. The final faction list would be completed and a majority of models and skins would be done as well as the unit cards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
B) If you were playing the current version of EB without knowing its version number, having knowledge of the previous EB releases but not their version numbers (0.1 was very very basic, only changes to vanilla without new content, and you are familiar with the more recent versions), what version number might you reasonably expect the current version of EB to have?
I'd say about .9 or so. The unit cards, building descriptions (minor) and missing units are about all that's holding it back IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
C) In your opinion is the current version of EB more properly termed a "beta" release or a "full" release?
Unless you plan on changing the factions or completely altering/adding a system I would say it's close to a full release. The unit cards, building descriptions (minor) and missing units are about all that's holding it back IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
D) What would your perception be if the version numbering we use were to change dramatically - see B) for possible examples?
I personally wouldn't like to see the .8 version go to 1.0 without some more work. In my experience (I work for a small software company) a 1.0 signifies "feature complete" with further dot releases addressing bugs etc. This far along it probably wouldn't look good to move to a different numbering system. A numeral before the dot may turn people away if they think it's completed and still see a slightly unpolished/unfinished product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
E) In your opinion, has the "beta" tag and the pre-1.0 numbering system hurt or harmed our popularity with people, people's willingness to try the mod, people's willingness to assist in the effort, and publicity in general?
It probably has to some extent. I know a lot of people that shy away from beta releases of games. I think people are going to go for this mod based on it's historical accuracy alone and not really care if it's beta.
I'm sure a lot of folks will get frustrated with the CTD's and other assorted problems however they will return at a later time to try it out again.
I don't think the beta tag has hurt peoples' willingness to assist in the effort however it may be hurting publicity. Reviews and features are seldom done on beta products since they are still a WIP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by khelvan
Thanks for your time with this survey, it will be of great help to me!
You're welcome. Glad to be of some help.
Re: A question of perception
A) Decent gameplay, smooth running. It should already bear at least the broad idea of what shape it is going to take, and it should be playable enough that you can go through the thing without campaign-killing faults and bugs. Maybe a jagged edge here and there, though.
B) 0.9, maybe even 1.0.
C) Beta. A full release raises expectations whose disappointment may be more harmful than if we called it beta and didn't raise any (though you sure've raised a heck lot of it among us fans!). We haven't seen anything wrong with the new version yet that suggests it doesn't deserve a full release, but right now I think it's best to keep it as beta. After another month or so of 0.8, i would qualify it as a full release, assuming a dearth of game-killing CTD bugs etc.
D) I don't get the question... Best not to comment.
E) The Beta tag has certainly helped it, i think. It implies a level of fan involvement in the direction of the game, and while the pre-1.0 numbering has certainly invited lots of jibes/apprehension from outsiders, among the vast and dedicated fan legions that you have under your command this numbering system has become a source of pride and joy for us as a declaration of the team's professionalism and perfectionism. So it's a two-edged sword. I agree about the incompleteness point, 0.8 implies there's still 20% of the way to go in the team's vision. That should not be, since 0.8 is already so complete.
Re: A question of perception
Another of my opinions on the matter :grin: :
Is there really a 6 X difference between a mod like RTR and EB? 8 X difference in Darthmod and EB? 6 X difference between SPQR and EB? That much more finished? Were those mods really done, and done X 6 and 8? Or did they get a stable build ready for players and release them, and then keep adding new things and getting new builds out with new numbers. NOT trying to compare the the mods directly - just the difference in version numbers. We get the very short end of the stick with our lousy version naming. EB gets no publicity till it's no longer a beta - there has been no interview of an EB person in more than a year, no review of EB, no inclusion on any gaming magazine's cd's, nothing. We can't do anything with a pre 1.0 name in terms of publicity (which is an area I've tried to be active in and doing things, but they wind up just being for two RTW fora and that's it).
Re: A question of perception
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou
Is there really a 6 X difference between a mod like RTR and EB? 8 X difference in Darthmod and EB? 6 X difference between SPQR and EB?
These mods are less ambitious, they (used to) set more accessible goals, achieve them, increase version numbers, make another iteration etc
Re: A question of perception
Is that what RTR and SPQR have done? Are the 2-6 versions really more tweaked and stable and refined versions, or are they lots of new things, new units, new faction work, etc.? I honestly don't know, but I thought they have kept adding new faction units, new versions of vanilla units, etc. Is the change from RTR 6 to 7 just a refining or a totally new map, twice as many new factions, and things like that?
Re: A question of perception
One of the problems with asking this question here, is that most of these folks know EB and thus, consciously or not, have a different standard for us. If you asked this question in the public forum of the .com, i daresay the answers would be different.
That said, I think it's fair to say there are a few elements of EB v.80 that one would never expect to see in a v1.0 release of anything. Things like peasant cards or vanilla barracks or empty descriptions. But with the low standards one finds in most commercial games these days, skin/animation glitches and CTDs are par for the course, in fact they are almost EXPECTED in a v1.0 release. The public would be shocked if they didn't have to wait for the first patch (and the 2nd, 3rd, etc.)
Re: A question of perception
SPQR and RTR with their numbering tells me that 1.0 being Rome vanilla, 2.0, 3.0 and so on being some sort of upgrade/improvement of the original.
Your numbering system clearly suggests something unfinished. So from an outsiders point of view it could easily been seen as not done or not ready and thus not of interest as people are usually not interested in playing unfinished products, although they do all the time.
In my opinion labeling EB with an 0.8 beta tag is not good for sparking others interest. Its like selling a product for 1.95$ or for 2.00$ only in reverse, with the 2.0, 3.0 tags sounding off as major improvements, while 0.8 comes off as a cheap knock off. (hope this makes sense)
I know this is not the truth however, as I have been lurking your forums and following your development from a fairly early stage, and have played the other mods mentioned here. RTR, SPQR and so on have done a great job on their products, but these are fairly small improvements compared to amount of work you guys have put into EB!
I dont think you should alter the numerical system you have been using at this point though, as it might be somewhat confusing as to what state you are in currently. Rushing it to 1.0 should be a priority though, if you are looking for game magazines and such to be interested. There is not a lot lacking for calling EB a finished product, 1.0, all you need to do is fix the missing unit cards, add the missing descriptions, what people see that is missing that is. All the other stuff like AI balancing, more units, and so on that are not that glaring will have no effect on peoples perception on unfinished/finished status and could be added in 1.05 or 1.10 version.
Thats what the other mods has done so well in "selling" their products, is that they have added little pieces of fully functional add ons in small doses, thus making the "buyers" to view them as expansions to the mod. (perhaps something to consider for EB2?)
Btw, you have totally ruined M2TW for me....:laugh4:
Re: A question of perception
Teleklos Archelaou
RTR 7 is going to be very different from 6. Compatibility with RTW 1.5, revamped map, set of factions, units. Don't know about recruitment.
SPQR 4 and let's say 6 are different indeed. Map, units, recruitment. Not like vanilla RTW and EB of course.
XGM is an exception, it's a mini-mod with maxi-versions :)
I didn't play other mods because I consider their version numbering being too far from being adequate to their feature set and stability.
My point is that integer version is an indicator of some sort of completeness and stability. If EB team says 'we will redo everyting from scratch' I will expect it actually achieve its object before announcing the final release.
Honestly, if EB 0.8 claimed to be a final version 1.0 I would put it aside for a long time and plan to get back to EB 4.0 because not all features are working and there are some CTDs. But since 0.8 is beta I consider its developers as being realists, so I will give it a try and report bugs for 0.8x and 0.9x. Although I am definitely not going to attempt a long campaign until the version 1.0. Maybe that's a downside of beta.
