View Full Version : New patch announcement at .com
Apparently, the target date is mid-January. It also sounds like they are basically getting one run at a patch from the powers that be, so they are taking a long time to make sure they cover as much as possible.
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7.showMessage?topicID=16901.topic
- dcd111
I foresee... a... lot... of... grumbling...
Orda Khan
12-10-2004, 18:47
and hardly surprising....
One run at a patch????!!!!! If this is true, what further evidence do we need to prove their contempt for their customers?
........Orda
Orvis Tertia
12-10-2004, 18:55
I'm looking forward to mid-January! I've been pleased with the way CA has handled its patches in the past, so I expect to be pleased with the upcoming patch. All of the grumbling is, I guess, inevitable, but overall I think CA does a good job.
I foresee... a... lot... of... grumbling...
Indeed, moderators at .com are going to be very busy...
Personally I'm a little disappointed too,but I guess it's better this way.
Heh, I wont be surprised if it gets delayed though :(
Basileus
12-10-2004, 18:59
Ive always supported CA, by buying not complaing etc but this is just to much, release a patch now dammit and the stuff you havent been able to cover get them on a second patch. If the game was so buggy in the first place why did they release it bah.
More releases means more manhours to get the compilation, and multiple QA testings. Let them have their times. I mean u really expect CA to work over the holidays???
In the meantime, it gives us more time to exploit the bugs in Single Player... :P
Enslave the City Again!! Again!!! Again!!!!
From the post I don't think they will stop patching right here. I believe they are still willing to give 1.3 if there are still issues/complaints after 1.2. Hopefully most issues are covered already. ~D
Red Harvest
12-10-2004, 19:06
I consider this some good news and some bad...nothing surprising though. I'm glad to see them taking their time to get as much as they can patched. However, there is so much that needs to be patched that I fear it will be well nigh impossible to get it right in a single pass. I suspected they would only get one shot though...that is becoming more common in the industry.
I'm glad they made a statement on it!
Since the patch is delayed a bit I think I will make a new thread to compile a list of units that have errant or suspect stats.
I suspect that some major AI improvements will end up waiting for the traditional CA expansion pack.
Basileus
12-10-2004, 19:07
Im preety sure 5 months of building up a patch means alot of man hours already?
While I would have liked to have gotten the patch before Christmas, I am appreciative that we have been finally given a tentative date. For myself I am much happier.
eadingas
12-10-2004, 19:25
" Bear in mind, however, that it will need to go through QA. This is an exhaustive process and why we only get the one chance to get it right."
I don't think this means there will be only one patch... I think it means that once they release the patch, there won't be coming back, and they don't want to forget some minor things in the release because of the rush - so, while there might bye a '1.3' someday, there won't be a '1.2.1' patch...(or so I hope...)
" battle map AI, campaign AI, UI issues, balancing, multiplayer, and general bugs."
Nice. I wonder if there will be something interesting for modders... Forget the balancing, give us TOOLS to balance the game instead :)
Im preety sure 5 months of building up a patch means alot of man hours already?
How many finger does your hand hold? I can't get the number to be 5 months even if I count both september and december in.
Basileus
12-10-2004, 19:28
How many finger does your hand hold? I can't get the number to be 5 months even if I count both september and december in.
Mid January ?
Leet Eriksson
12-10-2004, 19:33
At long last, thats one friggin long time to wait for a patch, CA should screw activision and seek a better publisher that allows them to make patches decently (heck even EA is better than Activision in customer support)....
I'd rather wait and get a nice meaty patch that includes bug fixes that don't break anything else and well thought out and tested improvements to the AI... so I'm glad they are taking their time.
" Bear in mind, however, that it will need to go through QA. This is an exhaustive process and why we only get the one chance to get it right."
I don't think this means there will be only one patch... I think it means that once they release the patch, there won't be coming back, and they don't want to forget some minor things in the release because of the rush - so, while there might bye a '1.3' someday, there won't be a '1.2.1' patch...(or so I hope...)
You may be right, perhaps I was being too cynical in my interpretation of what he said. Nonetheless, I'm sure when he says the QA process is "exhaustive", that means "expensive" to the accountants, so the powers that be probably won't be too happy about having to do it more than once. If this patch creates new bugs, I would hope they'd at least fix those, but I doubt we'll see any more real improvements to gameplay after this patch is released. Meaning that they might as well take as long as they need to get as many improvements in there as they can.
- dcd111
I'd rather wait and get a nice meaty patch that includes bug fixes that don't break anything else and well thought out and tested improvements to the AI... so I'm glad they are taking their time.
DO NOT expect changes in the AI. It is highly unlikely they'll make many changes there. 5 months is not that long in software development for a small team. Changing the AI in any substantive way is a BIG task.
I'm a software developer and a manager of software development.. I know of which I speak.
p.s. I don't work for CA.. business software (high performance engines for business analysis).
DO NOT expect changes in the AI. It is highly unlikely they'll make many changes there. 5 months is not that long in software development for a small team. Changing the AI in any substantive way is a BIG task.
I'm a software developer and a manager of software development.. I know of which I speak.
They have specifically mentioned that they have worked on both battlefield AI and campaign map AI in just about every announcement they've made on the upcoming patch, though. They'd really be provoking a backlash if, in the end, the AI improvements in the patch are not substantive. If they haven't been able to make substantive improvements, I'd think they'd avoid mentioning it at all. I guess all we can do now is continue to speculate until mid-January.
- dcd111
bhutavarna
12-10-2004, 21:09
I...AM...DISAPPOINTED
although patch ETA is a good news, the fact that the game was released with major bugs and the fact that it will take so long for the fix is a very bad news.
i am pissed. why? because i bought a whole new computer back in august to play this game on release in september. i bought a state of the art machine at premium price to satisfy the game spec requirement. if i knew that this game would be so buggy and it would take nearly 5 months for them to fix it, i would have waited to buy a new computer. that way i could have perhaps save some money or buy a better machine with the same amount of money i've spent for my current machine.
i've had it with this series. this is the last of the TW series i would buy. it's too damn bad because i had always liked TW games. i have all of them. but over the years i only see further neglect than improvements.
i know that my 50 dollars is just a drop in the bucket for CA, they don't care. so now i won't either.
dedmoroz
12-10-2004, 21:11
And what exactly this patch will do to the replay value??
Will it still be a land grab festival or maybe they will give us some new game mode? What about winning conditions based on economic achievements? Diplomatic superiority? And what about different starting times?
Do we have to wait for the expansion to actually get more replay value? :furious3:
ghostcamel
12-10-2004, 21:13
I say CA shpuld take as much time as they need. If it took till February it wouldnt bother me at all. Like the post said, they get only ONE chance, so no need to rush it.
For people wondering whom the 'powers that be' are, that would be Activision. I have some experience with Activision, with SFC 3. This seems to be their Standard Operating Procedure. If CA does decide to make a second patch, Activision wont QA it. CA will be forced to release it as a BETA patch, and without QA it will almost definately have bugs in it. So, again, DONT RUSH the patch CA, PLEASE!
Dont get bent out of shape at CA, its not their QA department, its Activision's. This is exactly what they did to Taldren and SFC3. You would think Activision beancounters would be a lil more loose, considering the massive sales compared to SFC3, but they arent. Dont expect them to. They would rather see CA burn in flames than spend the extra coin to do more patches.
They have specifically mentioned that they have worked on both battlefield AI and campaign map AI in just about every announcement they've made on the upcoming patch, though. They'd really be provoking a backlash if, in the end, the AI improvements in the patch are not substantive. If they haven't been able to make substantive improvements, I'd think they'd avoid mentioning it at all. I guess all we can do now is continue to speculate until mid-January.
- dcd111
I agree. With previous TW games I don't ever recall CA promising that AI improvements would be one of the main issues addressed in an upcoming patch. The fact that this has been reiterated on more than once occasion lends credence to the notion that they have put substantial time and resources into it.
But all bets are off until the patch is released.
However, the language of Shogun's post at the Com makes me somewhat nervous...
Up till now we have been reluctant to issue a date for the patch as we have not wanted to give misleading information. We now feel confident enough to state that the patch will be out no later than the middle of January. Bear in mind, however, that it will need to go through QA. This is an exhaustive process and why we only get the one chance to get it right. Please be patient: we have been working very hard to make this patch as good as it can be and I know it will be worth the wait.
The statement in bold leaves me to believe that unless the upcoming patch creates any serious bugs or issues we won't get another patch until the release of the expansion pack which will most likely include some fixes and tweaks to the original. It looks like Activision keeps its developers on a short leash when it comes to support. This is rather frustrating as RTW is such a large and complex game. Stuff is bound to slip through the cracks in the next patch. Way to go suits, have you learned nothing from companies that bend over backward to support the community?
