Version 0.18.2

[Impatient]

The new train sounds seem to be made by someone who never has heard a real freight train.
...

word!

[Deadlock989]

I worked on something and next to me was a roboport where suddenly a whole lot of robots had to wait to recharge. Amongst those were two "talkers". They were jabbering their ill talk the whole 30 seconds or minute the were waiting there. That was too much. I think it could be improved by letting them only talk for several 10s of seonds and then they shut up again. But not randomly all robots, but only the ill ones. Also make their jabber a bit less noisy.

Can we have this for the forums as well

[MEOWMI]

What's up with the entity destroyed warning sound? It doesn't even sound like a warning sound anymore. I had no idea what was going on until minutes later when I noticed that I was losing structures. That truly is the epitome of breaking something that worked. It's the worst one of the new sounds. You would think the engineer has a well-designed alert sound in their monitoring device...

A few others I really think should be changed are all the assemblers which no longer sound like heavy machinery and have lost their ambience of sounding like a factory, as well as blue belts which are too high-pitched (even when considering they're supposed to be the "fastest tech possible" and disregarding accusations of sounding like dentist drills). The train sounds could probably use some work as well.

I guess some of these sounds must be works in progress? Otherwise I don't understand the choice. Obviously things are subject to change but many sounds feel like they're at a rougher stage than any other experimental release material. It's as if many of them were replaced by more "realistic" sounds without regard for the complexity of the real sounds. Examples: trees breaking, crushing rock, inserters picking up and releasing items. (Seriously, did you try running through a forest with a tank? It sounds completely wacky.)

The other sounds I'll have to pass on for now and wait. Some of them are very good, like the artillery, rocket launch, chemical plant, and tank and car engines.

I get that this is trying to get more realism into the game, but don't forget that style and enjoyability are equally important in games, and this is true with sound design as well.

[coppercoil]

I wonder: aren’t there external alpha testers involved? They should must spot mentioned issues.

[Drury]

I wonder: aren’t there external alpha testers involved? They should must spot mentioned issues.

That's us.

[coppercoil]

That's us.

No, we are beta testers. Thats a little different.

[Drury]

That's us.

No, we are beta testers. Thats a little different.

We are? Dang, I forgot we got a promotion.

[Koub]

That's us.

No, we are beta testers. Thats a little different.

2020-01-31 10_36_47-Download _ Factorio.jpg (22.04 KiB) Viewed 5662 times

[BlueTemplar]

Yeah, beta testers test bugs, this is more about features ?

The most important is for Wube to try it on people that never played - which we know they do, but I suspect those are, by definition, harder to come by than the "Factorio community" (which is going to be used to the things the way they are, and might dislike change just because its change). (Not that people that already bought the game don't deserve consideration either, but I hope that you see what I mean ?)

Personally, I'm (so far) not fond of the new sounds that I have so far (briefly !) exposed to : inserters, assemblers(3), locomotives, train on rails...

[Sopenas]

Also water pump sound is pretty bad. I could not stand near my 8 pumps, had to run away just to get out of this sound. Is it so hard to do easy to hear noise of water flowing.
This game is about spending a lot of time working with your factory. Sound might be on a dark side but they should be pleasant to hear for a long time. Now I have issues with:
- Belt sounds (too high sound)
- Inserter sounds (sounds like someone forgot to oil them)
- Water pump sounds (they are terrible, too loud, almost got scared when I head it)

[coppercoil]

I did not noticed that.
I think only few dozens players should receive alpha, not... er... tens of thousands players worldwide. I mean, there are possibilities to improve release workflow. New feature introducing is slightly different case than hotfixes.

[BlueTemplar]

Stable is "alpha" too (aka "Early Access"). Literally 2M+ players bought it. (But we're getting into terminology nitpicking, my bad ?)

[conn11]

I did not noticed that.
I think only few dozens players should receive alpha, not... er... tens of thousands players worldwide. I mean, there are possibilities to improve release workflow. New feature introducing is slightly different case than hotfixes.

But why? You`re given full control on which version to use. From a stable alpha-release to the latest experimental, completed with documentation on what you're getting. Not some intransparent selection of a chosen few getting new features. From a practical standpoint the more players play, the better new features can be evaluated. Just like the changes made in 0.18.3 to the sound changes introdueced in the previous version.

[coppercoil]

But why? You`re given full control on which version to use. From a stable alpha-release to the latest experimental, completed with documentation on what you're getting.

If you provide something to 1M users, you definitely want to have some minimum quality regardless of how that release is named. I am sure there was lots of horrible mistakes that were successfuly catched by unit tests, by developer, by whole developer team etc. But that's not enough, there still WILL be some s**t left. Nobody's perfect. You can provide some **** for hundred people but not for hundred thousand. We can call it pre-alpha testing, this is still an internal test though it's made by external users. Developers need real players feedback; biggest mistakes will be discovered very soon. There's no need and it's not good to immerse too much people in it.

If there are no big problems left or tester reports may be considered as too subjective, then worldwide test can be released.

Hotfixes are different, they need to be delivered as soon as possible. But new features are not so urgent.

