Which version should I use?

Acid Rain · Post by **Acid Rain** » September 4th, 2006, 2:59 am

I've just started playing Wesnoth. It's really, really fun. But I was wondering: Should I download 1.1.9? I currently have the most recent stable version(1.0.2 I think), but I've heard good things about the newest beta, so should I play it instead? It sounds like they have new music and stuff which I would really like, but I'm worried about the stability of the beta. Is it very buggy, or is it fine?

Starev91 · Post by **Starev91** » September 4th, 2006, 3:52 am

I've only run into one bug in any of the so called "development editions", and that was with the storm trident in this version (I played on 1.1.7-1.1.9)

If you don't intend to do HTTT immediatly, use 1.1.9, it's quite stable and has better balance then 1.0.2 for units.

Post by **zookeeper** » September 4th, 2006, 8:44 am

Starev91 wrote:I've only run into one bug in any of the so called "development editions", and that was with the storm trident in this version (I played on 1.1.7-1.1.9)

If you don't intend to do HTTT immediatly, use 1.1.9, it's quite stable and has better balance then 1.0.2 for units.

Also note that there's a really simple fix you can easily apply yourself to get rid of the storm trident bug posted here.

JW · Post by JW » September 4th, 2006, 8:48 am

The answer is 1.1.9

Dragon Master · Post by **Dragon Master** » September 4th, 2006, 1:07 pm

always use the version with the highest numbers. Regardless of the title, 1.1.9 is not in developement. We really need to change the name.

Post by **irrevenant** » September 4th, 2006, 1:23 pm

Dragon Master wrote:always use the version with the highest numbers. Regardless of the title, 1.1.9 is not in development.

Yeh it is; it just happens to be very near the end of the development cycle...

scott · Post by **scott** » September 4th, 2006, 1:27 pm

The name "development" is good; it's just that we're tapering down to 1.2, so the most recent versions have been focusing on polishing everything up. They're quite stable and very playable.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » September 4th, 2006, 1:27 pm

No it isn't. By definition, no release is in development.

Acid Rain · Post by **Acid Rain** » September 4th, 2006, 1:35 pm

Ok, I'll get 1.1.9 then. I'd recommend you guys change what the site said, because it was rather misleading.

JW · Post by JW » September 4th, 2006, 1:40 pm

Acid Rain wrote:Ok, I'll get 1.1.9 then. I'd recommend you guys change what the site said, because it was rather misleading.

I agree. It really seems to turn a crapload of people off of getting it.

Post by **Zhukov** » September 4th, 2006, 1:53 pm

Acid Rain wrote:I'd recommend you guys change what the site said, because it was rather misleading.

Damn straight.

scott · Post by **scott** » September 4th, 2006, 2:22 pm

Elvish Pillager wrote:No it isn't. By definition, no release is in development.

A release is a snapshot in time of the development process. Therefore, all releases are in development. The focus and pace of development are what change.

Elvish_Pillager · Post by **Elvish_Pillager** » September 4th, 2006, 2:52 pm

scott wrote:
Elvish Pillager wrote:No it isn't. By definition, no release is in development.
A release is a snapshot in time of the development process. Therefore, all releases are in development. The focus and pace of development are what change.

While the development process continues, no development is done on any individual snapshot. Therefore, each release is not in development.

Post by **freim** » September 4th, 2006, 3:10 pm

Elvish Pillager wrote:
scott wrote: A release is a snapshot in time of the development process. Therefore, all releases are in development. The focus and pace of development are what change.
While the development process continues, no development is done on any individual snapshot. Therefore, each release is not in development.

It's still a snapshot from a development branch so the naming is as it should be.

JW wrote:
Acid Rain wrote:Ok, I'll get 1.1.9 then. I'd recommend you guys change what the site said, because it was rather misleading.
I agree. It really seems to turn a crapload of people off of getting it.

No it's not misleading. Who cares if it turns some people off, we're not responsible to some marketing department... The people who can and will give us sensible feedback knows what it is about.

Post by **turin** » September 4th, 2006, 3:42 pm

But it's a problem when people come on the forums, start talking about the game, and only after 10-20 posts do we realize they are talking about the stable version. We should make it much more clear that we're not interested in balancing comments, art comments, etc, on the stable version, because it isn't current...