6 replies to this topic

[Omega]

Take this into consideration. What if for instance, you have a quest, that you wish to make in a stable (non beta) version of ZC. But want the updates, and new features of a beta version. When would be the right time to switch to a beta in order to add new features to the quest before you finish it?

Meaning, if I created a quest, then wanted to add 3D movement as in link to the past, as well as other features. But would like to make the quest under a stable version of ZC then revert to a beta to simply add some of the new features and then finalize the quest. When in your opinion do you think it would be a good time to switch over to the beta versions to add such features?

Although, I understand it depends on what you would like to add to the quest. Depending on how much of an effect you want the quest to result in. It seems it's timely a difficult decision depending on how much or what you wish to add to the quest. I may have awnsered my own question, I'd like to hear what others have to say about this. Also once you switch to a beta version you can't switch back to another version as 2.10 for an example. Without loosing the updates from the beta version. So it would mainly have to be towards the end of the quests design as far as I can see. Unless you feel like waiting for a new stable version to be released.

Because betas have a chance of messing up your quest, as would a beta version of anything have a high risk of messing up the data or anything related to the work your doing. Just a topic that came into mind.

Edited by Mr.Fresh, 24 October 2008 - 07:30 PM.

[Neppy]

Well, me personally, I'd finish up the original start to finish, and then have beta testers test it as that, so I know if there is anything wrong with the setup of it. If everything is ok, I'd then switch to it, and finish things up, and have beta testers do a second run with the new additions, to see if things are good to go. But, I'd probably start off using the beta version, because I build quests as I go. I'm terrible with going back and adding more stuff in after I finish a place up.

[Omega]

Well, me personally, I'd finish up the original start to finish, and then have beta testers test it as that, so I know if there is anything wrong with the setup of it. If everything is ok, I'd then switch to it, and finish things up, and have beta testers do a second run with the new additions, to see if things are good to go. But, I'd probably start off using the beta version, because I build quests as I go. I'm terrible with going back and adding more stuff in after I finish a place up.

Exactly, It really depends on the quest author, as well as the added data. Now if you were to simply add little features that don't effect much aspect of the game for example 3D movement you'd not have to go so far back in the quest to add such updates. Then again, even with minor add-ons you may still have to go back and test to see if it poorly interacts with other parts of the quest. So time frame wise, I'd say it would depend on the author of the quest to see which would take longer, starting out with a beta, or reverting to it later.

[Nicholas Steel]

finish things in the stable version (back it up!!!) then move to the latest unstable beta.

[Beefster]

Well if you're like me, and can't focus on a game for much longer than a few months, use an "unstable" beta. Or just use it anyway.

Either way, the 2.50 betas may be "unstable," but it's a heck of a lot better than dealing with the much more annoying bugs bugs in 2.10 and 1.92.

But please stay away from betas unless you intend to actually report the bugs you find. (try to investigate them as well) It's your obligation as a public beta tester.

[Plissken]

Either way, the 2.50 betas may be "unstable," but it's a heck of a lot better than dealing with the much more annoying bugs bugs in 2.10 and 1.92/

I'd have to agree with this statement. I mean, I have encountered one game ending bug, but, you know what saved me? Timed saves, which are a 2.5 feature.

I'd recommend going up to the alphas, BUT always ALWAYS backup. If you don't backup, God will know and will corrupt your stuff (after you've turned off timed saves cause you find them annoying. Please don't, they're life savers). Then you won't be a happy camper.

Corruption in 2.5 has only happened once for me, and like I said, I didn't lose anything cause of timed saves. I love 2.5 so much.

[Joe Dirt]

Either way, the 2.50 betas may be "unstable," but it's a heck of a lot better than dealing with the much more annoying bugs bugs in 2.10 and 1.92.

I don't know what you're talking about here. I've never encountered any annoying bugs in 1.92, and any bugs in 2.10 are fixed in 2.10.2.