Reverse setup bug... still... again...

[bram1979]

It seems we are still suffering from the reverse setup bug in QB's... :confused:

Does anyone else have this problem?

[Oddball_E8]

What is a reverse setup bug?

Do you mean that the troops you are given are looking in the wrong direction?

Because that hardly feels like a bug, just a minor inconvenience (which is easily fixed with one click and drag with your mouse and two keystrokes on your keyboard)

[PhilM]

What is a reverse setup bug?

Do you mean that the troops you are given are looking in the wrong direction?

Because that hardly feels like a bug, just a minor inconvenience (which is easily fixed with one click and drag with your mouse and two keystrokes on your keyboard)

I think what he means - it has happened to me - is that the map will only accept the opposing forces one way round. Instead of being able either to attack or defend as Axis or Allies, the two forces will only go on the map one way around, despite what you choose in the menu.

So, you try to attack as Axis, say, but the Axis forces go in the defender setup zone.

[bram1979]

Reseverse setup zones mean that if you choose to be the attacker the map sets you as defender and your opponent, who is suppost to be the defender, is given the attacker setup zone.

[A Canadian Cat]

Yeah that one is really frustrating when it happens. It seems to be map specific. As a workaround, try another map and if that fails open the offending map in the editor and swap setup zones and objectives (if needed). I have done that before.

I really hope that this can be fixed. Can you report which map you were using? If you picked a random map you can see what map was chosen by opening the turn and displaying the the briefing screen.

[MarkEzra]

It seems we are still suffering from the reverse setup bug in QB's... :confused:

Does anyone else have this problem?

Hi: I am Responsible for every QB Map In the CMBN family.

This has been reviewed over and over by me and the BFC Programmers. It is NOT the maps and it is NOT the code. It is, however, some glitch in a users PC setup (especially when playing PBEM-MAC&PC) which creates this annoying effect. It can be lessened by not selecting the "Map Preview" button (turn it off). I'm sure you wish to hear solution...and so do I. It just cannot be found in the QB Maps or the code.

[MarkEzra]

Yeah that one is really frustrating when it happens. It seems to be map specific....

This WAS true in early QB Maps of CMSF...I was the one making them. But I am very confident this has not been the case In the CMBN Maps. I am always willing to check a map (they are specifically named and numbered for JUST this reason) So just let me know the name and I'd be glad to do so.

[A Canadian Cat]

This WAS true in early QB Maps of CMSF...I was the one making them. But I am very confident this has not been the case In the CMBN Maps. I am always willing to check a map (they are specifically named and numbered for JUST this reason) So just let me know the name and I'd be glad to do so.

I said that because to fix it I edited the map and then it worked. My bad for assuming too much.

[MarkEzra]

Not a problem. A Bad Map is the FIRST choice... easy to fix... and should always be the first thing to consider. I have way too many maps under my belt to think I can't make a mistake.

[A Canadian Cat]

This has been reviewed over and over by me and the BFC Programmers. It is NOT the maps and it is NOT the code. It is, however, some glitch in a users PC setup (especially when playing PBEM-MAC&PC) which creates this annoying effect. It can be lessened by not selecting the "Map Preview" button (turn it off). I'm sure you wish to hear solution...and so do I. It just cannot be found in the QB Maps or the code.

Ah, what??!! There are only maps and code. Heck there really is only code (the maps are data files created by code). There *is* a defect in this game that is causing this.

I will grant you that the defect could be install related (still code) but the fact that people keep hitting this means it *is* real. Clearly this is a nasty hard to reproduce defect.

The last time I hit this (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110668) I offered to help investigate since I had a reproducible scenario. No one took me up on that offer. I am sure I no longer have that saved game.

So, do you guys want to fix this bug? Just an honest question - we sometimes decide not to fix things, it happens. If yes, do you want help from us? If yes, again what is the best way to for us to contact you when we hit this?

I personally would like to see this resolved and I am willing to help find the cause. I hold my breath when starting an attack QB and that is not good.

[MarkEzra]

...I offered to help investigate since I had a reproducible scenario. No one took me up on that offer. I am sure I no longer have that saved game....

