Caveman 2 Cosmos

gdambrauskas said:
"change log is difficult to do when you have so many people working on it" is incorrect. Everybody just need to update the changelog with what they've changed ie it should not be any single person compiling a list of what the others changed.
Click to expand...

Everyone puts a description of their current change when they out it onto the SVN. However sometimes it gets undone or redone later. Someone has to go through the list (SVN change log) and make sense of it. Some versions that is not easy because there are so many changes happening.
 
AIAndy said:
People like you who do not make OOS reports but complain about time wasting due to OOS should think about their attitude.
I fix OOS errors as I get proper reports with the necessary logs but for months I did not get a single one. This fixing is done in the same free time that you use to enjoy yourself playing games and later come to us to complain how you wasted your time and that we are all doing it wrong and you know better.

Since there have been proper OOS reports recently, the root causes of some of the most common OOS have been fixed.
Click to expand...

I spend the time adding features and fixing OOSes in my own spinoff of the version 1.74h AND.
I prefer "fix 1 bug, before adding 100 more code changes" which is not the path c2c is taking. This just would not work on my team, anyone who tries to add more code changes before making things stable is further destabilizing the code. oos takes very long to nail down, not to mention i often need to involve my mp friends who are not programmers and just want to play. "better" for me equals "stable and playable". It's just common sense in programming to lock down unstable code, hunker down, get a bug list, divide it up and fix all of them before moving on (assuming you work for a decent company that knows that technical debt needs to be paid off). That is a totally better way to get to a stable code, it's just not the most fun way. And when no one pays you, fun is why people code; fixing bugs is not fun.
If you try to play 20 games and every one of them fail after several hours in the course of 2 years, I do consider that a waste (i reported some issues, but with the rate of changes, more bugs are created than there are fixed). There were some of the versions of AND that were less stable, but there were also stable ones. c2c had a 100% failure rate in mp games over 2 years, i welcome anyone out there to claim they played mp game from ancient to modern time successfully.
AND used have changelog and list things ie if something caused mp game instability it would often be mentioned, so you knew what to expect. c2c is a wild west, impossible to know what is added, fixed etc
 
Dancing Hoskuld said:
Everyone puts a description of their current change when they out it onto the SVN. However sometimes it gets undone or redone later. Someone has to go through the list (SVN change log) and make sense of it. Some versions that is not easy because there are so many changes happening.
Click to expand...

I meant a manual changelog, not the auto list of changes.
 
gdambrauskas said:
I meant a manual changelog, not the auto list of changes.
Click to expand...
And the difference would be?

i welcome anyone out there to claim they played mp game from ancient to modern time successfully.
Click to expand...
My wife and I did this back in v20-21. We had OOS errors but only from pathing problems and if we were careful with our unit commands could keep those under control. So there hasn't been all that much to cause OOS errors since then so we're not far from figuring them out. Unfortunately, I'm personally quite baffled by data caching and its purpose so I'm useless at it myself. However, when I work on code, it should only be in regions where everything is taking place synchroneously. So far I believe I've been able to avoid being a problem causer. You can't blame these guys either since at the time the problems were incidentally created NOBODY was reporting OOS errors so it wasn't caught just after revision.

Actually, I'm beginning to get irate here gdam. Seems you only come to our forums to bash our methodology and promote AND as some kind of superior mod, which it isn't and it never will be as it simply lacks the expansive view C2C brings to the table. Say what you will but our semi-controlled chaos, bound by a personal sense of responsibility maintained by all modders on the team has been our biggest benefactor in development. We don't have an overlord master of the mod making sure everyone loses the will to design but rather a democratic and permissive structure that allows room for true innovation and inspiration. I wouldn't for a moment doubt the skill of the coding team to address all bugs as found without needing to stifle development to do so.

As for changelogs, is it really that important to be able to read through every line detail of a change that took place in the mod??? Whatever happened to just playing and enjoying a game and being pleased by surprise itself?
 
I just reached the medival era and the AI is still not far behind me but a quite good challenge! And this even I had an awesome hunter-start on my lonely island and later I overtook a whole civ!
I am really impressed by the changes you did! :)
 
Dancing Hoskuld said:
Everyone puts a description of their current change when they out it onto the SVN. However sometimes it gets undone or redone later. Someone has to go through the list (SVN change log) and make sense of it. Some versions that is not easy because there are so many changes happening.
Click to expand...

gdambrauskas said:
I meant a manual changelog, not the auto list of changes.
Click to expand...

