Stop already with calling the Scripting Build "KAG 1.0"

Stop calling it KAG 1.0, that doesn't actually classify what it is, and is a very bad name for it, 1.0 identifies that something is more complete and free from bugs, as well as feature full, KAG 'Scripting' as it is called is far from either, if you want to call it something call it KAG scripting or don't even call it KAG, as it isn't, call it KAG 1.0 when we get slashing back, gold hunt, CTF, and TDM.

 

If you have a post to write, write a post please FBB, editing posts is not becoming of a moderator. It actually is worth arguing over as the name will stick, it's as simple as changing it to what it's actually called, KAG Scripting or KAG 2. It's not KAG v1.0.

No proper versioning system would ever consider this KAG v1.0.

1)It has many bugs/problems that are still big/medium priority, a 1.0 generally is a stable version as is any x.0 version.
2)It assumes that it is basically what we worked up to as KAG, it is not, what we currently have as build XXX of current KAG is as close to KAG will ever be to finished, is probably something like v0.91-.98 as it has a few big deals left to polish it off but otherwise is as close to finished as it will ever get.
3)Starting at a v1.0 is silly for a new version it implies that the release is actually a complete version, realistically we're still in beta, and still will be with 'Scripting' which is, again I repeat, a completely new engine/KAG unrelated in code in almost every way to the original KAG or 'current KAG'.


So again, yes it does make quite a big difference, anyone coming back to see it will be severely disappointed and drawn away, as they see "KAG 1.0, they finally fixed all those bugs and shit that made me quit, huh?" and then they find this totally different KAG, which is again as I say, totally, different in many major ways that effect general gameplay especially in combat.

 

//Posts moved to a new thread as BL seems to think it's a total disaster if there's some muddling of the name between now and release. This post is here (and not an edit appended to the OP) because BL also seems to think that editing is a bad, naughty thing (if you want to actually take that up with me, BL, be my guest and PM me--I've defended me editing practices before and I'll happily do it again).

Happy now, BL? Also, post about the importance of calling/not calling it Scripting/1.0 in this thread and I'll land you (or anyone else) for off-topicness. You wanted to talk about the name of the upcoming release? Here's your very own dedicated thread. Talk.

 

You never defended your editing practices, you gave some bullshit excuse as to how you are too lazy to post so it's okay. It is not okay and never okay for you to simply edit someone's post for no reason other than to give your reply. If this forum actually had a decent sense of hierarchy and actual you know, rules for mods to follow it would most likely be against them.

And also no, it's still quite important that it isn't called what it is being called, but alas, people like you will still see calling it 1.0 as okay instead of seeing it for what it is a disaster in the making.

As for 2.0.0, it is not actually a proper rewrite as many game mechanics that were actually core to the game as of it's current state, and for over a year (the majority of the time the game was released essentially) have been removed not because they are not wanted, but simply because they cannot be recreated. Is this true advancement? Not really. It's a sideshift, a change, many good things were allowed to flourish however many key parts also lost balance and have not reached or are even close to something similar, and probably will not for quite some time until an adequate mechanic to take it's place is found.

In other words, if you have actually played it and understand what I mean, you would understand why it shouldn't be called 1.0, or 2.0, and should simply be referred to as another name, instead of as a higher version number, as it is not a superior or more complete version, it is a 'different' version. sKAG (scripting release+ KAG) and cKAG or KAG and cKAG(Classic Kag), or whatever you want to call it are far more appopriate names and that is why they have actually been the common names used this entire time among everyone who talks about it, why anyone would attempt to use a stupid name when the proper name is already in place is beyond me, why a simple change of the forum title isn't okay but editing people's threads and moving out complaints to another thread because you can't handle criticism, is beyond me. What I did was discuss the topic, and what is the topic `KAG1.0` or scripting KAG, there is no actual counter opinion so there is no reason for it to be placed in it's own thread, it is related directly to the thread, this practice of moving dissenting opinions out of the way is another display of simply bad moderation practice, and again if this forum had any actual general rules for moderators to follow instead of "You're a moderator do what you want as long as you don't make the devs (who are too busy to care) mad \o/" you wouldn't be one for long. Go ahead and show me a forum with more than 1,000 people who have stayed for over a year that isn't full of 12yos who only post for mod favor things such as "OMG I love the devs \o/ ^___^;;;" where a moderator decides that it's a good idea to move something because he doesn't agree with it whenever he sees it, just for shits and giggles.

Wonder why the game has been constantly down the shitter? There's at least 3 mods who do this exact same thing whenever something to be said, is said, this time it's just naming convention (which actually does have an impact on things more than you think) but more often than not it's in important threads that you few decide to simply close, give infractions to people who don't agree, or delete their posts, far from the first time, probably far from the last.

Then again I guess your posts will just simply end up dying out, like this link I got earlier from someone on IRC about some of the bad moderation on this forum, that someone decided to delete because he was wrong, and proven wrong: tinyurl.com/slicedsalami

And I wonder why Geti is forced to do the little PR that actually gets done. :p Guards can't make them look good, seems none of you can.

