When to expect the official 1.201 (aka 1.014) release?

[x4000]

The short answer is that that depends on when the kinks are ironed out of all the new changes in it.  Starship balance changes and the new economic model -- and the new strength of the AI waves -- are all big changes that can really wreck the experience if not done right.  So far these are looking promising, but there just needs to be more time sunk into these.

If you're waiting for 1.014, you can always feel free to play with the latest prerelease on these forums, but just know that some of the stuff in there is still experimental (and your feedback is highly valued!).  1.014 is going to be a pretty huge release, and we'll put it out as soon as we are confident in it.  Usually we try to do official releases in quicker succession than this, but in this case the only responsible thing is to wait until it's really solid before releasing it as an official new version.

More specifically, I am still hoping to have a new version perhaps by the 21st or so -- this Friday.  But we'll just see how things progress over the next couple of days, this could flip to next week if I'm not confident all the kinks are ironed out in time.

EDIT:  At present, the goal is the 31st.  A string of bugs, balance issues, and continual other needed tweaks have made this into a vastly more solid release, on par in quality with the 1.013 release, but had I rushed it I think this could have been a real disaster.  I may need to switch to biweekly releases in general just to allow time for adequate quality testing, but we'll see on a week by week basis; this won't affect the speed of the prereleases either way.

[x4000]

To update on this, it will either be tomorrow or next week.  Thoughts from players on their feelings on the current prerelease versions are welcome.  I think that things are settling down, but I'd be curious to know what other's impressions are.

[Echo35]

To update on this, it will either be tomorrow or next week.  Thoughts from players on their feelings on the current prerelease versions are welcome.  I think that things are settling down, but I'd be curious to know what other's impressions are.

I for one, am happy with it plus the completed items in that forum. The Economy is finally stable and the Difficulty is much higher to compensate Oh, and for the record, I was playing the tutorial last night for the heck of it, and it still has you building harvesters and doesn't include the Mk. 2 Engineers, don't know if that was intended or not.

[x4000]

To update on this, it will either be tomorrow or next week.  Thoughts from players on their feelings on the current prerelease versions are welcome.  I think that things are settling down, but I'd be curious to know what other's impressions are.

I for one, am happy with it plus the completed items in that forum. The Economy is finally stable and the Difficulty is much higher to compensate

Great, thanks!

Oh, and for the record, I was playing the tutorial last night for the heck of it, and it still has you building harvesters and doesn't include the Mk. 2 Engineers, don't know if that was intended or not.

Yes, I thought that was more appropriate, so that the players could actually learn how to do it.  The new stuff doesn't get placed there for the tutorials.  I should probably change the tutorials just teach people to Ctrl-click their harvesters, though...

[Fiskbit]

I think that a release tomorrow is possible, but there are three things I really think should be addressed first.

1. I think that resources need more precision than full integers so resource consumption won't jump around as much, making the economy more manageable and predictable. I believe this can be achieved easily with a rather small change, addressed in this thread.

2. I think that construction of ships should continue if you don't have the energy to afford that ship yet, since the energy deduction occurs when the ship has been built, not when it's being built. Addressed in this thread. This is more intuitive, less frustrating, and more consistent with construction of structures. Speaking of which...

3. There needs to be more consistency between construction of ships and structures. Structures eat metal and crystal at a specific rate throughout their construction, while ships can eat all of one resource and then all of the other. while ships take the maximum of each resource that they can. We're looking into other possible inconsistencies right now, but this one in particular seems as though it'll make economy management less predictable and more difficult. Personally, I prefer the structure method.

[08:21.09 AM] <Revenantus> e.g a 240M 120C ship
[08:21.18 AM] <Revenantus> After 1 second: 60M, 60C
[08:21.24 AM] <Revenantus> 2 seconds: 120M 120C
[08:21.32 AM] <Revenantus> 3 seconds: 180M, 120C
[08:21.42 AM] <Revenantus> 4 seconds: 240M, 120C (finished)


With these addressed, I think things will probably be good to go, but I've no complaints with waiting to make sure everything is spic and span. It sounds like you're happy with it, though, and I'm sure most people around here are pretty thrilled with it, so that's a good sign that a release tomorrow could work out.