Kommodus
12-10-2004, 21:39
i am pissed. why? because i bought a whole new computer back in august to play this game on release in september. i bought a state of the art machine at premium price to satisfy the game spec requirement.
Dang... you bought an entire new PC, just so you could play this game? Don't you think that's a little obsessive? I mean, it's one thing to drop fifty dollars for a new computer game; it's another to spend hundreds of dollars just so you can own a computer that will run it. That doesn't seem worth it, unless the new computer is offering you significant other benefits.
I really liked MTW, and after seeing screenshots and videos of RTW, I was looking forward to it quite a bit. However, I still don't own it; I've made up my mind not to buy it until at least the following two conditions are met:
1. The patch is released.
2. I have significant reason to buy a new PC; my current Athlon 1.4 GHz PC will run the demo, but it's pretty choppy, and I will NOT buy a new PC just for a game.
I may soon have reason to upgrade my PC, as I would benefit significantly from being able to run Microsoft Visual Studio.NET at home (at a nice fast pace). Nevertheless, it will be months, at least, before I take a crack at RTW, and by then the patch will be out.
I strongly recommend patience, people. I see no reason why people should be disappointed just because CA is releasing only one patch. You've already had one minor patch (the multiplayer one), and there's still the expansion pack to look forward to, possibly with a patch after that.
Red Harvest
12-10-2004, 21:59
Spino's reading is exactly my take on it. CA is saying, this one is it, don't expect more. Wasn't the "king always dies at 56 bug" the only reason we got the final VI patch?
Kommodus, stating that we should be thankful to wait for an expansion pack or its patch to fix current fundamental problems is tantamount to saying, "cough up another $40 to $50 and see it if we fix it (or break something again.)" I don't think CA is saying this, but anyone who does should be subject to some sort of barbaric torture--like listening to a loop of "The day is oooooouuuuuuurrrrrrrssss!" 24/7 until the final expansion pack patch is issued.
ghostcamel
12-10-2004, 22:00
Dang... you bought an entire new PC, just so you could play this game? Don't you think that's a little obsessive? I mean, it's one thing to drop fifty dollars for a new computer game; it's another to spend hundreds of dollars just so you can own a computer that will run it. That doesn't seem worth it, unless the new computer is offering you significant other benefits.
Hell, if it wasnt for games, wed still have PCI graphix cards. Gaming drives the computer industry forward. Without gaming only the largest companies would buy a PC above P3 800Mhz, which runs the internet about as fast as it goes.
I dont see it as obsessive at all. While he bought it to play RTW nicely, hius new sytem will run his old games much better also, with things like AA and AF enabled.
I may soon have reason to upgrade my PC, as I would benefit significantly from being able to run Microsoft Visual Studio.NET at home (at a nice fast pace). Nevertheless, it will be months, at least, before I take a crack at RTW, and by then the patch will be out..
.NET may profit from a faster proc, but im supposing your gonna get a new GFX card also. Why?
I strongly recommend patience, people. I see no reason why people should be disappointed just because CA is releasing only one patch. You've already had one minor patch (the multiplayer one), and there's still the expansion pack to look forward to, possibly with a patch after that..
Well, you dont have the game. You know nought of the bugs of which he speaks. I agree with the patience part, but the attitude?
Pfffffffftttt.
RE-EDITED, instead of posting another off-topic post:
Red, I meant above 800mhz for internet servers not for the pitiful cubicle bound masses. They dont even need 800mhz, ISA based 400mhz clients would do them just fine LOL.
Red Harvest
12-10-2004, 22:10
Without gaming only the largest companies would buy a PC above P3 800Mhz.
Agree about gaming driving the industry, but large companies wouldn't buy high end machines in any quantity. Larger corporations are the most likely to buy absolute crap desktops with Intel integrated chipsets. I've seen enough to be thoroughly unimpressed by corporate IT purchases. It would be more correct to say that only a few high end corporate users would have high end PC's, but the rest of the corporate beast (except the priviliged few at these same companies who spec their own machines) would be using the lowest common denominator. Dell is supplying most of the corporate desktops afterall.
Originally Posted by Kommodus
Dang... you bought an entire new PC, just so you could play this game? Don't you think that's a little obsessive? I mean, it's one thing to drop fifty dollars for a new computer game; it's another to spend hundreds of dollars just so you can own a computer that will run it. That doesn't seem worth it, unless the new computer is offering you significant other benefits.
Many people did this very thing for Doom 3. Had the chipmakers/graphics card companies loving life. I know several people who had waited to upgrade until it came out.
eadingas
12-10-2004, 23:01
I don't think it's that unreasonable to expect some changes in the AI. Some of the bugs seem really easy to fix. Of course, I don't expect the AI suddenly get ten times smarter and become a real challenge on the campaign map and on battlemap, but I'd be very disappointed if they didn't address some of the most glaring and obvious bugs in the AI behaviour (we all know what I'm talking about :)
If we are getting only one shot at the patch, then it'd be great if we could get all those bugs/feature requests sorted out and summarized in 1 post. If I was a dev, I wouldn't want to wade through pages of text to see what I've missed. I've also seen devs asking for saved games to pin down causes for corruption and CTDs though I'm not sure if it's relevant for this game.
With an organized list with sections (ie battle bugs, town bugs, unit bugs and so on), we can easily refer to important issues and cut down on repeats. Even if the devs don't take care of it, an organized list means that modders can zero in on needed fixes more easily (we've already had some important fixes by Vercingetorix and Sinner, see forum index) and hopefully we will have yet more in future.
It's possible to get even heavily bugged games sorted out when there's good communication/cooperation between the players, the modders and the devs. One example was Temple of Elemental Evil. I hope we can do the same here.
eadingas
12-10-2004, 23:57
There's already a quite comprehensive list at the .com. Last time I looked it had some 60+ issues, all very good and valid, I don't think there's need to repeat that here.
flashbacck
12-10-2004, 23:58
bleh. I also wanted the patch before holiday break. It would've been nice if they'd release the patch in small increments. Ah well, whatdya going to do? :shrug:
Personally, i don't mind mid january, as I will be spending christmas and new year with my family and girlfriend.. compared to that, a patch seems very unimportant at the moment!
Perspective, people.. ~:grouphug:
There's already a quite comprehensive list at the .com. Last time I looked it had some 60+ issues, all very good and valid, I don't think there's need to repeat that here.
Could you point me to the list. I can't seem to find it. :embarassed:
I've looked at
the general forum (http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7)
and Tech Support (http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm26)
I remember there being a bug list but I think it's been unstickied?
Thanks.
P/S - Besides, I thought we had more than just 60 issues... anyway if we could merge both lists that wouldn't that be better
bhutavarna
12-11-2004, 02:12
Dang... you bought an entire new PC, just so you could play this game? Don't you think that's a little obsessive? I mean, it's one thing to drop fifty dollars for a new computer game; it's another to spend hundreds of dollars just so you can own a computer that will run it. That doesn't seem worth it, unless the new computer is offering you significant other benefits.
i am not obsessive, just a game lover.
perhaps i was a bit harsh earlier, but it's not without good reason. think about it. this game was obviously released unfinished. features that was promised to be included in the game, that the developer themselves said was going to be in the game was left out. night battles in campaign mode and tactical retreats in battles are a few examples. on top of that this game has many bugs, such as broken protectorates, reversed stamina, missing greek epic walls, units running into rivers, suicide generals, etc. etc. now they are telling me that i have to wait another month for the patch. with all these problems how can you not get pissed off.
i think i'm fairly reasonable in critizising CA. i have a job, i deal with deadlines too, but what they are doing is simply unprofessional.
Mr Frost
12-11-2004, 03:01
i am not obsessive, just a game lover.
perhaps i was a bit harsh earlier, but it's not without good reason. think about it. this game was obviously released unfinished. features that was promised to be included in the game, that the developer themselves said was going to be in the game was left out. night battles in campaign mode and tactical retreats in battles are a few examples. on top of that this game has many bugs, such as broken protectorates, reversed stamina, missing greek epic walls, units running into rivers, suicide generals, etc. etc. now they are telling me that i have to wait another month for the patch. with all these problems how can you not get pissed off.
i think i'm fairly reasonable in critizising CA. i have a job, i deal with deadlines too, but what they are doing is simply unprofessional.
It's not the C/As' decision , it's Activision that calls those shots ; blame the bean counters and executives at Activision .
