Hello everyone I just wanted to ask you if you like the new Roadmap format. I would appreciate it, if you answer my question. Put your answers in the Comments below. Take care! Noel06
I hated it at first however really now I feel it's probably going to work. I think now we've seen a DLC be added to the roadmap in minimal detail, then being announced, then added to the roadmap in detail (I refer to Rivet's new route, for those who somehow don't know), it's easier to make an informed and reasonable decision, now we've seen it in action. I just hope it doesn't devolve into a useless bundle of text, like previous formats have at times.
By comparing to other similar articles written by other developers, it isn't really a roadmap, but a devlog / devblog. Other developers also release roadmaps along with devlogs, but not in the same article and their roadmaps look more like plans for the developments and releases in the upcoming months with some date ranges given when they expect to finalize which point, also acknowledging what they managed to achieve and what they needed to delay since the previous roadmap, than a long blog post explaining how they test, certificate for release, release the things, listing the obstacles encountered, explaining what section of the article is for what kind of development, only after that followed by a not really telling much list that is basically copied from the blog that was released 2 weeks before of what we may expect appearing in the next 6 months without any particular order, only sometimes with new items added and old removed. How the current development goes, what obstacles are being encountered, what fixes have been done and are just awaiting the release to the public, explanation of developing and testing processes is a material for a devlog than a roadmap and others write such things in devlogs, which are sometimes also released every other week. They also release roadmaps, however their less often released roadmaps look more like just a timeline graph, either showing what was already done since the previous roadmap and the upcoming developments and unreleased things put in the future part of the graph, or they include just the future part of the graph. The only description for such graph usually are short explanations why something was put back or something else forward in the development since the previous roadmap, but no big wall of text which is distracting from the roadmap's graph itself. When anything else there is supplementary to be said about the roadmap, it goes to a separate devlog. In the old format of the "Roadmap" there were at least arrows indicating what moved which way, or stars indicating what's new, so that was at least telling more without any need for the big wall of text at the beginning (the blog part), or without checking previous blogs on which position the given point was previously. The description of each section in this case doesn't need to be copied from the previous blog, as you need to check that previous blog to compare changes on the list anyway. If it's really needed, it might be included every other "Roadmap" article. Including in the article a link to the previous "Roadmap" would be quite useful given that you now need to check the previous one anyway.
If DTG did that people would complain it was too much to plough through when all they want is to know why they don't have the next route release already and all their problems fixed...
But actually now it is too much to plough through to get to the list of what's actually on the roadmap. Roadmap shouldn't be explaining why something is or isn't released or fixed yet, but what is planned to be released or fixed in the foreseeable future. Why something hasn't been fixed or released is for devlogs appearing a couple of times (e.g. fortnightly) between updates to the roadmap (e.g. once every other month). Call it "Devlog" instead of "Roadmap" and I'll be fine with its current format.
Devlog to me would refer to what HAS been done (ie logged) so even that semantically would be incorrect Either way, I don't really see the point in stating intention, especially when on here any intention is taken as gospel, jumped on, ripped apart and spat back out again...
I don't like the new format, but I also didn't like the previous format. But I don't like the whole web thing DTG has created. It definitely needs a big do over. The big banner images really don't help. The new format might be better than the one before but I can't see the improvement because of how the website is build. Every article and every item seems to need a big banner. Luckily I'm here for the trains
