Monthly or bi-monthly updates?

How do people feel about only getting one or two updates a month?

I would like it if it allowed room for larger chunks of more polished, less buggy content to be implemented.

EDIT: I’m a dumb ass, I meant Monthly or bi-weekly.

slower releases yes, but i’m not convinced on monthly/fortnightly updates, and feel like it would just slow progress. although i like the idea of more complete content, we are still the bugtesters; without the analytics/feedback we provide, they would keep working on the additions that may add issues to the game, and have to backtrack further in the case of errors.

The more releases, the more testing and reporting can be done. Early Access is about testing…

So I guess the response so far is no, lol. Well, to clarify I was thinking that weekly updates would go to the dev branch, and the more stable updates could be once or twice a month on the main branch.

Basically the dev branch would be the bug fixing branch, and the main branch would be the balancing branch.

Frank, the dev branch is every update as it gets uploaded to Steam, so that people can test new changes. If that suddenly goes to weekly updates, then garry has to wait as much as a week before he can get testing data on changes, and fixed-on-the-dev-side exploits on stable sit around for a month at a time. That seems horribly limiting, all so that your alpha experience can be less alpha.

How many branches and update cycles do you want?

If it’s changed to monthly updates to the default branch, people will make threads complaining that the updates are too slow and they don’t get to play with the new content the devblogs talk about and they don’t understand why. What will you say to them?

Your expectations are too high, man. Alpha development isn’t about polish, it’s about making things work. 30 days between adding something and getting feedback on it does not help.

Yes, I know. Just a suggestion, and something Garry mentioned awhile ago in the Devblog:

“Again, like we posted in last week’s update… we’re not releasing an update today. It will probably come out on early next week… and bad news – this update requires a total wipe of saves and blueprints. Server owners don’t have to worry because this happens automatically – but I think we’ve got a responsibility to tell you that it’s gonna happen before it does. Wipes are something we want to avoid as much as we can. Which is one of the reasons we’re thinking about increasing the length of our sprints to two or three weeks between updates. Let us know what you think the solution is.”

No need to be pompous about it.

There you go again Elix. Always making out to be better/know more than other people… Chill.

As Frank said, Garrrrry has already mentioned this. If you want to play on a dev server with 20 updates a week thats fine. As a server owner, I would rather wait for it to be tried and tested thoroughly before updating my server. Every 2 weeks would be ideal.

Just stop with the constant I’m better than you attitude please. It’s a Forum I agree, but change the record and be less condescending please.

with all due respect, isn’t that exactly what the dev branch is; the 20 updates a week, bleeding edge? if you want less frequent updates, host a non beta server, because that is exactly what that branch is for;)

@frank: yeah, i’d have no problem with the main branch being updated in a more delayed way, i only play dev branch anyway:) i do see what elix is saying, in that the main branch population will possibly complain that it takes too long to get the new stuff, but that’s always gonna be an issue; we are all a bunch of whiners XD

either way i’ll support them changing their schedule as required; i just don’t see the benefits in increasing the gap between updates beyond say 2 weeks at the most where bugtesting is concerned.

I think the current schedule works quite well, weekly server updates for new content etc and every month or so we get a big update that forces a wipe.

No particular reason to change for the moment.

I’d be in favor of Bi-Weekly with the occasional delay if needed. 1 month is a tad too long IMO, but every 2 weeks is long enough for big updates and short enough that most people can use patience.

I think we might be putting the cart before the horse. Updates are driven by the speed of the actual programmers, artists, quality assurance and bug trackers. If your asking for more frequent updates then Gary will have to hire more people to do the work and test the results. Once they have this game past beta they will have to fire and or let the contracts run out on all those new employees… there is a balancing act happening behind the scenes.

Seems like you didn’t read anything because we’re talking about LESS updates, not more.

Sounds like your dictating when you want updates to me … again horse before cart. Updates are driven by the team creating the program and the resources they have to work with.

Bi-weekly would be better. Garry can still get his bleeding-edge feedback from the DEV branch, meanwhile the non-beta branch can have maps that last longer than 1 week, (which co-incidentally seems to be the exact time needed to establish a strong, re-inforced base, and start producing c4), before it’s wiped and we all start over.

I guess it wouldn’t make sense to only update the dev-server once a week since that is the best place to iron out the major bugs.

I think after having this past weeks update delayed, and then seeing the amount of content that is being added that bi-weekly would be good. Which, after realizing I was a dumb ass, is what I meant in the title! Not bi-monthly, but bi-weekly, lol.

Anyway, like Neil said, It takes me about a week to get a decent base going and a small stash of C4. Now with the updated cost of armor it may take even more! Since I have a job and shit it would be nice to have 2 weeks of good playing.

(in aus, bi-weekly would mean twice a week, so we use “fortnightly”. damned if i know whether its the same in america;))

Actually, whether bi-weekly really means twice a week, or once every two weeks is quite a contentious topic, and has been argued over for 150 years! In general, the prefix bi- means x2, (fortnightly), and semi- means ÷2, (twice a week). So really we should be using semi-weekly for twice a week…

I kind of like what they’ve decided on now. Pumping out weekly updates, putting them out on Thursday, and bugfixing over the weekend. If there are any issues with the upcoming update, they can always delay it until they deem it’s ready to ship.

I don’t think the amount of content is an issue. The big chunk of this weeks update (the terrain) could’ve actually shipped last week if the builds weren’t breaking on the dev side. FP is clearly capable of putting out a decently large amount of content in a relatively short amount of time as they’ve done it many times with the previous weekly updates.

Having a shorter time to do things actually promotes working on them believe it or not, as when you’re told or scheduled to get some work out at a certain time, you’re going to work your ass off to get it out then, so your interest and passion is going to be mostly focused on that. I would say that I fear making the update schedules longer would mean that the devs would lose a bit of interest and passion since there’s practically no immediacy to what they need to achieve, but FP is clearly passionate about Rust (they rebuilt the game from scratch to make it better), so I have no doubt in my mind that they’d still release awesome content.

I went and looked it up because I thought I was going crazy, and you’re right! It can mean either twice a week, or every other week. How confusing.

@Rahu - We have a lot of stuff this week that would not have been in last weeks update. The barricades and F1 grenades are two I can think of.