If the C/A had full control , I'm convinced we would have seen a steady stream of patches by now .
LordKhaine
12-11-2004, 06:55
i think i'm fairly reasonable in critizising CA. i have a job, i deal with deadlines too, but what they are doing is simply unprofessional.
Don't you think that's a somewhat ignorant statement? Unprofessional? You do realise it's highly unlikely that CA have much sway over patches. And frankly I can think of many many games that receive less patch support than the total war series of games. People seem to expect the world in patches today, and love to complain when they don't get the gazillion things they wanted.
WHAT?!? NO NEW CAMPAIGN MODE?!?! CA ARE TEH UNPROFESSIONAL!!!!!111 I'M NEVER BUYING ANY CA GAMES EVER AGAIN!!!!1111oneone
Myself? I'm happy to wait till January. I also would have liked a pre-christmas release, but I'm sure the wait will be worth it.
They have specifically mentioned that they have worked on both battlefield AI and campaign map AI in just about every announcement they've made on the upcoming patch, though. They'd really be provoking a backlash if, in the end, the AI improvements in the patch are not substantive. If they haven't been able to make substantive improvements, I'd think they'd avoid mentioning it at all. I guess all we can do now is continue to speculate until mid-January.
- dcd111
Where did you see this? I've seen the bug list on '.com', but never seen any mention from CA on the main site in any organized way. (and I'm not at all saying that you aren't telling the truth! :) A link here would rock for all us interested parties!)
Could you point me to the list. I can't seem to find it. :embarassed:
I've looked at
the general forum (http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm7)
and Tech Support (http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotalwarfrm26)
I remember there being a bug list but I think it's been unstickied?
Thanks.
P/S - Besides, I thought we had more than just 60 issues... anyway if we could merge both lists that wouldn't that be better
Its in the announcement section.
Thanks for pointing out the .com bug list. ~:)
Ok, as of today, they have 111 bugs, 91 tweaks and 36 feature requests.
Fine. That looks pretty comprehensive. Kindly ignore my previous suggestions then.
Well if CA gets all that fixed, it should be good enough... can't really ask for too much within a limited time frame...
i think i'm fairly reasonable in critizising CA. i have a job, i deal with deadlines too, but what they are doing is simply unprofessional. Perhaps so, but Activision knows we will buy software thats not finished, as long as they spend a wad on the marketing prehype. They also know we will wait for the patches whether it completes the job or not. They should also know and expect another wave of my email spam when we find the "governor dies at 56" bug in the next patch.
History sucks because the bad things repeat itself. But what sucks even more than that is, we fail to learn from it every time.
i am not obsessive, just a game lover.I'm not embarrassed to admit I love games either. They keep me at home close to my family, instead of out drinking with my buddies. It's more practical then loving your car, or truck, which allot of people do. I see them all the time, damn near masturbating while they buff the rims. But I didn't have to spend 30k on a vehicle to have a passion. No offense intended to those that make love to their vehicles.
anti_strunt
12-11-2004, 19:40
Perhaps so, but Activision knows we will buy software thats not finished, as long as they spend a wad on the marketing prehype. They also know we will wait for the patches whether it completes the job or not. They should also know and expect another wave of my email spam when we find the "governor dies at 56" bug in the next patch.
History sucks because the bad things repeat itself. But what sucks even more than that is, we fail to learn from it every time.
Even more annoying is when problems arise which weren't there in the first place, such as the flawed friendly fire...
LordKhaine
12-11-2004, 23:17
Even more annoying is when problems arise which weren't there in the first place, such as the flawed friendly fire...
That problem has always been there. RTW != MTW. Fixes for friendly fire in those games have no effect on RTW. If I hear another person say "why didn't they retain the code for friendly fire from MTW" I'll kill someone! :dizzy2:
That problem has always been there. RTW != MTW. Fixes for friendly fire in those games have no effect on RTW. If I hear another person say "why didn't they retain the code for friendly fire from MTW" I'll kill someone! :dizzy2:
Yes but in MTW archers and other missile throwers didn't shoot the other men in their unit like they do in RTW! I can deal with the usual hazards of FF but that really has to be fixed.
Thanks for pointing out the .com bug list. ~:)
Ok, as of today, they have 111 bugs, 91 tweaks and 36 feature requests.
Fine. That looks pretty comprehensive. Kindly ignore my previous suggestions then.
Well if CA gets all that fixed, it should be good enough... can't really ask for too much within a limited time frame...
You're welcome! Certainly glad to be of service where I can. ~D
Red Harvest
12-12-2004, 02:25
That problem has always been there. RTW != MTW. Fixes for friendly fire in those games have no effect on RTW. If I hear another person say "why didn't they retain the code for friendly fire from MTW" I'll kill someone! :dizzy2:
You are going to have a bunch of killing to do then. :skull: Because RTW and MTW's FF effects are very, very different. I find it hard to believe you are so annoyed about folks commenting on it, yet have not bothered to understand what they have said. :uhoh: Remedial summary: 1. Fire at will results in your units merrily shooting at friendlies--this did not happen in MTW. 2. Telling a unit to stop firing does not make it stop for at least one and often multiple volleys--again unlike MTW. (Same occurs when you change targets in manual fire mode.)
Shall we bring out the gallows for those who are not paying attention? :hanged:
Goattail
12-12-2004, 03:33
I think they ment because of the time and work involved in QA they only have one shot putting the patch through QA and playtesting so have to get it right, I dont think they ment they only had one shot at making any patches period. Im sure we will see another patch if necessary or any left over issus/bugs will be addressed witnh the expansion pack and its inevitable patch.
Well if QA did their job right the first time, befor the release, there would'nt have been these bugs that needed fixing. DOH!!!!!!!
That's just a bit of a joke.
CA had a deadline, and I'm guessing the bugs in the game were horrendous at about August timeline, that they could'nt fix em all and have QA test it again.
Also a bit funny, The A.I. knows the range if arrows, do a bridge battle when they are defending. They will have the perfect distance down so your archers are out of range. Now use up all your arrows or withdraw. You'll notice that the A.I. will suddenly go to the edge of the bridge for a tighter defense. Too bad they ca'nt practice this in city warfare.
Red Harvest
12-12-2004, 06:59
Also a bit funny, The A.I. knows the range if arrows, do a bridge battle when they are defending. They will have the perfect distance down so your archers are out of range. Now use up all your arrows or withdraw. You'll notice that the A.I. will suddenly go to the edge of the bridge for a tighter defense. Too bad they ca'nt practice this in city warfare.
I've been noticing roughly the same thing.
Colovion
12-12-2004, 08:00
I hope that the new patch will intrigue me into playing again, but it'll be tough. I would probably still be playing, but now 1.3 has to pull me away from HL2/CS:S and WoW. Had it been right in the first place I wouldn't be playing other games in the first place.
I hate it when creative works are put on a deadline. Game Developement teams really need to work more like a private art studio and less like Crime Scene investigators.
There shouldn't be any stress in making a computer game, it should be 100% talent of creativity. Games are entertainment like books or movies, I despise art forms being cannibalized by corporate entities and whoring them out... which is probably why I love VALVe's whole Steam system where they can distribute their own games - giving to the creators what truly belongs to them.
God Speed, Creative Assembly.
Mayfield The Conqueror
12-12-2004, 17:08
And they wonder why people hack and download the games for free when the customer is treated like sheep. I have put this game on the shelf and have been waiting for a patch so that the game could be "finished" and would be more enjoyable, but it looks like that it is only going to get a bit of spackle and one layer of paint and left alone.
It looks like we will be relying on the community to make things right again. Yay for the modders because it looks like the publishers do not want to get things right.
LordKhaine
12-12-2004, 17:35
You are going to have a bunch of killing to do then. :skull: Because RTW and MTW's FF effects are very, very different. I find it hard to believe you are so annoyed about folks commenting on it, yet have not bothered to understand what they have said. :uhoh: Remedial summary: 1. Fire at will results in your units merrily shooting at friendlies--this did not happen in MTW. 2. Telling a unit to stop firing does not make it stop for at least one and often multiple volleys--again unlike MTW. (Same occurs when you change targets in manual fire mode.)
Shall we bring out the gallows for those who are not paying attention? :hanged:
I'm well away of FF in RTW thank you. My comment was aiming at the people who have literally wondered aloud why CA didn't retain the "code" for preventing FF in MTW. I may have a hugely limited knowledge of programming, but even I know that it's not that simple for countless reasons. Commenting on friendly fire is fine, since it's a clear issue. I just hate it when people refer to MTW constantly and forget that the entire system is very different and far more complex. When you make a game from scratch, you do exactly that.
