New Version - 3.10.14 (September 26, 2023)

[Zhao Yun]

Honestly guys, from 3.8.x to 3.10.13, how many versions and bugfixes in 6-8 weeks? Imho, too much meddling by too many people causing too many problems.

 

[Tekamthi]

Honestly guys, from 3.8.x to 3.10.13, how many versions and bugfixes in 6-8 weeks? Imho, too much meddling by too many people causing too many problems.

such is the development process for this type of project, especially with the congress format. These are merely the "symptoms" of an active and attentive open-source community

That said I'm still playing 3.7.12 and havent even tried anything beyond yet

 

[DukeBrani]

Honestly guys, from 3.8.x to 3.10.13, how many versions and bugfixes in 6-8 weeks? Imho, too much meddling by too many people causing too many problems.

The bugs that "appeared" in 3.10 have been present in previous version where they were hidden for a long time. Developers simply removed some parts of the code that ignored these bugs which is why this version appears to be more unstable. By making the bugs come to the surface and by fixing them, the subsequent versions of VP will be even better, so it's a good thing overall

 

[CppMaster]

Honestly guys, from 3.8.x to 3.10.13, how many versions and bugfixes in 6-8 weeks? Imho, too much meddling by too many people causing too many problems.

It's good that developers fix bugs that quickly, which are expected in that pace of development. I don't care of there will be even 3.10.100, every version is better anyway.

 

[Agiwan]

Maybe we should add "Beta" to the thread title of a new release until it seems to work without critical issues: if we go more than x days without critical bugs found, we can remove the "beta" from the thread title ?

 

[JNZS13]

too much meddling by too many people causing too many problems

who build a house faster?

1 contractor w 10 workers or 10 ppl that only gives opinions?

 

[Recursive]

Moderator Action: Please cease the argument.

 

[Recursive]

Maybe we should add "Beta" to the thread title of a new release until it seems to work without critical issues: if we go more than x days without critical bugs found, we can remove the "beta" from the thread title ?

How would we handle the following situation?

Version 3.11 (beta) is made.
Version 3.11.1 (beta) is made, fixing issues in 3.11 (savegame compatible).
Version 3.11.1 becomes stable.
Version 3.11.2 is made, making savegame compatible changes.

 

[Recursive]

Version 3.10.14 released. Link in OP has been updated.

Changelog:

- Fixed some extreme modifiers (bugs) in approach selection, as a few values weren't correctly changed for the x100 modification
- Fixed advisors recommending to build buildings that are civ-specific to another civilization
- Notifications for various things, like a unit being killed, will include the unit's custom name (if they were renamed)
- Tweaked AI's religious and ideological fervor in approach selection - direct weight is lower, weight for alliances/enemies is higher
- Hexxon Refinery now applies a +3 Production bonus to Tidal Plants and not to Refineries
- Improved centering for an in-text (font) icon

Online as of 6:01 PM CST. Savegame compatible, although the Hexxon Refinery fix won't apply if it was already constructed.

 

[Zhao Yun]

such is the development process for this type of project, especially with the congress format. These are merely the "symptoms" of an active and attentive open-source community

That said I'm still playing 3.7.12 and havent even tried anything beyond yet

Right, I guess many people are stuck on 3.7.12. Work in progress has been understood from the beginning, but not really having a stable version through two dozen releases while downloading and trying and crashing is not how things used to be done. The congress is a clusterfudg imo, because too many changes can not only cause too many bugs etc. but also require too much testing which isn't happening, other than downloading new versions every minute, only to get frustrated time and again.

 

[Zhao Yun]

Maybe we should add "Beta" to the thread title of a new release until it seems to work without critical issues: if we go more than x days without critical bugs found, we can remove the "beta" from the thread title ?

That is a nice suggestion. Leaving liking/hating certain changes aside, the most infuriating thing is downloading and failing/crashing/cursing over two dozen releases. I mean, I promote the mod in my YT videos, even if it is to a small audience. I want it to work, across an entire LP, so that people can enjoy seeing the mod in action.

 

[Agiwan]

How would we handle the following situation?

Version 3.11 (beta) is made.
Version 3.11.1 (beta) is made, fixing issues in 3.11 (savegame compatible).
Version 3.11.1 becomes stable.
Version 3.11.2 is made, making savegame compatible changes.

