aerol
07-22-2014, 05:28 PM
I'm not one for thinking the new version numbering scheme is a big loss. I think it's a good idea to have a straight up R# scheme. I also don't think it's a problem to go to a major.minor.fix scheme in the "hidden/real version number" scheme. The thing that I find to be a little counterintuitive is the loss of backwards compatibility with the previous version numbering scheme. Say, the latest version before the change was 1.2.0 prerelease 23. Too complicated, for sure, and the word "prerelease" does lend itself to misinterpreting the overal stability/finishedness of the game. But it would have made more sense to me to name R48, say, 1.3.0, and then go on from there into a major.minor.fix system, making R49 1.3.1. If done like that, there remains some connection between the older system and the newer, and it's less confusing for people returning to the game after a long hiatus.
Then, there remains the question of the information at ancardia.com. There is no mention of the version numbering scheme change on the changelog (easy fix) and there is also no mention of it on the download page, which is a little more confusing, and more in need of fixing. If the numbering scheme is not revised, at least there should be appropriate changes to ancardia.com to avoid confusion.
Then, there remains the question of the information at ancardia.com. There is no mention of the version numbering scheme change on the changelog (easy fix) and there is also no mention of it on the download page, which is a little more confusing, and more in need of fixing. If the numbering scheme is not revised, at least there should be appropriate changes to ancardia.com to avoid confusion.