Is development too active?

**takkaria** · December 25, 2010, 13:09

Originally posted by the Invisible Stalker

After a few months of not playing Angband I've recently started playing O again. There are a few things I like about it, one of which is that it is not being developed. Nick has made one or two bug fixes and interface improvements, but otherwise the game is exactly as it was when its maintainer went MIA four years ago. V seems to change every few hours. Some of the changes make the game better. Some seems pointless. A few, to my taste, make it worse. But overall there are just too many changes. It's not just that this makes things confusing for the occasional player like me. The more important issue is balance. Playing O again has reminded me what a balanced game is like.

Feel free to stick with V 3.0.6 if that suits your tastes better.

**Nick** · December 25, 2010, 13:50

Originally posted by takkaria

Feel free to stick with V 3.0.6 if that suits your tastes better.

...or make your own variant. NPP used to have as its catch cry WTTE "Vanilla if development were more aggressive"; given the acceleration of V development, a variant which is "Vanilla if development were less aggressive" would be amusing.

Speaking of O, I am actually contemplating the possibility of doing a new version with some mild modifications - some smoothing of the ID and *ID* process, for example. Sorry if that removes one of your advantages

But it will probably never happen.

**Philip** · December 25, 2010, 15:44

Originally posted by takkaria

Feel free to stick with V 3.0.6 if that suits your tastes better.

I'd do so if not for the UI differences. I would like to see some things put back, like variable prices in stores based on race relations and things that are xx% off. As the tradition is now to make playtesting branches, I suggest that there is a branch with only UI improvements. I'll try to play that and tell you how it goes.

**nppangband** · December 25, 2010, 18:14

Originally posted by Nick

...or make your own variant. NPP used to have as its catch cry WTTE "Vanilla if development were more aggressive"; given the acceleration of V development, a variant which is "Vanilla if development were less aggressive" would be amusing.

LOL. That's kind of what NPP is now, since I can't keep up with the current pace of Vanilla Development. I haven't even finished putting in all of the changes from 3.1.2v2, and they went out and released a whole new version.

But I think, after almost 15 years of almost complete inactivity in Angband development, this is great.

Merry Christmas, everybody, and cheers to the Angband dev team for all thier hard work.

**Derakon** · December 25, 2010, 18:20

I find it amusing how we've gotten several threads that are basically "I hate how Vanilla keeps changing. I mean, I love the UI improvements, but I hate how the gameplay is different..."

Can't have one without the other, folks, unless you're willing to split them out yourself.

**TJS** · December 25, 2010, 19:44

Originally posted by Derakon

I find it amusing how we've gotten several threads that are basically "I hate how Vanilla keeps changing. I mean, I love the UI improvements, but I hate how the gameplay is different..."

Can't have one without the other, folks, unless you're willing to split them out yourself.

Exactly. No one is going to do all the difficult and less interesting (but equally important) UI work without being able to do some fun gameplay stuff as well.

An active game that is constantly developing is what keeps people interested and coming back for more.

**Magnate** · December 25, 2010, 21:32

Originally posted by Philip

I'd do so if not for the UI differences. I would like to see some things put back, like variable prices in stores based on race relations and things that are xx% off. As the tradition is now to make playtesting branches, I suggest that there is a branch with only UI improvements. I'll try to play that and tell you how it goes.

Funnily enough we've just been having this discussion ourselves - there are now so many active developers we've decided we need both a "staging" branch (for minor tweaks and bugfixes) and a "testing" branch (for major changes like the splitting of AC into evasion and absorption). That way the nightlies can continue to get the small fixes without being derailed by the big changes until those are more fully tested.

But for those concerned about the current momentum, there are dozens of ossified variants which are unlikely ever to change (as well as previous versions of V, as takk noted). Oangband is currently also my favourite example of a mature, balanced, finished variant - so I hope Nick doesn't go and spoil it ;-)

**Nick** · December 25, 2010, 22:16

Originally posted by Magnate

Funnily enough we've just been having this discussion ourselves - there are now so many active developers we've decided we need both a "staging" branch (for minor tweaks and bugfixes) and a "testing" branch (for major changes like the splitting of AC into evasion and absorption). That way the nightlies can continue to get the small fixes without being derailed by the big changes until those are more fully tested.

I would suggest having multiple branches - staging as you described, then do one for the evade/absorb thingy, one for O-combat, etc. The only downside to that is that merging two major changes might be slightly tricky, but it shouldn't be too bad if they're more or less orthogonal.

**Nick** · December 25, 2010, 22:17

Originally posted by Magnate

But for those concerned about the current momentum, there are dozens of ossified variants which are unlikely ever to change (as well as previous versions of V, as takk noted). Oangband is currently also my favourite example of a mature, balanced, finished variant - so I hope Nick doesn't go and spoil it ;-)

So, the war continues...

See what I did there?

**Magnate** · December 25, 2010, 22:54

Originally posted by Nick

See what I did there?

Yes (grumblefiller).

**Magnate** · December 25, 2010, 22:56

Originally posted by Nick

I would suggest having multiple branches - staging as you described, then do one for the evade/absorb thingy, one for O-combat, etc. The only downside to that is that merging two major changes might be slightly tricky, but it shouldn't be too bad if they're more or less orthogonal.

Well .... github sort of already does that. The evade/absorb branch will be at github/fizzix/angband/new-ac (or whatever he's called it), multiple pvals will be at github/magnate/angband/pvals etc. etc. So the Testing branch *is* the merging of those major things back into V ... but before it goes into staging/master. It's the opportunity to test all the big stuff together to look at the overall balance. In the meantime, fizzix and I and others will put up stuff for ppl to test specific branches.

**Nick** · December 25, 2010, 23:14

Originally posted by Magnate

Well .... github sort of already does that. The evade/absorb branch will be at github/fizzix/angband/new-ac (or whatever he's called it), multiple pvals will be at github/magnate/angband/pvals etc. etc. So the Testing branch *is* the merging of those major things back into V ... but before it goes into staging/master. It's the opportunity to test all the big stuff together to look at the overall balance. In the meantime, fizzix and I and others will put up stuff for ppl to test specific branches.

OK, cool - that was exactly the sort of thing I meant.

And I'll forbear from continuing the other subthread

**the Invisible Stalker** · December 26, 2010, 13:22

Originally posted by Magnate

Funnily enough we've just been having this discussion ourselves - there are now so many active developers we've decided we need both a "staging" branch (for minor tweaks and bugfixes) and a "testing" branch (for major changes like the splitting of AC into evasion and absorption). That way the nightlies can continue to get the small fixes without being derailed by the big changes until those are more fully tested.

This sounds good. The only comment I would make is the truly major changes, e.g. id by use, often require rebalancing as well as testing.

**Dean Anderson** · December 26, 2010, 18:47

As I've mentioned before, I think Vanilla development should be ultra-conservative.

I was pleasantly surprised when the 3.2 changes turned out to be less radical than the pre-release chatter had implied; but I find the announcement that there are "big plans" for 3.3 changes somewhat concerning.

Is development too active?