[conn11]

But why? You`re given full control on which version to use. From a stable alpha-release to the latest experimental, completed with documentation on what you're getting.

If you provide something to 1M users, you definitely want to have some minimum quality regardless of how that release is named. I am sure there was lots of horrible mistakes that were successfuly catched by unit tests, by developer, by whole developer team etc. But that's not enough, there still WILL be some s**t left. Nobody's perfect. You can provide some **** for hundred people but not for hundred thousand. We can call it pre-alpha testing, this is still an internal test though it's made by external users. Developers need real players feedback; biggest mistakes will be discovered very soon. There's no need and it's not good to immerse too much people in it.

If there are no big problems left or tester reports may be considered as too subjective, then worldwide test can be released.

Hotfixes are different, they need to be delivered as soon as possible. But new features are not so urgent.

Sure. And though game crashing alteration are definitely implemented in new updates, they are few and far between, especially at this late stage of development. I rather see EA used to really involve the community into the development process, than carrying over the bad reputation of EA getting away with poorly written and optimized products.

I highly disagree, the more are involved the more opinions and ideas can potentially be harnessed.
And to repeat it, the player has manually opt in those experimental releases, or keep sticking to the stable releases, wich are indeed very presentable.
Even for experimental: some soundpitches were apparently to high and got rectified in about 24h, nothing dramatic IMO. Certainly it’s far away from not matching those minimum quality standards... internal testing is quite obviously happening.

[coppercoil]

I highly disagree, the more are involved the more opinions and ideas can potentially be harnessed.
And to repeat it, the player has manually opt in those experimental releases, or keep sticking to the stable releases, wich are indeed very presentable.

I disagree. I could bet there are 100 silent unsatisfied players for one written report. Or maybe 1000 players. Is it important, or not? I agree, more players mean more feedback, but you need to think bigger. What effect will give those 999 silent players? Do you need them all?

There can be two levels of "experimental" release. If I'd write an EULA for pre-alpha experimental, be sure most beta testers won't opt in . This is what we want. Look at comments, players are unhappy. That mean, they cannot be pre-a testers. They need slightly better experimental. You should be a little crazy to be happy with a bug you found. Not for everyone.

[BlueTemplar]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Steam users already get a 1-paragraph "EULA" about experimental builds just after the game has loaded ?
Does Steam itself show any warnings when picking a "Steam beta" version of Factorio ? (And only Valve, not Wube can change things on that end...)

[conn11]

...

I disagree. I could bet there are 100 silent unsatisfied players for one written report. Or maybe 1000 players. Is it important, or not? I agree, more players mean more feedback, but you need to think bigger. What effect will give those 999 silent players? Do you need them all?

I agree, none, but than again 0.17.79 stable is and will be still aviable.

There can be two levels of "experimental" release. If I'd write an EULA for pre-alpha experimental, be sure most beta testers won't opt in . This is what we want. Look at comments, players are unhappy. That mean, they cannot be pre-a testers. They need slightly better experimental. You should be a little crazy to be happy with a bug you found. Not for everyone.

This is of course a possibility. The other route is treating the players like adults. They are getting warned it’s experimental. With a major version update only a week out, what should one expect? There will be bugs, there will be not yet optimal implemented features...
As stated above the division between stable and experimental releases of the still Alpha branched product dose exist for a reason.

[valneq]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't Steam users already get a 1-paragraph "EULA" about experimental builds just after the game has loaded ?
Does Steam itself show any warnings when picking a "Steam beta" version of Factorio ? (And only Valve, not Wube can change things on that end...)

As a Steam user, you only get an additional warning after the game has loaded when you use a "BETA branch" that is not automatially updated, so for example "0.18.3" instead of "0.18.x". Even when these would be the exact same version at the moment. The warning is about you not getting automatic updates, whether or not it is experimental. You get the exact same warning when you deliberately select a stable version such as "Factorio Stable 2 - 0.17.74". The wording on that message is just a litte bit subtle.

Selecting the BETA branch in Steam in and of itself should indicate to the user that they are doing something out of the ordinary. So let's just hope they know what they are doing. And yes, I believe you do get a warning from Steam the first time you select any BETA branch, but that's about it.

[Impatient]

I agree. IMO the two things that are easier with a small number of hired beta testers is the damage control if something buggy or unappealing got out and the communication assumingly is professional and constructive. If you get something unfinished out to a million "testers", then you have no control over which spin the reactions take, risking shitstorms and bad ratings, which can not be undone. also you get reactions like "You stink" instead of detailed reports about what a player was doing, observed and felt.
BUT I agree. that the more testers there are, the more opinion is fed back to the game designers. This is important to know what is appealing to a broad audience and what is not. I think the diverse reactions wube got on the color saturation for example, made them implement the color saturation slider in the options. Great thing IMO. ALSO unpaid or paing testers are always more critical than paid ones. To the extreme example, that they might say: "Playing <a game> was a waste of five hours of my life. I want my money and my time back." A paid tester could never honestly say something like that, because it was not. He/She got paid for playing it.