Procedural suggestion: Patch numbering

[Sigurd]

In the past, before Test server patches were posted we would see patched of the sort:

1750
1754
1830
1830a
1850
Update #1

etc (made them up obviously)

The 'a' patch was because a little update was done and I find that sensible, especially if it is, as I believe it was, a server side patch - but just a way of letting us know it happened. I recall seeing one of these in the past.

Now tho, we have patch 1780C. I recall seeing patches 'lettered' on these forums to indicate interim test patches.

My suggestion is that we continue to limit the 'official' patches to numbers and avoid this letter thing. Conceivably, a long test period with many interim fixes between released patches (perhaps a business decision to reduce patches or make them biweekly etc) may result in patch 1922X and then 1922AA, 1922AB...etc

Maybe, if we did something like use the last patch (1780) as the 'starting point' for numbering and the first POST-RELEASE patch would be:

1780.1 then 1780.2 ... 1780.3045 (/shiver) etc

When it comes time to release, 1780.4 (all 3045 jokes aside ;P) would become:

1781

On the Test Server forums it could be noted that 1780.4->1781 (if that matters) Those NOT playing on Test need not know 'A' 'C' etc - it isn't important. It can on the other hand imply that there were 3 patches that day and Sigil just kept editing the notes.

Which leads me to my second and last point: This above confusion is believable because the last patch notes were a jumble compared to most prior ones, when INITIALLY posted (officially) because they combined some of 78's issues as well - probably a bleedover from Test Server Patch note copy and pastes.

Ex:
- Aggro NPCs that can see invis will now attack if you move near them.
- Aggro NPCs that cannot see invis will no longer attack if you move very close to them.
Was on 1780 and the prior one - many more dupes were sxcattered through out - I had deja vu and confusion


Btw - you should have included a comment that umm the lvl 11 (Blacksmith at min) Tier quest were fixed I was told they work now - I heard they broke after Update #1.

Great job on the fixes all! Thanks!
---Sigurd

[SwordMage]

I agree something needs to be done to make patch labeling clearer for the player community; however, I think the thing to do is simplify instead of make things more complex.

A update/patch numbering scheme independent of build numbers is what I am used to seeing both in the projects I have been involved with and in various games I have played in the past. This improves communication between the software producer and consumer.

One approach would be to take the Update/Patch model and have patches to Update 1 numbered sequentially as 1.1, 1.2 ... Test server patches might be numbered using an entirely different scheme it account the fact (?) that they aren't always targeted to a specific live patch.

[Sigurd]

Sure... make it simple damn you Mage!


OK, that works too... I mean it isn't like they can't have an internal mapping from builds to patch releases (I don't even know if I, as a user, see the build number on any of the UIs anyhow)

But the main reason I posted this is that I feared the desire to 'reuse' the last 'gold' Test Server build with both lead to confusing patch numbers, confusion with Test Server builds and most importantly - confusion editing the notes like happened this week where multiple patches were combined past and present.

[Corlin]

Up to Sigil, but I would keep the build number, it makes sense. I think the reason we have a, b, c etc on testserver at the moment, is that we have had database only changes - not patches to the code base itself, so no new build number.

Clearly update 1, 2, 3 are for when the (mostly) tested code gets pushed to live, regardless of the actual build number.

[Zathris]

I think folks seeing a build number may feel uneasy with it at first because it's new and different but after a time I'm not sure it would be any more confusing than parsing what 1.2.0.4 would mean.

I take comfort in knowing the patch message's claimed build number and executable file version match. I used to go to c:\program files\Sony\Vanguard\bin\VGClient.exe and see the file version (right click properties -> version -> File Version) match the build number. B) I know i have the right version EXE all least.

I now have the file explorer set by default to display file version details so it just pops up now.

-Zathris

[geckzilla]

Yeah, I don't know what's so confusing about the build number. I didn't really get what the c was there for either but they've been using ####x since forever now and every new build gets a new build number, so it makes sense to Sigil even though the numbers skip around to us. It seems as simple as it can get to me.

I'm also glad they didn't go with "Here's the even more dumbed down build # for the public" and "Here's the real build #" just to keep people from asking why it doesn't go sequentially.

That, and you can see how hard they were working by counting the difference between the previous build and latest build.

[Zathris]

Originally Posted by geckzilla

I didn't really get what the c was there for either but they've been using ####x

Yeah, I seem to recall incrimenting the letter meant a configuration change not a code change. What that means, i couldn't say for sure but I guess it could be a runtime variable changed

Originally Posted by geckzilla

That, and you can see how hard they were working by counting the difference between the previous build and latest build.

Yeah, I like seeing that too.

-Zathris

[Corlin]

dont forget you can always use /version in-game to double check rev info as well