Red Harvest
12-12-2004, 18:31
I'm well away of FF in RTW thank you. My comment was aiming at the people who have literally wondered aloud why CA didn't retain the "code" for preventing FF in MTW. I may have a hugely limited knowledge of programming, but even I know that it's not that simple for countless reasons. Commenting on friendly fire is fine, since it's a clear issue. I just hate it when people refer to MTW constantly and forget that the entire system is very different and far more complex. When you make a game from scratch, you do exactly that.
I am not at all convinced the entire game was made from scratch. I've heard comments from CA and others in that regard, but I interpret that to mean that major elements were completely new such as the graphics battle engine and strategic map (think of this as modules.) However I doubt the AI behind it is completely new, primarily because I see recurring themes. One way or another elements of the old AI would be ported into the new. Certainly the basic game framework is that way. If you want to see clearly recycled code look at battlefield weather: it changes "randomly" but predictably (LOL) every few minutes throughout the battle just as in MTW. That is what I classify as a bug that got ported. However, it would make no sense to reject elements that already worked in favor of starting from scratch. You are taking the "from scratch" comments too literally I suspect.
The elements that should be controlling the friendly fire aspect should be rather short in the code. MTW appears as if it did some sort of "will I hit friendlies" check for its "fire at will." RTW does not. MTW did not have a noticeable command delay for missile units, RTW does.
This is a long post, so please pardon me for the verbosity, but I've been lurking here for a very long time and I just have to get this off my chest. And for the record, I've played the TW series since the first release of STW.
Ok, time to hopefully put some things to rest in terms of "QA", what it does, what it can't do and hopefully a quick guide on what it "costs" to do extensive QA on software. Also, just to be clear I am a software test manger, and have been involved in the software testing industry for the past 6 years.
First: The level of testing needed for a software product is all dependent on risks. What level of risk can I assume for this software release (ie if I release it in it's current state will a software "bug" cause me to loss money). Medical software where potential bugs can cause loss of life and a massive increase in litigation cost is an example of software that is tested extensively, and the release of this software is done in a controlled and documented manner.
Second: To lower your risk of a software releasing with "bugs" you have to spend money. How much money depends on how complex your software is.
Now let's take the RTW release.
2 significant areas of software code. Battle code and Strategic code.
11 different factions to chose from.
4 different Battle difficulties
4 different Strategic difficulties
Two types of campaigns, Long and short. (which we wont count for now)
4 different unit sizes small, normal, large, huge
Typical Game takes between 20 - 80 hours to play. Let's average this to 40 without using cheats just to keep things easier down the line, and 10 with cheats. (Most cheat codes are developed for testers to accelerate the game flow) To test with full documentation (and hopefully no major bugs that may cause you to have to halt testing activities, and wait for a new software build), noting all flaws that are found within the game and that you reproduce and prove to the developer (ie placing phalanx type units next to gate can allow the spear points to project past the gate and kill attacking units on the ram)
So let's see for a full testing run of the code against all user changable variables it will take:
With cheats: 7040 hours (176 work weeks)
Without cheats: 28160 hours (704 work weeks)
Now typical software tester cost approx 25 / hour, better testers cost more, also depending on the area of the country you are in the cost per tester increases.
Now for 1 run of code it will cost approx $176,000.00 american dollars (using cheats), and $325,000.00 for a straight campaign.
Now in the game engine certain "modable" code does not require complete recompile of code, others do. which affects your save games. We all have seen where some changes to the underlying code causes you save games to "not" work. So as a tester what can you do??? This is where the "cheats" come in. For the tester to get to a specific time in the game engine (ie Marius reforms) the tester uses the cheat codes so that they do not have to go through hours of hours of just playing the game to test that the Marius reforms kick off when they are supposed to. Even with the cheat codes this can take around 3-4 hours game play, and still take over 20 hours to "finish" a game.
So everytime they make a "major" code you need to regression test your software which means run through "all" some or none of your factions all the way through which means hmm if I chose "all" that's another 7040 to 28160 hours of testing just for this code change on a strategic level.
This is were you try and determine your risks. Out of that bank of 7040 hours what can I skip, or go lightly on so that I can reduce my cost, and reduce the time to test.
Some things I can assume will work the same for certain factions and certain units, but every assumption means an increase in risk that I will release a bug.
Now I'm going to blow your mind again. Imagine that you are in charge of doing the CD install testing. You have to test the installation and program for almost every conceivable hardware configuration possible, and everytime they do a major change in software guess what you have to install and test again, and again, and again. So add on to your testing hours, and the cost it takes to test the software.
Now of course, we are not dealing with medical software or financial software. We are dealing with a game. So out of the 28160 hours of possible testing time what do we really need to test.
For my money, based upon the complexity of the software involved, the number of actual bugs found in this latest release of software is rather minor. None of the actual bugs, causes the software to CTD 100% of the time, and the majority of the bugs, can be worked around. Granted the suicidal generals are very annoying, but be removing generals form your forces before battle you can work around this. As for the AI's generals, they possible started with a base AI code from MTW and started work. Once the MTW fix for the suicidal AI generals was implemented, they prob didn't place it into the RTW code, due to the extent of "recode" and retesting that would have to be done to test this. Remember a "full" test run takes 7000 hours and can cost over $100,000.00
I think these guys did a great job on the initial release, and figure that the patch coming in mid january is right on target.
So please y'all before, next time you complain about suposed "lack" of testing. Take a moment and based upon the complexity of the software in the game try and figure out how much it would cost to test every single aspect of the gameplay. If you think about it, I think you will see that it's alot harder to test then you would think at first glance.
I have a simple solution to your money problem. An OPEN BETA! ~:cool:
Players wil test for FREE and probably find more bugs quicker than a A team. :balloon2:
Gregoshi
12-13-2004, 06:44
bach01 - thank you thank you thank you!
I've tried in the past to make the same point as you, but without much success. I even tried to make a "QA is a bigger job than you think" post yesterday in this thread but somehow managed to lose over half the text doing a "preview" and gave up on the effort. You did a much better job than my attempt would have. Those are some pretty amazing numbers in your guestimates and I'm with you 100% in the point you make.
You touched on some high level variables that need to be tested, but there is so much more to consider: unit vs unit, formations vs formations, flanking, routing/rally, unit special abilites, weather, rivers/bridges, grouping/group formations, user interface, effects of the general's rating, unit weapons/armour/experience, missile fire, unit pathing, terrain effects (movement & combat), and so on. And that is just the battle side of the picture. The thought of trying to organise testing with this many variables causes my brain to shutdown.
lt1956, about the open beta, I'm sure there are issues with that approach too, otherwise why wouldn't all game developers do so? On the surface, with games as complex as the TW games though, it seems like an open beta would be a good way to cast a much larger testing net to catch bugs. However, I guess there are reasons CA didn't want to go that route (showing their gaming advancements to the competition?) It has been suggested before in these forums and many patrons have volunteered to help with testing too.
Voigtkampf
12-13-2004, 07:39
Thank you for your most informative and interesting post, bach01. Being an entrepreneur myself, I know well how important and sensitive the investment decisions can be, and how much it depends on them. Not being a programmer myself, I cannot possibly make any appraisal on how long this testing was actually conducted before the game was released.
The point is, the average user doesn’t care, and rightly so. If you have lurked these forums before, then you might have been here while we had that notorious “historical” debate. I was one of the rare people who has defended CA and their vast quantity of “unhistorical, fantasy” units. Today, I wished they had inserted twice as much to compensate for the small amount of available unit types to some factions.
This I write to stress that I am not a regular CA basher, and that I have supported them for a long time, wherever and however I could. Because this what I am about to say might easily be misinterpreted as CA bashing. It isn’t. These are plain facts.
Fact is; the regular custom doesn’t care and should by no means care for the costs and amount of time the developer takes to develop and properly test a game. If you and I engage in a consensual agreement, a contract where I oblige myself to build you a house, I can’t leave out some important segments like doors and proper ceramics just because it reduces my costs. I know, this is a contract, a casual gamer has none with CA, this was just an example. The point is, you shouldn’t care about my costs, I can have a lot of them or just minor ones, you want to see the job done. And I must deliver.
CA, in my humble opinion, didn’t deliver. The game is full of bugs, and friendly fire is definitely something they should have noticed right away; I used Greek phalanx and archers to counter a Roman attack, and I have suffered massive casualties from my own archers. It gets even more annoying when you send your archers to shoot down some non-missile units and then actually inflict a good share of damage on your own troops. This is one obvious bug, and suicidal generals are just alike. The inability to form proper formations and walk/run with your entire army is ridiculous, some will walk, some will run. No one can possibly tell me that it takes 7000 working hours to notice this!?
