Originally posted by MrFroglin:

Originally posted by Polonius Ulf:

If you had read what I posted, you would see that "if you like bugs" refers to opting in to the beta testing. It is not a snide comment, it is a compliment: unless you opt-in to the beta, you don't see many bugs. Get it?

I apologise for misunderstanding your phrasing: it came across (to me) as a statement that people joining the Early Access are being used for Beta Testing - generally, (in my experience anyway) the two things are different steps in the maturity of a product, so the implication (or possibly just my inference) was that Valheim is less "ready" than it actually is and was buggy - which sounded like trolling. Again, sorry for misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Polonius Ulf:

As to whether decimal version numbers are meant to provide an estimate of how far the devs think they are to 1.0, of course they are used that way.* But since it is an estimate it may happen that we get to version 0.6 something and suddenly jump to 1.0. Or not.

With version numbers that are 0.203.11 and 0.204.4 I would guess that the 203/204 are some form of "iteration" number, and the 11/4 are some form of "test build" or "release candidate" number for that iteration.
FWIW, the closest well-known (sort of) '%age complete" attempt was probably the Linux Kernel pre-1.0, but that was a demonstration of just why nobody should ever do it. It took 2 months to go from 0.01 to 0.10, 4 months to jump directly from 0.10 to 0.95, 9 months to get from 0.95 to 0.99, and 14 months to get from 0.99 to 1.0. A good demonstration of the "the last 10% takes 90% of the time". But also "good things are worth waiting for".

I'm sorry I invited you to take a leap. Now I see that you were valiantly defending Valheim. I didn't make it clear that It would make me happy if the devs—with four of nine biomes complete—were estimating they are about 20% of the way to a polished $49.95 product. That would leave time for pareto, Finagle, and maybe a little feature-creep.

The story of the Linux Kernel is interesting, but it doesn't illustrate that using part of the version number to convey a rough estimate of progress should never be done, it only illustrates that rough estimates are rough estimates. And yes, it illustrates pareto, and good things are worth waiting for.

So, neither of us is a troll, we both think Valheim is worth defending, and the game beckons. I just caught a troll in my moat for the first time. To celebrate, I went to the swamp and got killed.

Originally posted by Polonius Ulf:

If you had read what I posted, you would see that "if you like bugs" refers to opting in to the beta testing. It is not a snide comment, it is a compliment: unless you opt-in to the beta, you don't see many bugs. Get it?

I apologise for misunderstanding your phrasing: it came across (to me) as a statement that people joining the Early Access are being used for Beta Testing - generally, (in my experience anyway) the two things are different steps in the maturity of a product, so the implication (or possibly just my inference) was that Valheim is less "ready" than it actually is and was buggy - which sounded like trolling. Again, sorry for misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Polonius Ulf:

As to whether decimal version numbers are meant to provide an estimate of how far the devs think they are to 1.0, of course they are used that way.* But since it is an estimate it may happen that we get to version 0.6 something and suddenly jump to 1.0. Or not.

With version numbers that are 0.203.11 and 0.204.4 I would guess that the 203/204 are some form of "iteration" number, and the 11/4 are some form of "test build" or "release candidate" number for that iteration.

Originally posted by Polonius Ulf:

No, I am not going to ransack the internet for a specific example of something that went to 0.9.9.9 before rolling over to 1.0 in order to prove that I am not a troll. I think it is obvious who is trolling here.

Well, I was most certainly not trolling. Wrong, yes. Trolling, no.

FWIW, the closest well-known (sort of) '%age complete" attempt was probably the Linux Kernel pre-1.0, but that was a demonstration of just why nobody should ever do it. It took 2 months to go from 0.01 to 0.10, 4 months to jump directly from 0.10 to 0.95, 9 months to get from 0.95 to 0.99, and 14 months to get from 0.99 to 1.0. A good demonstration of the "the last 10% takes 90% of the time". But also "good things are worth waiting for".

Originally posted by MrFroglin:

Originally posted by Polonius Ulf:

If we can take their version numbering seriously, the devs think they are just over 20% of the way to Valheim 1.0. That leaves time for bug-fixing and general polishing (longer sound loops for fires and beehives, smarter AI)

With maybe just enough extra time for one or two finishing features such as a game settings console where you can adjust things like the death penalty.*

And just like that, there's an update: 0.204.4, mostly bug fixes. The last version I saw was 0.203.11, since I foolishly opted out of the beta program. Curses, no crashes!

If you like bugs, be sure to opt in to the beta program. Otherwise, the game is almost boringly stable.

*For group play, the game.ini file would be read only.

That's not how version numbering works.

Can you show me a single software product that has EVER used the version number in that way?

If not, you are basically just trolling with your "if you like bugs" comment. Please stop.

