Jump to content


I take it judging by the version numbers, this game is still Beta?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

Bongels #1 Posted 25 April 2017 - 01:35 PM

    Seaman

  • Players

  • 49
  • Member since:
    03-12-2017
Since we are on 0.6.4, I take it this is the case, but I see no mention of Beta when playing the game, reading about updates, news or anything. 

shamelesscreature #2 Posted 25 April 2017 - 01:43 PM

    Officer Cadet

  • Players

  • 830
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015

No, beta ended in September 2015.

These 0.something version numbers are a Wargaming thing, World of Tanks has been out since 2010 and its current version is 0.9.17. 



havaduck #3 Posted 25 April 2017 - 01:53 PM

    Midshipman

  • Players

  • 1,602
  • Member since:
    05-16-2015

Oh obviously you missed the release- Edited party or else you wouldnt even dare to write such a thing. :trollface:

 

All the broken crap, the imbalances - everything is just there on purpose, in an artistic way even.

 

 

It just like ..... hm a century ago or so, when an artist who was tired with the establishment sense of art sent a pissoir as a sculpture under a pseudonym to an art display.

A commission, of which he was a member of the board, later expelled the entry to the display but on vague reason since there couldnt comprehensibly be any pointing to anything and say, eg: its vulgar! - because it wasnt.

 

 

 

And I am just in more than one way happy to make that leap of thought and use this story as a metaphor: This game is just WGs pissoir, and instead of an art display its the videogame market. And they have already been expelled too, from the Cyprus stock market, for failure to comply to regulations. 

 

again:

 

 

 

€: For those curious I will even give you the wiki link: https://en.wikipedia...untain_(Duchamp)

 

For whatever reason it wont accept the closing ")" as part of the link, you gotta add that yourselves .....:facepalm:

 

This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks


Edited by VMX, 26 April 2017 - 01:22 PM.

RPF - another proof to the reason why you dont give WG the benefit of a doubt, but rather the educational benefit of a kick in the Edited whenever they only think about doing stupid. If you wait to long the BS avalanche has gained to much momentum to pierce their own halo of Dunning-Kruger.

 

This about WG handling of "things":

View PostBigBadVuk, on 03 January 2016 - 01:51 PM, said:

[...] yes I agree that it is sending wrong message to other players :"Cheat while you can when you can. We cant stop you , and even if we caught you with pie in your hands we will let you walk away with the pie and smile in the faces of other fair users..." [...]

 


_Flyto_ #4 Posted 26 April 2017 - 03:48 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Players

  • 512
  • Member since:
    09-24-2015
I have wondered, since I joined the game, why the <1 version numbers....

Tuccy #5 Posted 26 April 2017 - 05:04 PM

    Lieutenant

  • WG Staff
  • Community

  • 2,474
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Well generally because it does not really matter whether we are 0.6.whatever or 1.4.whatever - the game is in constant development (with general time between x.y updates being less than 1 month) and... It is just a number. It definitely does not mean we're in Beta :B


 

 


StringWitch #6 Posted 18 May 2017 - 02:02 AM

    Officer Cadet

  • Beta Tester

  • 830
  • Member since:
    10-12-2014

The weird thing is though, they insist on keeping the 0 in front. Like for WoT there was version 0.9.10 instead of 1.0.0. It really irks me and there must be a reason for it no one will state.


Summary of my requests/feedback: Iwaki; Tone; Kitakami; more pre-dreadnought era content (especially armoured cruisers); quieter ship death SFX; quieter gun SFX; gun SFX from circa 5.5; more consistent & lower damage large calibre guns; a way to see consumables & upgrades available on unowned ships; game development focus on bugfixes before new features; WG EU to care about anything.

 

My login video mod: historical footage from BSPacific.


_Capt_Pugwash #7 Posted 18 May 2017 - 03:59 PM

    Seaman

  • Players

  • 1
  • Member since:
    05-17-2017
I believe a game denoted 1.0 is considered a complete and finished game. As this type of game is constantly being patched and with new versions and content added regularly War Gaming want to avoid reaching a 1.0 version number and the implication that implies.