I'm sure he knows what you mean, and tried to explain why it is "hard" to do. What he said is something I've been tempted to say whenever someone else tries to post a "changelog". Those aren't changelogs, just copy/paste from another text file listing all changes in order. A "real" changelog needs to be sorted into something concise and understandable, ignoring changes that were later changed as well. No one really wants to do that (I sure don't* but I don't care about changelogs anyway).

*but I'll give it a try anyway, based on my somewhat limited understanding by not playing any of the v27beta due to black tiles: combat was tweaked, multifeatures were added, diseases were added.
 
gdambrauskas said:
I prefer "fix 1 bug, before adding 100 more code changes" which is not the path c2c is taking.
Click to expand...

You're not the only one distressed by this, and that is one of the reasons v27 was "delayed" (in quotes as the delay was only 30 days, when the normal release cycle is one version every ~30 days). The longer freeze was to fix bugs introduced when changes were done, and I hope this is the start of a trend.
 
dusckr87 said:
You're not the only one distressed by this, and that is one of the reasons v27 was "delayed" (in quotes as the delay was only 30 days, when the normal release cycle is one version every ~30 days). The longer freeze was to fix bugs introduced when changes were done, and I hope this is the start of a trend.
Click to expand...

I prefer this approach too. Personally I'd like us to do what we did with V27 every time (circa one month normal changes, then circs one month polish/bug-fix, then release)
 
I agree. A release every other month (i.e. 6 releases a year, instead of 12) also allows more time for people to get deeper into the game and possible uncover more things that may need to be balanced or fixed.
 
Koshling said:
I prefer this approach too. Personally I'd like us to do what we did with V27 every time (circa one month normal changes, then circs one month polish/bug-fix, then release)
Click to expand...

Yes yes yes please! I think a balance between new features and then time to ensure stable releases is the best way. V26 I had many problems with, V27 seems much more stable for me already. As a former programmer I know how unglorious bug/stability testing and fixing is, but I for one am thinking only happy good karma thoughts to the modders for each turn I can play without encountering any issues. So your work in this regard is very appreciated at least by me!

All hail stability and fewer bugs!
 
I am also in agreement with this sentiment. As a tester the 1 month cycle only allows me (even on Epic or Normal) speed to only get into late Classical Era before the next version. This leaves much undone in terms of testing. You start a trend and before you can evaluate the consequences a new version is out.

I also hope that this new cycle started with v27 will also stop the penchant for adding new stuff into the mod While it's getting Readied for a version release. That was v26's Biggest problem. 2 new systems were being added while the release process was going on. That really needs a handle put on it. As it train wrecked v26's stability.

JosEPh
 
Let me explain better my view on the two issues I mentioned yesterday. I want to explain why I think they are important, and certainly not just complains of the spoiled-little-kid kind.

Changelog: I usually have 2 games going, one alone, one with a friend who comes here an evening every week. All in all I play 10 hours or so a week. Being both gigantic maps, snail speed, immortal difficulty with increasing difficulty selected, a game lasts months. I am sure I am not the only one whose games last months. In fact I'd wager most "casual" players are in this situation. (Casual = not developer, nor using the svn. And yes I know how to use svn, but I do not want to use for my games a by-definition unstable version).

In that period of time, 2-3-4 or whatever new versions of c2c come out. BUT I have no idea what they change! Should I update and risk to ruin my game? Have I built (or avoided to build) things which will make my cities revolt, or bug the ai? I don't know, there's simply no way of knowing. Which is why personally I feel I need to have a more "readable" changelog.

Distribution: I got version 27 from the torrent posted a few pages ago from a kind user. The speed was exceptional (took me 8 minutes to get the entire mod), there were many seeders, and I left it seeding as well. I think you underestimate the number of people who would seed it, there's always a lot of people with far too much bandwidth for their own good around. I think a torrent would be a good alternative/complement to some other distribution method like crapsura.. uh I mean desura, which forces you to install some sketchy platform to update the mod.

Once again, I'm not trying to be an ass here, I love the mod and I'm grateful. It's just that, I do not think it's intended but it's a bit as if you were a group of people writing a book, and decided not to let anyone except your little circle read it...
 