(I'm sure I've seen a post almost identical to this before - and replied to it - I just can't remember if it was you.)

If you had read what I posted, you would see that "if you like bugs" refers to opting in to the beta testing. It is not a snide comment, it is a compliment: unless you opt-in to the beta, you don't see many bugs. Get it?

As to whether decimal version numbers are meant to provide an estimate of how far the devs think they are to 1.0, of course they are used that way.* But since it is an estimate it may happen that we get to version 0.6 something and suddenly jump to 1.0. Or not.

No, I am not going to ransack the internet for a specific example of something that went to 0.9.9.9 before rolling over to 1.0 in order to prove that I am not a troll. I think it is obvious who is trolling here.

*[Edit] Sometimes. Apparently, there is a lot more to versioning than I thought, including some formal schemes that would be misleading to read my way. (I always used major.minor.bugfix.bugfix.. and the minor was intended to give a rough estimate of progress)

This does not make me a troll, and MrFrog can take a jump.

I started playing solo around the September Hearth and Home update and I love it. I also ended up hooking a bunch of my friends on the game so I play multiplayer as well. The only issues I have with this game are occasional framerate drops but those don't happen much now since I made some changes to Windows. I don't think this game has ever crashed on me.

As for the gameplay, yes I've been able to do everything solo though I just started Plains content (the current final biome). It offers a good challenge and the building tools are tremendously fun. Subnautica used to be my favorite survival/crafting game but now I think this game has surpassed it even though it isn't finished yet. Even though it's still in EA, there is a lot of content to explore so it's probably the best $20 I've spent on a game in a long time.

Originally posted by Polonius Ulf:

If we can take their version numbering seriously, the devs think they are just over 20% of the way to Valheim 1.0. That leaves time for bug-fixing and general polishing (longer sound loops for fires and beehives, smarter AI)

With maybe just enough extra time for one or two finishing features such as a game settings console where you can adjust things like the death penalty.*

And just like that, there's an update: 0.204.4, mostly bug fixes. The last version I saw was 0.203.11, since I foolishly opted out of the beta program. Curses, no crashes!

If you like bugs, be sure to opt in to the beta program. Otherwise, the game is almost boringly stable.

*For group play, the game.ini file would be read only.

That's not how version numbering works.

Can you show me a single software product that has EVER used the version number in that way?

If not, you are basically just trolling with your "if you like bugs" comment. Please stop.

(I'm sure I've seen a post almost identical to this before - and replied to it - I just can't remember if it was you.)

Solo play is great and the game looks really well done for what it is.

This game is great solo. I never played mulitplayer and it's one of my favorite games.

The only thing I wasn't able to beat was the last boss, but I probably could have if I'd stuck with it.

Haven't played since Hearth and Home though. I have a lot of games to get through. But some aspects I really enjoyed was the exploration, building a house and compound, strategizing and building toward taking on the next biome or boss. Exploration and building were two of my favorite aspects of the game.

If we can take their version numbering seriously, the devs think they are just over 20% of the way to Valheim 1.0. That leaves time for bug-fixing and general polishing (longer sound loops for fires and beehives, smarter AI)

With maybe just enough extra time for one or two finishing features such as a game settings console where you can adjust things like the death penalty.*

And just like that, there's an update: 0.204.4, mostly bug fixes. The last version I saw was 0.203.11, since I foolishly opted out of the beta program. Curses, no crashes!

If you like bugs, be sure to opt in to the beta program. Otherwise, the game is almost boringly stable.

*For group play, the game.ini file would be read only.

I've been playing this game solo since I purchased it and I'm on my 4th play through right now. This game has filled a spot for me that many other survivor solo experiences hasn't - I can't place my finger on it just yet, but it has a great mix of encouraged exploration, building, leveling, and challenge when and where you want it. The procedural world generation ensures each play through feels unique and adds a great deal of replayability to it. Jump in and give it a whirl - It's not done, but like someone else said, it feels amazingly polished for what we do have.

Solo play is completely possible ( I have played all the content several times over, solo )

The game is approx. 1/2 completed so far, with 5 out of 9 areas (called biomes), complete with bosses in each of those biomes, already in the game.

For an early access title,, it is surprisingly "polished" and the content feels like a completed game, with very few bugs to speak of. (doesn't "feel" like it's still in development)

Originally posted by Gladi8er65:

Solo play is completely possible ( I have played all the content several times over, solo )

The game is rapprox. 1/2 completed so far, with 5 out of 9 areas (called biomes), complete with bosses in each of those biomes, already in the game.

For an early access title,, it is surprisingly "polished" and the content feels like a completed game, with very few bugs to speak of. (doesn't "feel" like it's still in development)

Sounds promising, thanks! :)