I have seen many murmurings similar to:
- 'when is Alpha going to done’?
- ‘we must be up to Gamma, Delta, or Omega about now’
- ‘I didn’t pay $180 to be a playtester’
- 'why do they keep changing Alpha so fast’?
If Larry is following the theme for Alpha and Beta testing, then Alpha should see many, many changes quite quickly.
With Beta, changes should slow down.
Alpha vs Beta Meaning.
http://www.rebol.com/article/0030.html
_"The purpose of an alpha release is to get you some “experimental” code that lets you try out a new idea, but the implementation itself is not final. It may not be stable at all (perhaps it crashes as soon as you run it), and the API is also subject to change… We want to get you “samples” of the system, get some feedback on them, and work toward finalizing it. After a while it becomes stable enough for a beta release.
For a beta release: we hope the code is more stable. The API is much less likely to change unless we find some big problem. During the beta stage, it is very important to let us know about bugs, especially any new problems that may have popped up."_
People theorize quite a bit about how starting set-ups and rules affect gameplay.
Real testing is where the advances are made!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle
_"Alpha software can be unstable and could cause crashes or data loss. The exception to this is when the alpha is available publicly (such as a pre-order bonus), in which developers normally push for stability so that their testers can test properly. External availability of alpha software is uncommon.
The alpha phase usually ends with a feature freeze, indicating that no more features will be added to the software."_
Wow, Larry has allowed us, that want it, into the inner circle. Those that do not want it can play OOB. We have choices, enough with the whining already.
Your thoughts?