And don’t even get me started on the MP part… Failed to connect to host? No cheat protection? Lag ad infinituum?!? I don’t even need to go to those unpopular decisions like limiting game to 3vs3 players.
In short, the developer must ensure a good, playable game. Long away from bashing CA mindlessly, but I don’t care how much it takes them to make & test the game. I want a good product, for which I have paid good money. That’s it. I also write for a PC gaming magazine, reviewing games. I can’t tell people things like “oh, well, this game is loaded with bugs, but you shouldn’t object, don’t you know how much time gets wasted on testing the game?!? Don’t be so ungrateful!”
So, bach01, I thank you sincerely for your time and a better insight in the software process, but it changes nothing. Bugs still stay, and most definitely no one will ignore them with the warm feeling that CA and Activision has saved themselves 100.000 dollars on the production phase. Mind me, I addressed most obvious bugs. The customers, among them especially the old veteran TW elite, deserved a game that will be a t least a notch better then its predecessors, Shogun and Medieval. I have played the two games for months and years, while I have stopped playing Rome for more than a month now. I am not angry with CA; I am just incalculably saddened with this development.
I’m just plain sad, that’s all.
Duke John
12-13-2004, 07:41
The suicide generals, the various bugs with grouping and friendly fire on units standing 1 metre before the missile unit or even on the missile unit itself, are bugs that could have been easily discovered. I think these are the kind of bugs that the community find the most irritating because they are so obvious. They could have been discovered in a single battle and certainly do not require full campaign runs.
I am not at all convinced the entire game was made from scratch. I've heard comments from CA and others in that regard, but I interpret that to mean that major elements were completely new such as the graphics battle engine and strategic map (think of this as modules.) However I doubt the AI behind it is completely new, primarily because I see recurring themes. One way or another elements of the old AI would be ported into the new. Certainly the basic game framework is that way. If you want to see clearly recycled code look at battlefield weather: it changes "randomly" but predictably (LOL) every few minutes throughout the battle just as in MTW. That is what I classify as a bug that got ported. However, it would make no sense to reject elements that already worked in favor of starting from scratch. You are taking the "from scratch" comments too literally I suspect.
The elements that should be controlling the friendly fire aspect should be rather short in the code. MTW appears as if it did some sort of "will I hit friendlies" check for its "fire at will." RTW does not. MTW did not have a noticeable command delay for missile units, RTW does.
*climbs onto soap box*
RH, with all due respect, I don't think you and I can tell how many lines of code anything in the RTW engine takes. I'm a very senior software developer who works a lot with Product Managers helping define functionality and products. It can be surprising how simple things can be complex when the entire design is taken into consideration. I can, from a casual perspective, imagine a design for a game.. but because I've never actually done one soup to nuts, I could be way off regarding the hidden complexities and how something which might look very simple is actually not so simple at all.
*steps down off soap box*
Thank you for your most informative and interesting post, bach01. Being an entrepreneur myself, I know well how important and sensitive the investment decisions can be, and how much it depends on them. Not being a programmer myself, I cannot possibly make any appraisal on how long this testing was actually conducted before the game was released.
The point is, the average user doesn’t care, and rightly so. If you have lurked these forums before, then you might have been here while we had that notorious “historical” debate. I was one of the rare people who has defended CA and their vast quantity of “unhistorical, fantasy” units. Today, I wished they had inserted twice as much to compensate for the small amount of available unit types to some factions.
This I write to stress that I am not a regular CA basher, and that I have supported them for a long time, wherever and however I could. Because this what I am about to say might easily be misinterpreted as CA bashing. It isn’t. These are plain facts.
Fact is; the regular custom doesn’t care and should by no means care for the costs and amount of time the developer takes to develop and properly test a game. If you and I engage in a consensual agreement, a contract where I oblige myself to build you a house, I can’t leave out some important segments like doors and proper ceramics just because it reduces my costs. I know, this is a contract, a casual gamer has none with CA, this was just an example. The point is, you shouldn’t care about my costs, I can have a lot of them or just minor ones, you want to see the job done. And I must deliver.
CA, in my humble opinion, didn’t deliver. The game is full of bugs, and friendly fire is definitely something they should have noticed right away; I used Greek phalanx and archers to counter a Roman attack, and I have suffered massive casualties from my own archers. It gets even more annoying when you send your archers to shoot down some non-missile units and then actually inflict a good share of damage on your own troops. This is one obvious bug, and suicidal generals are just alike. The inability to form proper formations and walk/run with your entire army is ridiculous, some will walk, some will run. No one can possibly tell me that it takes 7000 working hours to notice this!?
And don’t even get me started on the MP part… Failed to connect to host? No cheat protection? Lag ad infinituum?!? I don’t even need to go to those unpopular decisions like limiting game to 3vs3 players.
In short, the developer must ensure a good, playable game. Long away from bashing CA mindlessly, but I don’t care how much it takes them to make & test the game. I want a good product, for which I have paid good money. That’s it. I also write for a PC gaming magazine, reviewing games. I can’t tell people things like “oh, well, this game is loaded with bugs, but you shouldn’t object, don’t you know how much time gets wasted on testing the game?!? Don’t be so ungrateful!”
So, bach01, I thank you sincerely for your time and a better insight in the software process, but it changes nothing. Bugs still stay, and most definitely no one will ignore them with the warm feeling that CA and Activision has saved themselves 100.000 dollars on the production phase. Mind me, I addressed most obvious bugs. The customers, among them especially the old veteran TW elite, deserved a game that will be a t least a notch better then its predecessors, Shogun and Medieval. I have played the two games for months and years, while I have stopped playing Rome for more than a month now. I am not angry with CA; I am just incalculably saddened with this development.
I’m just plain sad, that’s all.
Now I'll blow everyone's mind as a software developer. I speak as an architect who is technical leader of a team that creates high performance software for financial services.
There have been two disturbing trends in modern software development.
The first is the 'glorification of youth'. In the last 21 years, especially in the entertainment industry, youth has been generally glorified over experience, much to the detriment of the software engineering function. There are certain things that you learn by living with and fixing your mistakes that you simply do not learn in school. I've been in the position of training many many engineers straight out of school.
Most folks out of college are big on theory and very very short on practice. And by practice I'll be VERY specific. Building software in a way that helps ensure quality requires a disciplined approach. Ideally you look at what you need to create, break that down into pieces, define those pieces well.. build them separately and test them individually, then test them in 'integrated groups', then test them when the entire mess comes together. But the statements made above by bach01 on risk for test areas apply equally to a software developers job. As a software developer you simply do not have the luxury of unit testing every single line of code you write. You invest where you have the most risk and take care not to disturb that which you know already works.
I've met programmers with 5-10 years of experience who still make very fundamental mistakes regarding ensuring future quality. One example from the past 2 months:
The software I work on has approximately 50,000 lines of code (much of it tested from a previous release, about 10,000 new). We caught this programmer making extensive changes to pre-existing code simply to reformat it. Although this may appear innocent at first, sometimes accidentally typing a character may not cause code to break during compile, but may induce a logic error. These types of simple situations with potentially horrendous results are very very typical for youthful programmers. Youth is worshipped in the entertainment development community, to the detriment of quality and speed of creation. I agree that youthful programmers tend to be creative, but creativity is not isolated to the young (many MANY old composers, architects, choreographers, etc.). And the hiring philosophy of many companies (not just game companies) tends to prefer youth and previous experience in a specific field to tried and true capabilities as an experienced engineer. This ignores a very important detail: An inexperienced programmer that has prior experience may indeed not have to learn (be trained) on a technology he is working on (say directX). So you've saved potentially 1-2 months of training by hiring him. But if that same programmer makes engineering mistakes that make your 1 year schedule 2 years (or worse), what have you traded away??
Which brings me to point two... Engineering discipline is not well understood amongst the majority of software engineers working today. For as many times as I've seen good engineering practice, I've seen 5x as much lack of such practice. Every programmer I've interacted with in the last 8 years, with ONE exception did not understand the basics of top-down design and how to apply that to the creation of programs that work. Given the typical amount of training a normal programmer goes through before getting his first job, the lack of that basic skill is abhorrent.. and it can have catastrophic consequences to time through a schedule.
