+- Las Venturas Playground (https://forum.sa-mp.nl)
+-- Forum: Main Talk (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Development (https://forum.sa-mp.nl/forum-16.html)
+--- Thread: Today's news (/thread-23343.html)
Pages:
1
2
Today's news - Wesley - 05-05-2010
While we continue to work on our new project, we will also continue to release an update to the current gamemode every two weeks.
As we don't have that much open bug reports at the moment, there aren't a lot of changes on the list this week:
* Updated the rules
* Fixed a bug with challenges not resetting
* Fix for rustlers spawning wrongly at LV Airport
* Re-added a seasparrow for HoogerBooger
That's it for this week. Stay tuned for more interesting updates on Project Playground.
On behalf of the Las Venturas Playground Development Team,
Wesley Lancel
Re: Today's news - Jay - 05-05-2010
.
Re: Today's news - Jay - 05-05-2010
Tell the "core management", I mean Peter, that if that gets posted tonight then I won't be here tomorrow.
Re: Today's news - Wesley - 05-05-2010
(05-05-2010, 07:50 PM)Jay link Wrote: Tell the core management, I mean Peter, that if that gets posted tonight then I won't be here tomorrow.
Ehhhh, why? this has nothing to do with v3 or whatever you want to call it?
Re: Today's news - Jay - 05-05-2010
I'm not willing to debate with you because it's above your and Fireburn's head. To what you've both told me, you guys have enough things to worry about at the moment anyway.
Re: Today's news - Fireburn - 05-05-2010
What the fuck is this for Jay? Please tell me. We've agreed to do a forthnight cycle of bugfixing and small updates for 2.91. So that is what this is, and we only want to tell our players that we've done some fixes and what that fixes / improvements are. This has nothing to do with any kind of thing from the core management. If Microsoft would stop supporting XP the moment they've started working on Vista, hell would've broke out. We'll keep supporting 2.91 untill we have a new version. Why? Because that is nothing more than normal. If bugs get found, we will fix them, if many people complain about a thing, we will improve that. Why? Because if we wouldn't we would lose the only players that we would still have at the moment, and that will by no way improve LVP. People will get bored, and all time we put into 3.0 would be wasted. So that is why we keep doing small improvements and fixes for 2.91, and I think even you agreed that. And you know you're practicly blackmailing us, by posting that threat. And you know we need/want/like you working on 3.0, but you know what, I'm slowly starting to get full of this nonsense. Everything we do gets a blackmail by you, while the only thing we do is helping our community. We could also just update to fix some bugs, but that little information post on the website just makes things clear, what do we improve with the update. Please understand that...
Re: Today's news - Jay - 05-05-2010
Offcourse they have had a say in this. Source. - How will a roadmap change anything?
Where are they? Why are these discussions internal? Why can't we have a say? It's our proposal.
A lot of people seem to forget that we're the most important part of this community. For anyone to even remotely imply that we get respected for our work needs to look again. I said from the start that me Matthias and thiaZ were unhappy about these constant updates, yet the core management have the fucking audacity to overrule our opinions and still give the go ahead for these news posts?
(05-05-2010, 10:48 PM)Fireburn link Wrote: If Microsoft would stop supporting XP the moment they've started working on Vista, hell would've broke out.
LVP is not a (marketing) company.
(05-05-2010, 10:48 PM)Fireburn link Wrote: If bugs get found, we will fix them, if many people complain about a thing, we will improve that. Why? Because if we wouldn't we would lose the only players that we would still have at the moment, and that will by no way improve LVP.
I stand by original argument on that case: What about 2.90?
Fireburn, we made the proposal, the Core management denied it. It's above your head. I don't give a shit about what policies are in place that say that you guys have to deal with it. It's about time we got some respect around here.
Go and concentrate on your school exams. Hopefully when the core management eventually acknowledge our opinions they will come here (if it's not to late).
Re: Today's news - Wesley - 05-05-2010
I understand that you are not happy with the updates on 3.0. But what does that have to do with this post? It's 3 bugfixes on 2.91 o_0
Re: Today's news - Peter - 05-06-2010
Quote:Where are they? Why are these discussions internal? Why can't we have a say? It's our proposal.
It's something Fireburn and Wesley should be taking care of, but are not. There should have been a roadmap in February, in fact, it was promised to the Core Management that there would be one. There should be a solid plan for updating, it should exactly be clear what kind of features go in LVP 3.0, tasks should have been divided.
Instead of blaming the Core Management (or me, whatever you prefer, it's not really the same), try looking closer to your own position, specifically the Development Management. I'm assuming Fireburn told you the proposal got denied because it's too vague, please allow me to emphasise on the points you put forward;
- Post Information about 3.0's development for every 20% of progress (Milestones)
This is not possible unless you have a strict planning and exactly know what 20% actually means. Features and time would have to be divided among developers and everything would have to be clear. Next to that, a milestone has a date associated to it.
- This means there will be 5 posts, excluding posts for public betas etc.
I think anyone can figure that one post per 20% of progress means there will be five posts in total. Void point.
- Posts should be on the site, but with a link in the forum news to it + a redirection topic in Dev Blog
How you announce it is entirely up to you. Void point.
- A progress indicator in the forum news
Same story as the first point, the Development planning is undefined right now, so this simply is not doable.
- A !progress command in IRC, like LVP 2.90 had one
Idem.
I seriously hope you can agree that this is vague, undefined and simply open to anything you would like to do. Introducing a new feature will most likely introduce new bugs, which will lead to a higher ticket count, which effectively means that introducing a feature would decrease the progress percentage.
Let me also share a response of one of the Development Management members with you: "We will work on a quite strict planning, which we already planned (lol! ...) to do so. I'll get back to this asap, because we need a solution quick". Did you notice anything about that? This post was made on April 23rd. I surely haven't. While the proposal put forward had been denied because of it's unclarity, putting up a new one always is fine, but the Dev Management just doesn't.
Simply put, problems are being caused by your Development Management not fulfilling any of their promises and not communicating properly towards the Development Team. The Core Management is very much aware of this performance by the Development Management, had various talks with them about it, but agrees that little progress has been made. Jay, we had talks about this on IRC and I suggested a solution which would work for you, instead of moaning or extorting you could simply try to do that, as I wouldn't have suggested it otherwise.
Re: Today's news - Jay - 05-07-2010
I still don't see with these debates outstanding how it makes it okay to proceed with these news posts though. Like you mentioned about the lack of planning, or even anything to suggest we're going to successfully pull it off, we're constantly promising it to the players. Something we've done a lot in the past with this project.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it took you guys long enough to reject that proposal. Matthias posted it on 18th April. 8 days later (2 days prior to the next update due date) we finally got a response that it was denied. I know I wouldn't have been the only person unhappy if what Matthias was originally instructed to announce would've made it to the public.
I don't think adding times to Milestones is going to work. Sure it would be great, I'm not saying we're not going to at least try and meet deadlines - I worked pretty hard last week to meet the due date of "Milestone 1", but just how you used to say it in the SA-MP team, and how the MTA devs say it: we can't always commit time to work on this project.
Anyway, fair point about the roadmap. Obviously your points are valid, I just didn't expect there to be further posts until we had this sorted.