Yes good point, I don't know
Maybe we could add "beta" to the thread title again with the same rules, but a shorter "verification" time if the changes are small ?

 

[Tekamthi]

Right, I guess many people are stuck on 3.7.12. Work in progress has been understood from the beginning, but not really having a stable version through two dozen releases while downloading and trying and crashing is not how things used to be done. The congress is a clusterfudg imo, because too many changes can not only cause too many bugs etc. but also require too much testing which isn't happening, other than downloading new versions every minute, only to get frustrated time and again.

I imagine the congress will probably settle down after another few -- I agree its been too much to digest all at once in recent rounds.

I don't play enough to keep up, I'm still on my game I started in 3.7.12 so I haven't consciously eschewed the newer versions necessarily. Time poor as I am right now though, I probably would not update even if my game were done, at least not til the recent versions here of the past few days. If i had more time on the other hand, I wouldn't mind testing the latest iteration, but I do expect to have to abandon games when doing so. Whether that's the way it should be or not, I don't know, I'm just happy to see ongoing and frequent development work by the core team of diehards here.

While its not explicitly explained anywhere here, I think its a good guideline for those with less time and just interested in having a normal, full game, to stick to using the last version pre-most-recent-congress, at least until the latest congress update has matured a little. No need to always be on latest version for everyone. I think a 'beta' label might be helpful, for new versions after a new congress.

 

[Solic]

I think that congress could benefit from an increased threshold needing more than 50% like 60% votes in favor to pass a proposal.

Any changes in the game will have the potential to introduce bugs regardless of the excellent developers we have. In this way we can limit congress to only the changes that are really wanted and have more stability as a result.

 

[Enginseer]

I think that congress could benefit from an increased threshold needing more than 50% like 60% votes in favor to pass a proposal.

Any changes in the game will have the potential to introduce bugs regardless of the excellent developers we have. In this way we can limit congress to only the changes that are really wanted and have more stability as a result.

The amount of "instability" wasn't from the Congress. This doesn't really result in "more stability" as a result.

 

[andersw]

Version 3.10.14 released. Link in OP has been updated.

Changelog:

- Notifications for various things, like a unit being killed, will include the unit's custom name (if they were renamed)

Online as of 6:01 PM CST. Savegame compatible, although the Hexxon Refinery fix won't apply if it was already constructed.

Awesome, I really like that.
Naming my high exp units and keeping track of them, siege in particular, to get faster +1 range was key for me to get better as warmonger.
I also name later garbage units which have zero or very low exp.

 

[Solic]

The amount of "instability" wasn't from the Congress. This doesn't really result in "more stability" as a result.

Just because it might not have been the source of this particular "instability", doesn't mean that less changes = less chances for bugs to manifest does not hold up. Bugs get fixed regardless of congress, so over time it should yield to more stability.

Note that I am personally fine with the current way of doing things too and very happy that the community gets such a formalized role in deciding the direction of the mod at all. It's just a suggestion.

 

[Stalker0]

The amount of "instability" wasn't from the Congress. This doesn't really result in "more stability" as a result.

Yeah I want to stress this, the congress proposals had nothing to do with the bugs. We have had large congress deployments before, with much fewer issues.

This has been a one-off issue for this version, and that's because the devs are garbage cleaning, pulling out bad buggy code and replacing it with the good stuff. But when you take out the garbage, you get a lingering smell for a little bit until everything clears up. Its a necessary evil to move forward with the next planned phases of the project.

I get that it sucks, but I think people are overestimating the problem here. This isn't some systemic issue where now every release going forward will have 12 versions, it was a one-off issue dealing with some nasty problems in the code. I am sure things will return to normal for future releases.

 

[MIS]

I promote the mod in my YT videos, even if it is too a small audience. I want it to work, across an entire LP, so that people can enjoy seeing the mod in action.

What's your channel? Is it English language?

 

[Zhao Yun]

Yes good point, I don't know
Maybe we could add "beta" to the thread title again with the same rules, but a shorter "verification" time if the changes are small ?

You could also have a priority list in which order to do and then test things. Like essentials first, like when the spy system was pretty messed up for months, later 'cosmetic' changes?