[x4000]

3. There needs to be more consistency between construction of ships and structures. Structures eat metal and crystal at a specific rate throughout their construction, while ships can eat all of one resource and then all of the other. while ships take the maximum of each resource that they can. We're looking into other possible inconsistencies right now, but this one in particular seems as though it'll make economy management less predictable and more difficult. Personally, I prefer the structure method.

[08:21.09 AM] <Revenantus> e.g a 240M 120C ship
[08:21.18 AM] <Revenantus> After 1 second: 60M, 60C
[08:21.24 AM] <Revenantus> 2 seconds: 120M 120C
[08:21.32 AM] <Revenantus> 3 seconds: 180M, 120C
[08:21.42 AM] <Revenantus> 4 seconds: 240M, 120C (finished)

I responded to the others elsewhere, but I think I agree with you that the structure method makes more sense.  It's something that will make the costs jump around a lot more, though, when it switches from building one type of ship versus another.  That's the main downside, which is why I haven't already pulled the trigger on this.  As for structures, I won't consider doing them in the queue-based way, though, because that just doesn't work for a lot of math reasons and it's less logically sound (as you allude to), anyway.  The main issue here is the queue construction and whether or not it should stay or change (which drawbacks we are more okay with).

[Revenantus]

I agree that the structure method makes more sense, but it only seems feasible to me if fractional resource management is implemented, any thoughts on that?

Seems like it would be a big improvement to me, not sure how much of an implementation headache it is though.

[Fiskbit]

I think that scaling the lesser resource so everything has a constant rate throughout is the better way to go; holding alt gives the maximum possible use, so I feel like it'd be fine.

Also, if that fractional stuff is implemented, the resources should stop jumping around so much, so the averaging of resource consumption could be removed. This would be great.

[x4000]

I agree that the structure method makes more sense, but it only seems feasible to me if fractional resource management is implemented, any thoughts on that?

Seems like it would be a big improvement to me, not sure how much of an implementation headache it is though.

See my notes in the other thread, it's coming.

[x4000]

Also, if that fractional stuff is implemented, the resources should stop jumping around so much, so the averaging of resource consumption could be removed. This would be great.

It will still jump around when ships switch in queues, but otherwise not.  But you're right, removing the averaging would be a lot more intuitive.

[Admiral]

It's something that will make the costs jump around a lot more, though, when it switches from building one type of ship versus another.  That's the main downside, which is why I haven't already pulled the trigger on this. 

... So?

Do you really think power/resource usage is constant "in real life?" Why does it have to be constant "in game life?"

Mostly intelligent people play RTS games. Only intelligent ones play AI War (with me).

Cheers!

[Fiskbit]

Because real life is hard and game life is supposed to be interesting.

[x4000]

Because real life is hard and game life is supposed to be interesting.

Or, more to the point, most RTS players find the economic simulation side of it to be something they would like to set up and forget.  But still, points taken Admiral.

[Admiral]

Or, more to the point, most RTS players find the economic simulation side of it to be something they would like to set up and forget.  But still, points taken Admiral.

I must say, I find that an odd sentiment from an RTS developer. Isn't economic management and other logistical concerns a large/important part of the "S" in RTS? Isn't that what differentiates this genre from the RTT (such as e-Eraser's favorite NEXUS or the amazingly fun old game Myth)?

[Revenantus]

Or, more to the point, most RTS players find the economic simulation side of it to be something they would like to set up and forget.  But still, points taken Admiral.

I must say, I find that an odd sentiment from an RTS developer. Isn't economic management and other logistical concerns a large/important part of the "S" in RTS? Isn't that what differentiates this genre from the RTT (such as e-Eraser's favorite NEXUS or the amazingly fun old game Myth)?

It depends where you want to emphasize the S. Many RTS games place equal value on a variety of areas, including the economy, others like AI War focus more on the combat aspect of the game, and have a relatively easy to manage economy.