Please, make normal version descriptions, remove Koala's

I love the names actually. So long as there's patch notes to go alongside them I see no problem with having them around.

Plus, everything's organized pretty well on the wiki page: http://starbounder.org/Version_history

 

yes, in my last message i write about it. Or may be they can make Roadmap for all stages of development.

Why should i stop? I just tell my opinion.

It's will be really more comfortable, if we can see progress. All this doesn't tell me how development going on. This "funny names" looks how vail, that must hide fact that in real even developers dont know about what they want do with their game. But i very want to hope that it's not so.

 

This, every software project I've worked on has had the actual build numbers and the customer-facing 'friendly' name.

It's really not a huge deal because the information is there, but it would be a little cleaner this way.

 

Sometimes it's important listen opinion of community, especially when you make Early Access. If you not want hear community's advices, then may be it's better don't do so.
And guys, who think that animal's names and serial number of released updates it's enough, look at my topic in Steam conversations and you'll can see that many people share my position - http://steamcommunity.com/app/211820/discussions/0/522730075855410738/?tscn=1402860710
Good luck to all, especially to Chucklefish command. I hope that you'll make game of your dream, that will be really fine and fun game with good mechanics and interesting features.

 

HERETIC!!!

 

Read again. I never said the traditional build system was hard to understand, nor did I mean to imply such. I simply said the Starbound build system offers us more information up-front... in a way that is, admittedly, harder to understand... but at least they give you the date of build releases.

 

So, like five people?

 

Reading through Steam SB threads always makes me cringe. >.>

I'm not against them adding numbers in addition to the Koala names they have now. I'd be fine with either option or both, really. As I've said, as long as the information's there when I need it, I'm okay with whatever approach they take to naming them.

 

This argument actually has nothing to do with which version is "easier" or "better", it is simply that you are used to version numbers instead of version names. If every other game used names, and starbound used numbers, it would be the same argument but reversed.

 

No, that's not it. Names are arbitrary in progression (unless you go alphabetically or some other predictably ordered system). Numbers are easy, 3<4. Angry > Furious?

 

how about no

besides the numbers are already in

and they should relese a patch before you complain about this lol

 

no no... you misunderstood. I wasn't talking about what they have in mind for the game, as that is obvious in what they post and what they have mentioned. What I was referring to is the actual programming of it all. The time it takes is not something you can measure so easily. That is like saying writing code is like a coffee dispenser, instantaneous. That much I do not believe. Coding takes time, and varies greatly from task to task. Some times things need to be changed or altered. Sometimes it is a minor fix to make something work. So in that sense how are they to know how close they are? Sure they have a vision or idea of what they want to be the end game. Visions change here and there too.

Noticed that has already happened, but the idea as a whole still remains unchanged. It is figuring out how to meat what they want as a end product rather than pressing time to complete a product. Once things are finally done then they know they have reached what they were & are wanting of the game.

It is how I see it. So even in the way they present there numbers, like the pic above showing where the version numbers are; all it means is more progress being done to meet those set of ideas & visions. But to know how close to finish is still subjective as stating release date on any product that involves a lot of thought. I hope all this clarifies, as I am not so great at articulation, but at least I do my best trying.

 

You are taking this all way too seriously. At this point they're just trying to have fun with the convention. Also the vast majority of companies use proprietary versioning conventions. It's just a code to refer to the build they're looking at. Some companies do (Major).(Minor).(Revision) while others might do (Major).(Revision).(Build).(Datecode). Some companies don't even do proper versioning for their products; I know a Dev that makes random ones each time he updates his products (version "Ten-Ton Tin Man" became "Wooden Lampshade"). My point is, as long as the Devs know what they're looking at, that's all that matters. Version numbers don't have any real intrinsic value without knowing how to read them.

 

Neither do Koala versions for that matter. Now how many times have you gotten confused over a build number versus a build emotion?

 

Hmm... just thought of it but doesn't it seem like the emotional names go in the buildup of similarly set of emotions. I mean it does go from almost calm to build up to furious. In a way each one is a stronger meaning than the last. angry is not as strong as furious.

Just something I have noticed with the scaling per say.

 

Random conceit vs. something even Hodor can understand: It's a tricky balance.

I'm all for MY obscure crap; just don't make me have to work for yours.

 

I honestly have had no problems understanding it, as the new emotion was different to the old one. Something different is not a bad thing.

 

No I see the difference. One is a number and the other isn't.....that's the extent of it.

Don't feel sorry for me, I'm not the one who needs numerical indicators to follow the game version.

 

- Groovy Platypus

- Homicidal Platypus



There is an obvious progression. Assigning random adjectives to a build name does not make more sense to me no matter how many times you tell me it makes sense to you.