New patch announcement at .com

[zhuge]

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]

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]

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?

[Butcher]

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..

[zhuge]

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.
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]

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]

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]

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.

[TheDuck]

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!)

[TheDuck]

Could you point me to the list. I can't seem to find it.
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.

[zhuge]

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...

[Praylak]

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]

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]

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!

[Spino]

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!

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.

[TheDuck]

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.

[Red Harvest]

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!

You are going to have a bunch of killing to do then. 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. 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?

[Goattail]

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.

[Oaty]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You are going to have a bunch of killing to do then. 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. 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?

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]

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.

[bach01]

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.

[lt1956]

I have a simple solution to your money problem. An OPEN BETA!

Players wil test for FREE and probably find more bugs quicker than a A team.

[Gregoshi]

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]

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]

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.

[TheDuck]

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*