 

Really, Luigi? Really? I asked you (and am now asking you again) to PM me if you had concerns about how I approach moderation and instead you post an off-topic diatribe. You can add all and sundry to said convo, up to you, make it as public as you like, but having an off-topic scrap over how moderation happens on these forums in this thread will only detract from the very topic that you feel is of such great importance, namely, what titles should be given to the current version of KAG and the future scripting build. Seriously, either create a new thread, or take it to PM, or put up and wear the infractions as fairly earned.

Actually, come to think of it, I created this thread and moved your posts from here for the same reason I'm now telling you to drop the 'mods on a bus' topic in this particular thread--i.e. you insist on posting things that are only marginally related to the OP at hand and that contain enough substance that they will inevitably derail the thread. Such posts should be made into their own OP and (if you'd like to reference your second thread in the first) linked to. If you can't do it then it falls to moderators (such as myself) to either a) delete the off-topicness; or b) buggerise around making it into a new thread so that the content (which was worthwhile in/of itself, despite being off-topic) is not lost to the winds.

Also, fwiw, I wasn't talking about defending myself to you re: editing as you're not the only person to get their knickers in a knot over the issue in my span here. I apologise if you've been left with insubstantial answers in the past, PM me and I can readily rectify that for you--believe it or now, but I generally have good reasons for doing what I do.
----

And here's a little on-topic, because why the flaming hell not?

Re: the naming of differing versions of the game--
I'm still unconvinced that it's as big a deal as you seem to be making out, Luigi; but I'll grant that I've only a passing knowledge of versioning conventions and their impact on a game's PR. You've given me enough to think about re: naming that I'll have to go and look into it and give it some serious thought. I'll get back to you on that one.

It's a different thread, Sly. Your thread is still here: https://forum.kag2d.com/threads/kag-1-0-classes.11025/

 

I've done so in the past, hence the inconclusive/useless answers. You're talking about a guy here who has probably had more forum use than you overall int he past 10 years by at least 5 fold, the few other people I know who have been avid forumites have been ticked off just as much by the editing of posts and deleting of such.

Also once again, if it wasn't me posting it, you wouldn't even move it you'd just delete the post right?

Oh wait, Boxpipe posted the same thing and you deleted it!

Makes a man wonder.

It's a public issue, so no, I won't PM you so you can respond "I'm sorry you feel that way but I don't care and will keep doing it" and move on with continually practicing bad forum moderation.

Kyzak's still a moderator after all.

 

You want to do this publicly? Fine, no skin off my nose. Just take it here, where it'll not detract from the current discussion. It's late here and I think I'll turn in for the night, but be assured I will reply to your concerns about editing.

Oh, and why did I delete Boxpipe's post (http://grab.by/j5nA) and not yours? Because you at least offered some kind of explanation in your off-topic, whereas Boxpipe didn't. Whether or not I agreed with his post is irrelevant, it was blatant off-topic opinion (yes, it was opinion--he didn't back it up) and I treated it as such.

 

No one has called it KAG 1.0 before, it's been referred to as KAG scripting, or 'the scripting build', never as KAG 1.0, hence there was no actual need to voice an opinion as no one was that retarded before.

Mudslinging is when someone actually isn't doing something that's a big deal, deleting threads because you said something retarded and were wrong is not something small, deleting posts because you believe they are opinion is wrong, if we only spoke of fact on a forum there would be no discussion, opinions actually matter, I would wonder why Boxpipe would have to back up such a claim when it is quite clear in the first place
1)It's already been called KAG scripting or referred to as the scripting build by everyone including the devs this entire time
2)Simply asking for a chance in the name because of such.

When we had Goldhunt, it did.

I've never been not happy about KAG being made, it's the 'updates' along the way that have been the problem.

Too many of you confuse me for hating KAG when it is indeed quite the opposite, I'm not arguing about the name of the thread or what it's called because I hate KAG or want to be a grumpy fuck who comes in to ruin this little kids day, I did it because it was a stupid name for it, and should be changed, having it known publicly as 'KAG 1.0' is not actually a good thing, but since they haven't played it yet, it's not like they'd know, as for the rest, I've never NOT been public about stupid shit some of the moderators do such as deleting or closing threads that they are blatantly wrong in and deeming it someone's 'bad opinion' or 'off topic' when it clearly is not. If I had to make a post for referencing someone's post inside of a thread every time we did it, then we'd need thread branching to keep track of every fucking thread and it's 'sub threads', instead however we have this excellent idea it's called posts and that threads are actually fucking fluid zOMG brilliant Apparently it's a new concept to some people who were somehow given moderator though, can't be surprised however, when even one of the developers acts this way.

 

Since when? I'm sure he has recently, however before it was referenced as KAG scripting and he's referred to it as scripting build every time I've talked with him/seen him talk in the IRC and in the forum.