Zincat said:
I don't understand. I love this mod, I really do. I play it far too much for my own good. But... why the lack of basic accessibility? I mean, I am completely baffled by:

- the lack of a down-to-earth changelog, listing the main changes. Eves something like: "uh, we worked mostly on diseases, and added some wonders" would be enough. Really, there is no way to truly know what changed between two versions unless you play an entire game. Reading the changelog doesn't really help, since it lists all the commits and that's hard to understand. How about something like this? http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/wesnoth/tags/1.11.0/players_changelog

- the somewhat abstruse distribution method. I understand that bandwidth is a problem, but surely there would be many people willing to seed a torrent, just to name one possibility. Instead of installing some crap software to update the mod...

I just don't understand why it seems like you are intentionally making the mod hard to use...

And yes, I know, I am not entitled to anything, this is voluntary work and I am grateful for it. Which is why I am beyond perplexed by these things...
Click to expand...

The change log takes time to update, as between 10-15 or so people have to send in the sum changes they did.

For putting the mod on where they did, perhaps they have issues putting it up on certain sites for either security reasons, draconian restrictions, a site not really shown they are worth putting a file on, the file is massive and too big for the site they want to put it on, copyright (maybe), or a few more reason potentially are why.

they arent making it hard to use.
 
Zincat said:
Distribution: I got version 27 from the torrent posted a few pages ago from a kind user. The speed was exceptional (took me 8 minutes to get the entire mod), there were many seeders, and I left it seeding as well. I think you underestimate the number of people who would seed it, there's always a lot of people with far too much bandwidth for their own good around. I think a torrent would be a good alternative/complement to some other distribution method like crapsura.. uh I mean desura, which forces you to install some sketchy platform to update the mod.

Once again, I'm not trying to be an ass here, I love the mod and I'm grateful. It's just that, I do not think it's intended but it's a bit as if you were a group of people writing a book, and decided not to let anyone except your little circle read it...
Click to expand...

Yes i agree, never use Desura as a D/L'er, it just confuses everything, and i know where you are coming from, but no offense to you or others that rely on the changelog, but i (personally) see it as the lowest of low priorities) some of the modders here can only (tinker) well alot of tinkering really) a little time per week. Some are working really hard in RL and this is just a so called GREAT hobbie) for them, takes their minds off the everyday stress. (I know thats what i do, at least). So take some of the comments in stride ok. btw, i'd (personally) like to know what Torrent you are using and were to get it?? thx and thx for using the GREAT MOD.

Daedwartin said:
The change log takes time to update, as between 10-15 or so people have to send in the sum changes they did.

For putting the mod on where they did, perhaps they have issues putting it up on certain sites for either security reasons, draconian restrictions, a site not really shown they are worth putting a file on, the file is massive and too big for the site they want to put it on, copyright (maybe), or a few more reason potentially are why.

they arent making it hard to use.
Click to expand...

On CFC you are only allowed to use less than 300,000 "characters" on a post. (:hmm: or is only 30,000 i forget:blush:)
 
You guys have won me over. I am going to start contributing to this mod from a senior perspective. i.e. work on a scenario-builders guide, so I can then start to create scenarios (GEM 1936 and 2012 firstly, which hopefully end up in the main release)
 
strategyonly said:
Yes i agree, never use Desura as a D/L'er, it just confuses everything, and i know where you are coming from, but no offense to you or others that rely on the changelog, but i (personally) see it as the lowest of low priorities) some of the modders here can only (tinker) well alot of tinkering really) a little time per week. Some are working really hard in RL and this is just a so called GREAT hobbie) for them, takes their minds off the everyday stress. (I know thats what i do, at least). So take some of the comments in stride ok. btw, i'd (personally) like to know what Torrent you are using and were to get it?? thx and thx for using the GREAT MOD.
Click to expand...


For the torrent, in this very thread
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=11967748&postcount=6568
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Caveman to cosmos relegion bug
Replies
3
Views
997
jshetley
J
AbuHab
My units becoming invisible
Replies
2
Views
441
Thunderbrd
Thunderbrd
B
Installing a mod
Replies
11
Views
2K
raxo2222
raxo2222
S
[MOD] Just a list of what I think C2C going stand-alone MAY pay at least some attention to.
Replies
15
Views
2K
Osk21
Osk21
M
Modding Question
Replies
1
Views
646
Osk21
Osk21
Back
Top Bottom