_Flyto_ #8 Posted 18 May 2017 - 05:09 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Players

  • 512
  • Member since:
    09-24-2015

View Post_Capt_Pugwash, on 18 May 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

I believe a game denoted 1.0 is considered a complete and finished game. As this type of game is constantly being patched and with new versions and content added regularly War Gaming want to avoid reaching a 1.0 version number and the implication that implies.

 

Well, a complete and finished *first version*, fit for release. World of Warcraft was 0.x in beta, then 1.x on release, then each major expansion has been 2.x, 3.x, etc.

 

I suspect staying at 0.9.x means that somewhere in WG or Lestra, some people don't feel that this is complete :-)



Captain_Placeholder #9 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:22 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Tester

  • 364
  • Member since:
    04-14-2015

View PostStringWitch, on 17 May 2017 - 06:02 PM, said:

The weird thing is though, they insist on keeping the 0 in front. Like for WoT there was version 0.9.10 instead of 1.0.0. It really irks me and there must be a reason for it no one will state.

 

they do it just Irk people like you ^^

"Another Grudge in the Dammaz Kron"


M_osama169 #10 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:56 AM

    Seaman

  • Players

  • 15
  • Member since:
    02-21-2015

View PostTuccy, on 26 April 2017 - 05:04 PM, said:

Well generally because it does not really matter whether we are 0.6.whatever or 1.4.whatever - the game is in constant development (with general time between x.y updates being less than 1 month) and... It is just a number. It definitely does not mean we're in Beta :B

 

Well said ^^

ColonelPete #11 Posted 19 May 2017 - 02:52 PM

    Admiral

  • Players

  • 6,700
  • Member since:
    07-02-2015

View PostStringWitch, on 18 May 2017 - 04:02 AM, said:

The weird thing is though, they insist on keeping the 0 in front. Like for WoT there was version 0.9.10 instead of 1.0.0. It really irks me and there must be a reason for it no one will state.

 

Because there is no one set of rules for this. Wikipedia names a dozen different schemes to number versions. Any company can do it as they like. TeX adds a digit of pi for every new version.

nimlock #12 Posted 20 May 2017 - 11:38 AM

    Seaman

  • Players

  • 2
  • Member since:
    08-12-2016

https://en.wikipedia...ware_versioning

 In principle, in subsequent releases, the major number is increased when there are significant jumps in functionality such as changing the framework which could cause incompatibility with interfacing systems, the minor number is incremented when only minor features or significant fixes have been added, and the revision number is incremented when minor bugs are fixed. A typical product might use the numbers 0.9 (for beta software), 0.9.1, 0.9.2, 0.9.3, 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.1, 1.1.1, 2.0, 2.0.1, 2.0.2, 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.2, etc. Developers may choose to jump multiple minor versions at a time to indicate significant features have been added, but are not enough to warrant incrementing a major version number; for exampleInternet Explorer 5 from 5.1 to 5.5, or Adobe Photoshop 5 to 5.5. This may be done to emphasize the value of the upgrade to the software user, or, as in Adobe's case, to represent a release halfway between major versions (although levels of sequence based versioning are not limited to a single digit, as in Drupal version 7.12).

 

AND

 

Proprietary software developers often start at version 1 for the first release of a program and increment the major version number with each significant update.[citation needed]

In contrast to this, the free-software community tends to use version 1.0 as a major milestone, indicating that the software is "complete", that it has all major features, and is considered reliable enough for general release.[citation needed]

In this scheme, the version number slowly approaches 1.0 as more and more bugs are fixed in preparation for the 1.0 release. The developers of MAME do not intend to release a version 1.0 of their emulator program.[citation needed] The argument is that it will never be truly "finished" because there will always be more arcade games. Version 0.99 was simply followed by version 0.100 (minor version 100 > 99). In a similar fashion Xfire 1.99 was followed by 1.100. After 8 years of development, eMule reached version 0.50a.

 

WG operates in the global market so there are directives and standards to uphold. You get specific founding perspectives and niche market offers depending on your products alpha, beta or final product stage. 

So generally speaking, if it's >1.0 version, the product can change massively before it's final release and you can't complain much about it other than the products you bought (they can't deliberately change values of premium goods without compensating the customers (and wrecking the in game economy in turn) for example). Nothing stops WoWS to add submarines into the game and change the meta/ game-play of the game :trollface:






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users