If a programmer is 'writing code to prove a concept' or work something out while actually trying to build a working/releasable program, what happens if his entire idea just doesn't work out? Frequently in those circumstance some or most of the code must be rewritten. And what is the most expensive thing you do as a programmer? Write code! The more we understand things ahead of time, the better we write code with less errors. But so few programmers actually understand this!
Given what I see day to day, it gives me joy when I see consistently high quality products, because I know what a rare thing it is for a company to employ engineers that are both disciplined and experienced. I can only point to a few game companies that shows that consistent ability to deliver quickly, and with high quality. The names that come to mind:
Blizzard
Bioware
Ensemble
Quality, consistent delivery, excellence in product.
Make no mistake, go there and you'll see disciplined/experienced engineers, excellent testing managers, and producers that understand enough about engineering to guide the engineers without jerking them around.
Ensemble did a complete technology rewrite, a completely new game, and released the entire thing and just a few years. This is amazing give how much they had to do, how much had to be coordinated, and the inherent quality risks associated.
CA is experiencing the difficulties I expect for a 'normal organization'. So far their track record of deliverying customer satisfaction through patches has done them credit, and I expect more in the future. I can say that STW and MTW are very stable predictable products (post patches). And I've played em to death. RTW is a typical first release for an average engineering organization. The design (IMO) is inspired.. but the engineering is average. Based on past experience, they will stand by their product and fix things up reasonably well. The issue is whether we as customers are willing to deal with the quality issues whilst CA fixes them. I for one vote an big THUMBS UP. As one poster said, there are lots of games. I don't mind waiting to get a patch for things to work better, I can play other games while I'm waiting. The great game behind the slightly flawed code will only be better once things are fixed. And for only $40, how can I argue that good quality in the end is a bad thing?
Red Harvest
12-13-2004, 11:52
*climbs onto soap box*
RH, with all due respect, I don't think you and I can tell how many lines of code anything in the RTW engine takes. I'm a very senior software developer who works a lot with Product Managers helping define functionality and products. It can be surprising how simple things can be complex when the entire design is taken into consideration. I can, from a casual perspective, imagine a design for a game.. but because I've never actually done one soup to nuts, I could be way off regarding the hidden complexities and how something which might look very simple is actually not so simple at all.
*steps down off soap box*
I'm not interested in a p*****g contest but I've done software development as well, and I generally had a decent idea of how reasonable or unreasonable a change might be. I'm not concerned about the precise number of lines of code (who cares?) but rather the difficulty of the task. Following my instincts has worked well in the past, I'll stick with them, thank you very much. A lot of these problems have been solved before by CA. I would be shocked and disappointed if they could not be repeated. Look at how many simple sign error type problems are already present in this release of RTW. Those are very easy fixes.
Hand bags at ten paces???
eadingas
12-13-2004, 12:30
I agree with the sign typos issue. This is not a matter of code complexity, just a matter of not checking things thoroughly enough. With bugs like that coming through to public release, the whole gaming community becomes a community of beta-testers who don't get paid for their job (quite the reverse, rather). It took us what, a month or so to find these bugs, and quickly release a mod fix that set the things the way they should? Why wasn't this caught by the testers and quickly fixed by the devs themselves?
I for one vote an big THUMBS UP.
What, you want them to be killed in the arena? ~:eek:
~;)
What, you want them to be killed in the arena? ~:eek:
~;)
Nah, that was the flat thumbs. Like if you cross it over your throat.
UglyandHasty
12-13-2004, 16:16
middle of january ? I guess they put more peoples working on the add-on, add-on that will really fix the problems, than peoples who work on the patch. Déja-vu !
I'm not interested in a p*****g contest but I've done software development as well, and I generally had a decent idea of how reasonable or unreasonable a change might be. I'm not concerned about the precise number of lines of code (who cares?) but rather the difficulty of the task. Following my instincts has worked well in the past, I'll stick with them, thank you very much. A lot of these problems have been solved before by CA. I would be shocked and disappointed if they could not be repeated. Look at how many simple sign error type problems are already present in this release of RTW. Those are very easy fixes.
And I'll refer to my missive above. Part of the discipline of a good engineering organization is good processes that provide feedback on what is fixed, and where. The organization I work in currently has poor processes for those things, with the unfortunate consequence that code bugs can be propogated across different release levels. Since in my job I'm much nearer the lower rung than the upper (very large company), and since upper level management controls such things, my chances of changing things to get better quality control over our releases is small, but locally I've had some effect on these things.
The good part about CA is that its a small company. The bad part is that its technical management must not be tracking such things, otherwise you wouldn't have bug migration such as you have (rightly) observed in the current release.
I've heard too many people in the past say that 'it must be easy'. After 21 years I've learned that those statements rarely track to truth. Hence my comment to you. I believe that good disciplined engineering and the processes for guaranteeing quality in it is one of the most difficult jobs you can have. So many things can go wrong.. and only experience will get you out of 90% of the associated issues.
Again, and in the positive for CA.. they've got a track record of 'making things right'. That is what is important to me, and why I bought RTW, knowing full well the first release would be buggy.
And, I've not 'done software engineering'. I 'do' software engineering, and have been front line development for 21 years. I've seen the good, the bad and the ugly. Its easy to think you understand how software development really works. I meet programmers that think this everyday. My job in the last 5 years has been to correct those folks on what they think they know vs. what reality dishes out. That difference is between a new programmer who tries to create good code, and an trained engineer that knows he will create poor code and plans to catch that lack of quality through good processes.
Nah, that was the flat thumbs. Like if you cross it over your throat.
~:)
Razor1952
12-13-2004, 23:42
Dear me, what a lot of talk.
CA has already succeeded big time judged purely by the sheer weight of posts at the various fan sites.
I think CA will come through with the goods as it has in the past.
If not then I guess "gasp" there's always microsoft games.
Red Harvest
12-14-2004, 01:13
And, I've not 'done software engineering'. I 'do' software engineering, and have been front line development for 21 years.
That's nice...but it doesn't make you omniscient and the rest of us barbarians either, especially since you don't know what level of experience many of us have. Before you went into this long 'missive' you were telling me how I couldn't have any idea what it takes to fix some of these things. I'm going to spell out my response more clearly: that's baloney. Write another 20 pages if you like, but I don't see the relevance of a general discussion of programming styles and developer strategic planning.
And I'm not actually upset with CA over RTW. I think they did a very good job of getting a stable game out the door, despite all the new features and the new 3d engine and strategic map. However, it is apparent that a number of things were left partly finished in an effort to ship, and there is substantial work left to do to get to a final product. My focus has been on exploring the more obvious short comings and things that didn't get ported that should have. Why? Because as anyone with 21 years of software development experience should know, CA only has a limited time to patch before moving to the next project. So strike while the iron is hot. Commenting after the final patch and asking for changes...now that is spitting in the wind.
Weren't you telling us we shouldn't expect changes in the AI when CA is telling us there will be changes? If they don't apply some fixes to the AI then the patch is only going to be a small adjustment and come up short. Modding can work around/with the AI to a degree, but it can't fix it. We've been through this with other parts of the TW series.
That's nice...but it doesn't make you omniscient and the rest of us barbarians either, especially since you don't know what level of experience many of us have. Before you went into this long 'missive' you were telling me how I couldn't have any idea what it takes to fix some of these things. I'm going to spell out my response more clearly: that's baloney. Write another 20 pages if you like, but I don't see the relevance of a general discussion of programming styles and developer strategic planning.
And I'm not actually upset with CA over RTW. I think they did a very good job of getting a stable game out the door, despite all the new features and the new 3d engine and strategic map. However, it is apparent that a number of things were left partly finished in an effort to ship, and there is substantial work left to do to get to a final product. My focus has been on exploring the more obvious short comings and things that didn't get ported that should have. Why? Because as anyone with 21 years of software development experience should know, CA only has a limited time to patch before moving to the next project. So strike while the iron is hot. Commenting after the final patch and asking for changes...now that is spitting in the wind.
Weren't you telling us we shouldn't expect changes in the AI when CA is telling us there will be changes? If they don't apply some fixes to the AI then the patch is only going to be a small adjustment and come up short. Modding can work around/with the AI to a degree, but it can't fix it. We've been through this with other parts of the TW series.
I've now seen the message from CA, and they are saying AI.. so I'm a crossing my fingers (but not hoping real hard at this point..). Minor changes would be happy-happy-joy-joy to me, major changes would cause ecstasy but I'm not gonna get my hopes up.
Secondly I didn't say you were barbarians, and didn't mean to imply as much. I'm also not omniscient. I specifically reacting to statements like 'that can't be that complicated'. I've heard it way too much in the past from folks that should know a whole lot better (and are not 'fresh graduates either!). And you'll see above that I said that you and I don't know how complex it is, so how is that making myself omniscient?? Please read my responses closely.
