Patch Frequency?

[Vexus]

<text removed: actually, I like dealing with whatever comes> lol

Well, reading your post and you changed it.

with some research and understanding of current mechanics, insanity and madness will ensure new players play efficiently the same it has forced most most vets to do. If they choose to still play in a crazy maner then smoking can offset that.

Insanity overall seems like a good thing.

Thanks for reading it... changed my mind because I don't mind what comes, big patch or not, as I stated in that now-removed text, I can't see my friends joining anyway Yes, however someone new to the game may not want to be playing efficiently as they simply learn. If they get 1-2 madness levels, they are behind even further, unable to use quality tools, unable to do any mining, and so on, until it is resolved. Anyway.

I voted for no major patch changes but am really open to whatever comes. Constant updates usually keep a good player base as it is.

[jophbot]

I think a dev schedule should be based on dev resources, not community demand. If you try and push out stuff on a community schedule then we'll end up with bugged, rushed content sometimes - at least more often than we should. The idea of expeditions being 'test' servers for new content is a good one, and one that roughly follows the dev process in RL industry, but selling it to the gaming world in such a way as to create actual excitement and benefit to 'testing'. That whole concept allows for experimental ideas to be thoroughly play tested before intorducing them to the production environment once it's confirmed as of positive benefit.

So I vote for major patches after test 'signoff' from the players in expeditions ... sure trickle feed little bits and pieces out at times, but keep the major dev work for between expeditions - not only will that allow more dev time in prod for bugfixing (???) but it should also prevent more buggy content from being introduced in the first place, provided your code importing mechanisms are solid

[loftar]

I think a dev schedule should be based on dev resources, not community demand.

I think you misunderstand the question, in that case; it's not (mainly) a question of how much new content should be added, but how the additions should be paced out to the public server, in the event that the alternatives or "all the same" to the devs.

[lachlaan]

When I thought about expeditions, imagining what they might be like in relation to the full game, I had a vision of what you guys seemed to want them to be, which is content-return sources. As such I think it'd be cool if there were a shift in content available on either server. In that, when an expedition starts you drop a patch with some content for the main server, and one with content for the expedition itself that we'll be getting on the main server come the end of the expedition or throughout its duration. It'd be sort of like, a major teaser patch before an expedition and then a chunk of new content for both servers when it all ends. Not sure how that would work exactly but it'd keep expeditions themselves relatively stable in terms of mechanics and give people stuff to play with on both servers.

[Procne]

I'd rather have one or two patches every expedition, but with a well prepared, thought out, and tested, content, than rushed bits and pieces every month.
It's rather unrealistic to expect that the game can have monthly patches of the same magnitude as in the last year for several years forward

[Kandarim]

I'm still the largest fan of frequent (small) changes and tweaks to the expedition server, which then get rolled onto the main server after expedition ends. Obvious exceptions would be simple bugfixes, which get pushed to both.
That way, providence stays the stable world it is supposed to be while you can go ahead and test out everything on expeditions.

[Potjeh]

Keep all the devhours for expeditions (barring bugfixes), but don't wait for the expedition to end to allow moving the expedition content back to Providence, just in case it takes too long for an expedition to end. Instead, allow the players to work towards a long-term goal that allows them to move stuff back to Providence, but make it something ridiculously expensive so it takes enough time to test the new content properly (like have it's cost include a bunch of yellow roses ). That way the more PvP-oriented players have a way to work towards getting livestock back to Providence (ie destroying enemy towns to get to their statues), but the carebears have one too (it should take a massive amount of trading and coordinating to build a fleet of cargo ships or whatever we use to move the livestock between servers). The latter way would also mean that the first organization to get the transport going would get quite a bit of leverage on both server, which could make politics more interesting.

[Judaism]

Leave us alone, don't come up with new stuff during it. Tweak the next one if nessesary, as I thought was already mentioned.

[TotalyMeow]

Leave us alone, don't come up with new stuff during it. Tweak the next one if nessesary, as I thought was already mentioned.

I'd prefer only a little patch now and then myself. I want to play the Expedition.

[trungdle]

I want to play the Expedition.

LOL your free days are gone. Nao get back to work!