And I'm glad your not upset! That makes two of us. ~:)
Finally, you have indeed made positive (and copious) contributions on this board, and if my comments seemed to imply otherwise, that was certainly not my intention.
There are many many reasons why bugs leave the doors of software companies. Some make no sense to folks that don't write software for a living, and some don't make sense to me (knowing what I know). My total intention in writing the above was to give folks a perspective on how difficult it is to write quality software and get is shipped on time with low bug count (just as bach was trying to do).
You are right, I do not know the experience level of folks on this board.. nor do I assume such. I had included you with me in my statement.. I don't think I can personally can make any of the judgements about code complexity.. I'm sorry that I included you in that.. so instead I'll amend my statement:
I personally can't know how complex any of the fixes are CA missed in the first release.. I would just be guessing.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.. and please know that I harbor no ill will at all. You've made great contributions on this board (and some directed at me) and I utterly respect that, and you.
Locklear
12-14-2004, 03:07
...the patch is extensive in what it addresses and this includes battle map AI, campaign AI...
I agree in principle with TheDuck in that hardcoded AI is an extremely difficult and comprehensive thing to change with a mere patch, however. I suspect (although I hope I'm wrong) that the fixes will involve editing of the AI scripts, along the lines of what the Realism mods have done.
Yet another developer throwing in his 2 cents here.....
As has been mentioned, QA costs money, and bugfixing costs money.
The devs want to make a great game, but the beancounters and the top management don't care about making a great game. They care about making cash.
From my personal experience, the decisions on bug fixing come down to three things:
1) How hard is it to fix? (How much will it cost to fix the bug?)
2) How many people will be pissed if it doesn't get fixed?
3) Will those people be angry enough to ask for a refund, or not buy new products? (How much will it cost if it doesn't get fixed?)
CA certainly has a HUGE database full of many, many bugs in this game, most of which will never get fixed. That's just the way it goes. One big strain between QA and developers in most organizations I've worked in is that very few of the bugs QA finds ever get fixed. (QA guys tend to get really touchy about spending countless hours finding a truckload of bugs, only to have most or all of them be ignored)
Unless you are angry enough to vote with your wallet, CA might care, but Activision won't.
Yet another developer throwing in his 2 cents here.....
As has been mentioned, QA costs money, and bugfixing costs money.
The devs want to make a great game, but the beancounters and the top management don't care about making a great game. They care about making cash.
From my personal experience, the decisions on bug fixing come down to three things:
1) How hard is it to fix? (How much will it cost to fix the bug?)
2) How many people will be pissed if it doesn't get fixed?
3) Will those people be angry enough to ask for a refund, or not buy new products? (How much will it cost if it doesn't get fixed?)
CA certainly has a HUGE database full of many, many bugs in this game, most of which will never get fixed. That's just the way it goes. One big strain between QA and developers in most organizations I've worked in is that very few of the bugs QA finds ever get fixed. (QA guys tend to get really touchy about spending countless hours finding a truckload of bugs, only to have most or all of them be ignored)
Unless you are angry enough to vote with your wallet, CA might care, but Activision won't.
This is sooo true. Quality level is defined by what customers find acceptable.
With all that in mind, I'm pretty certain that the Strategic AI has been made perhaps more aggressive, and less likely to stroll around with its leaders, even merge its many small armies. ~:eek:
The battlefield AI will most likely only have the suicidal tendencies removed, so that reinforcements actually are a boost to you. But a brighter AI doesn't seem to be a likely change.
Red Harvest
12-14-2004, 16:45
The battlefield AI will most likely only have the suicidal tendencies removed, so that reinforcements actually are a boost to you. But a brighter AI doesn't seem to be a likely change.
I suspect that they can do a lot to improve the battlefield AI with a few specific improvements, rather than overall rework. Obviously, fixing suicidal generals/reinforcements is a good start from the computer and human side. Fixing friendly fire will improve the human side of managing the game as well.
I think there are a few other things that might be addressed that could do a lot without completely rebuilding the AI.
1. Having the AI defend its high ground. Right now if it is on the hill and you are in a valley it will let you march up parallel to it and past it. So you end up on equal or even higher ground. Then it might even turn its army so that it is facing up hill at you. Surely part of the positional routine could be made to march in front of such a flanking move and fight from the high ground.
2. Improving the plaza defense by the AI so that it won't stand there taking a hail of missiles without attempting to go down fighting.
3. Any time the AI just stands there taking missile fire without engaging.
4. Having the AI use phalanx units in a long lines and doing a march through on offense, or holding a line or arc on defense--admittedly this is a bit higher level AI, but it is necessary if the AI is going to put up a fight with phalanx armies.
5. On siege maps, the AI should do a better job of keeping its army out of fixed missile defense range except when actually engaged in melee.
Slowing down the kill rates and reducing the offensive bonuses while adding some defensive ones could allow the AI to hang on much better when it has superior armies. Right now it can be steam rolled even when it has superior troops. Slow down the action a bit and steam rolling is not so easy.
Reducing archery and cavalry effectiveness (and improving anti-cav defense for non-phalanx spears) would give the AI a better chance to mix it up in melee, thereby increasing the level of casualties it inflicts. Right now a human can do great damage with a single unit or two of elite archers--wrecking the AI before melee even starts. And with cav the human can easily destroy end units with out fear of getting bogged down long enough for help to arrive for the AI units.
Introducing some penalties for unit stacking. Both the human and the AI are rewarded for the "rolling ball" of stacked troops charging through unit after unit and destroying each rapidly. We do this with cav and infantry and even elephants (in fact elephants plus cav are very effective at this which is very odd.) Units should become considerably less effective and vulnerable is such situations because they are disordered mobs.
HarunTaiwan
12-15-2004, 09:13
Interesting posts all around.
I think the Entrepreneur is correct: the consumer should not care about the travails and difficulty of the developers.
Just imagine the screeching from programmers when they picked up their new car and found it had some dents and couldn't go faster than 50 MPH.
"Oh, yeah, that's a bitch but don't worry, we're thinking about fixing that and will get back to you in a few months. I guess our engineering budget wasn't enought to actually drive the car around a bit."
If the developers had to physically send out new CD-Roms to everyone, they would certainly have delayed release and fixed the obvious stuff...
If I am wrong, I will let my QC staff know that they can stop giving a rats ass about product defects and just let the consumer figure something out.
Interesting posts all around.
If the developers had to physically send out new CD-Roms to everyone, they would certainly have delayed release and fixed the obvious stuff...
I'm in full agreement here.... The defect rate is much, much higher in PC games than it is in console games. (Having a single hardware platform to code to does help with the console games, but doesn't explain the huge difference in quality levels.)
The PC software industry has grown used to the idea that customers will put up with a defective product if they know a patch will be forthcoming. And as the Duck said, "Quality level is defined by what customers find acceptable."
We continue to buy prematurely released software, so companies continue to sell prematurely released software. The reason auto makers don't do it is because we wouldn't put up with it.
The reason auto makers don't do it is because we wouldn't put up with it.
More likely because a car costs up to 1000 times that of a game. And it has been developed by thousands of people rather than less than 100.
So I guess it is up to us. Do we want games that cost 100$+ or do we want to wait for patches? I think I know what the general answer will be.
I'm in full agreement here.... The defect rate is much, much higher in PC games than it is in console games. (Having a single hardware platform to code to does help with the console games, but doesn't explain the huge difference in quality levels.)
The PC software industry has grown used to the idea that customers will put up with a defective product if they know a patch will be forthcoming. And as the Duck said, "Quality level is defined by what customers find acceptable."
We continue to buy prematurely released software, so companies continue to sell prematurely released software. The reason auto makers don't do it is because we wouldn't put up with it.
Let's be realistic here. For starters the complexity level of PC games is generally far higher than it is for console games. Take FPS games and soccer games, which are extremely common on both the PC and console formats. The SP game rarely requires any patches for either format. Take HL 2, Doom 3 and PES4 as fine examples of solid SP PC games. Now, up the ante to a strategy game, where the game elements are far more complex. To me, it's not surprising there are issues with them on release. For FPS and footie games, this also starts to happen when we include MP as this opens up another can of worms..
There's simply no way a small programming and QA team can unearth all the issues, given the level of the complexity in today's high-end strategy games. As a result, the only feasible way this is going to happen is by releasing a stable game to the mass market and letting thousands of gamers get their hands on it. Rome was extremely stable on release and it still plays well regardless of the issues. Therefore, I think CA achieved. They have since stated that they will release a patch to please the masses and fix issues they would never have discovered on their own.
I for one, will gladly keep supporting post-release patching for strategy games. To be perfectly honest, it's the only way I can see it work ...
SwordsMaster
12-15-2004, 13:49
come on guys, more whining? There are dozens of "a list of what needs to be patched" threads, I think they have it pretty clear already, specially considering that at the.com, TCW, and probably in a few more forums they are getting the same sort of threads. You are battering the same points over and over again.
Why dont you wait for it and THEN critizise?
IMO the game is so bugged and has the enormous amount of junk code it has because of all the pressure and that serious amount of "OH, IT WONT BE RELEASED TILL (insert date here) I CANT WAIT OMG" kind of posts. I think we all know how different the release dates and development times are on paper and then in real life. So the more you whine, more patches it will need.
Regards
More likely because a car costs up to 1000 times that of a game. And it has been developed by thousands of people rather than less than 100.
So I guess it is up to us. Do we want games that cost 100$+ or do we want to wait for patches? I think I know what the general answer will be.
We could use the example of a wristwatch, a toaster, or even a cellphone instead of a car.
I'm not sure why some people seem to think this thread is about whining and complaining. The last dozen or so posts seem to just be discussing the reasons why things are the way they are, without commenting on whether it's good or bad.
If most of the people feel that CA/Activision is making games with the right mix of quality and price, then they are providing exactly what the market wants. That's the point of capitalism. Good for them. ~:cheers:
I think your point, Krakis, is similar to what The Duck and I were saying. Quality is determined by what the customer will accept. If people are happier accepting a less expensive game that needs to be patched, then that's what the successful companies will deliver.
(There's a whole 'nother discussion about the actual relationship between software quality, and cost of development, but I get the feeling most of the people here don't particularly care..... :zzz: )
Let's be realistic here. For starters the complexity level of PC games is generally far higher than it is for console games.
There's simply no way a small programming and QA team can unearth all the issues, given the level of the complexity in today's high-end strategy games.
I hadn't considered the difference between strategy games (which are rare on consoles) and typical console-type games. You've got a good point.
I can think of a couple counter-examples though:
Sierra - Front Page Sports Football '99
(Was recalled. Everyone who asked got their money back. Sierra issued FOUR public apologies for the quality of the game, and eventually fired the entire sports software division. The amazing thing is that this game wasn't a new product. FPS Football had been around for a couple of years. How they managed to screw it up so bad in '99, when it was highly rated in '97 and '98 is still a mystery to me.)
Eidos - DeusEx Invisible War
(Several problems were so bad with the original release, that the game was virtually unplayable on many systems. The DeusEx series are single player FPS, available for XBox and PC. The XBox version played fine.)
Actually Bartman, I'd tend to disagree. The whole point is, you can't really use the example of something mechanical with circuitry and compare it to something with millions of lines of code. The end product of a wristwatch or toaster is a working clock or a piece of toast, respectively; there are no other variables. Good strategy games are supposed to be open-ended, and therefore, the end product is completely different and usually highly subjective from one person to the next.
I think with the sheer size of strategy games released nowadays, there's simply no avoiding the current system of release then post-patch once feedback from the masses is obtained. Remember, strategy games of old were contained in entirety on a floppy disk or two! Now they come on no less than 3 CDs!
The scope of the games industry and the projects undertaken are very different in the 21st century and thus the practices of game developers and publishers have had to adjust accordingly.
hEHE, and regards your last post, there will always be one or two examples which don't follow the norm. Bad games exist on all gaming formats.
I hadn't considered the difference between strategy games (which are rare on consoles) and typical console-type games. You've got a good point.
I can think of a couple counter-examples though:
Sierra - Front Page Sports Football '99
(Was recalled. Everyone who asked got their money back. Sierra issued FOUR public apologies for the quality of the game, and eventually fired the entire sports software division. The amazing thing is that this game wasn't a new product. FPS Football had been around for a couple of years. How they managed to screw it up so bad in '99, when it was highly rated in '97 and '98 is still a mystery to me.)
Eidos - DeusEx Invisible War
(Several problems were so bad with the original release, that the game was virtually unplayable on many systems. The DeusEx series are single player FPS, available for XBox and PC. The XBox version played fine.)
Everyone not technical can ignore this post.. (although it is an interesting aside)...
PS2/Xbox/GC programming assumes one thing that can't be assumed away on PCs: A stable hardware/operating system/driver layer that does not change. Console developers simply do not have to contend with making sure their software runs on millions of unique configurations. If it works on Xbox number 1, it works on number 1,999,923. That vastly simplies the quality assurance problems and gives engineers a better chance of delivering working code the first time.
As observed above, there are always basic quality issues that some shops just can't seem to get right. But delivering good quality games comes within the reach of the 'average' engineering group (rather than requiring the rare 'stellar performer') when your testing solution set is so much smaller. I believe that is the true reason consoles look to consumers like generally higher quality.. Its because the testing/quality problem is different by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude for the engineers creating it and the test engineers testing it.
Finally, I also agree with the above statements on patched up quality against price. The market is topped regarding acceptable price, and patches keep most users happy. The model works and gaming companies will not respond until they can't sell product to survive with the current model.
HarunTaiwan
12-16-2004, 11:32
Maybe finding the bugs and bitching is half the fun.
I know playing before reading any manual works for me.
But still, some basic play problems like bribery should have been fixed before release.
Thank god patches are pretty easy to get...must suck if you did not have an internet connection.
A paralell:
A couple of months ago it was time to do a secutiry inspection of my old car. I knew there was problems with the car, and that it would probably not pass the inspection (meaning i would get a driving ban on the car for not passing).
I have two options.
1. Leave my car at a repair shop, asking them to check up on everything and fix what's needed to make it pass the coming inspection.
This could cost anything from $200 to... well, whatever really.
2. Proceed with the security inspection with the car as is. This is what i did. I got a list with the faults on the car.
The inspection costed $40.
I then went to a repair shop and showed them the paper from the inspection. "Fix theese things please" i said.
It costed $400 roughly.
If i had gone with #1 it would most certainly had cost me more, and i wouldn't even be guaranteed that the car would pass inspection!
I think we will have to live with this kind of releases. The only way to stop it would be a massive negative feedback, with customers demanding nonbugged software.
The result of such a demand would be one of two things in my view.
1. More expensive software
2. More developers closing shop.
Or more probably a combination of the two.
Already as is today, many developers are having a really hard time making any good money (not counting the few really sucessful developers)
They won't be able to hire the needed people to test the software enough on the current budget, no way.
In other words. It will be the end of all nichegames, only the big sellers will be released... I wouldn't be happy if that day arrives.
eadingas
12-17-2004, 12:29
Check any other type of software. There are more patches released for regular office ware (and I don't mean Microsoft, they live off patches :) than for any game.
SpencerH
12-18-2004, 01:04
A paralell:
A couple of months ago it was time to do a secutiry inspection of my old car. I knew there was problems with the car, and that it would probably not pass the inspection (meaning i would get a driving ban on the car for not passing).
I have two options.
1. Leave my car at a repair shop, asking them to check up on everything and fix what's needed to make it pass the coming inspection.
This could cost anything from $200 to... well, whatever really.
2. Proceed with the security inspection with the car as is. This is what i did. I got a list with the faults on the car.
The inspection costed $40.
I then went to a repair shop and showed them the paper from the inspection. "Fix theese things please" i said.
It costed $400 roughly.
If i had gone with #1 it would most certainly had cost me more, and i wouldn't even be guaranteed that the car would pass inspection!
I think we will have to live with this kind of releases. The only way to stop it would be a massive negative feedback, with customers demanding nonbugged software.
The result of such a demand would be one of two things in my view.
1. More expensive software
2. More developers closing shop.
Or more probably a combination of the two.
I was gonna take the opportunity give my two cents (i.e. bitch) about the growing strategy of releasing buggy software. Since I'm an immunologist and not a software developer (a rare breed here it seems like) all of the previous fascinating discussion doesnt amount to a hill of beans wrt my displeasure with the unfinished nature of RTW. After the CIV3 debacle I was hoping for better.
However, I like this analogy. It makes sense. Since I'm not gonna pay any more for a game I guess I'll have to live with only buying games after all the patching is done. Of course they cost less then too ~;)
pyrocryo
12-18-2004, 08:01
the problem of course is the "as-is" in EULA.
it practically said that we must know that the program is buggy.
nice sales move, i wonder why they didn't put it on car, planes, and health services as well
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.