If You cannot recall ever sending me a file then your offer MUST have been an oversight on my part. I have looked at many "reproducible" setups which were only that way for the original two PBEM players. When Testing the same PBEM setup/map with my PC and another Mac user they proved NOT reproducible.

BFC is always concerned for it's game. You know that and I know that.

So here's what I suggest you do: When you have this problem please send a save file along with a basic description of you rig (PC win8 is really enough for me). Have your PBEM Partner do the same. I will handle it as a bug report to BFC and provide results to you. markDOTezra2591ATgmail.com

Hope this will help...

[A Canadian Cat]

Works for me. Filing a link to this thread away for future reference right now.

[A Canadian Cat]

BFC is always concerned for it's game. You know that and I know that.

True. For the most part defects that are reported get fixed and often we don't hear any acknowledgement and are not notified that that they are. It all just works most of the time.

I have to admit to being frustrated from time to time when something like this happens where something is reported several times and it just never gets fixed. The issue I have is we, as customers, cannot tell which category reported defect fall into:

1. has been received and is actively being worked on
   
2. has been received but cannot be reproduced by the team and therefore no action will be taken
   
3. has not even been noticed by anyone at BFC
   

Thankfully most fall into (1) and get fixed. But we have this one that fell into (2) but no customer knew that it was not actionable - in fact the lack of response to my offer to help track this down in July made me think that this was already fixed. Hey, with no communications I am left with only the ability to guess or hope:)

And sometimes we have things that hit (3) like the ATI problem with bridges where I worked around broken bridge pathing for over a year before discovering that the reason that no one took our reports seriously was because the only people that looked at it used NVIDA cards and it worked for them so the issue was never reported internally at all.

People sometimes talk about wanting more communication from BFC about future development plans and progress. I would much prefer any effort spent improving communications with customers be done in the area of acknowledging reported defects.

[Battlefront.com]

And sometimes we have things that hit (3) like the ATI problem with bridges where I worked around broken bridge pathing for over a year before discovering that the reason that no one took our reports seriously was because the only people that looked at it used NVIDA cards and it worked for them so the issue was never reported internally at all.

Just a correction to this. We took the report seriously, we just couldn't reproduce it. We also have people using ATI Cards but they had the option turned off. Took a while to figure out it was unrelated to pathing and scenarios itself.

Sometimes bugs like this are just... maddeningly unhelpful to troubleshooting!

As for communication, it's difficult to manage. You guys don't have any idea how many hundreds of "bugs" are reported and how difficult it is to deal with all of those even internally with select people and bug tracking software. Trying to report back on fixes is equally vexing.

Release notes tend to report almost all the fixes that have been implemented for that particular build. But we don't bother with very small ones most of the time. We just fix and move on.

Steve

[A Canadian Cat]

Just a correction to this. We took the report seriously, we just couldn't reproduce it. We also have people using ATI Cards but they had the option turned off. Took a while to figure out it was unrelated to pathing and scenarios itself.

Sometimes bugs like this are just... maddeningly unhelpful to troubleshooting!

As for communication, it's difficult to manage. You guys don't have any idea how many hundreds of "bugs" are reported and how difficult it is to deal with all of those even internally with select people and bug tracking software. Trying to report back on fixes is equally vexing.

OK, clearly I let my frustration through unintentionally. I understand you and your staff take reported defects seriously, I see evidence of that all the time.

The problem of the bridge pathing and this setup area swapping are examples where communication broke down. I do understand that you fix and record hundreds of defects internally. I get it, software development is what I do to pay for these awesome games. I even understand getting and dealing with defects that seem to defy solving and sometimes we have to live with the work arounds.

I would like to see bug report threads here delt with slightly differently. It would be nice if any defect report threads end with a statement that the reported behavior is expected or a defect . In the case of it being a defect either acknowledge it and say are taking it or say that we are unable to reproduce it. That way we would know the difference between one of those many many defects that you fix every release and those tricky ones that we can possibly help you solve.

[Frenchy]

Currently playing a QB meeting engagement -- we did not have a setup issue. I am playing with Windows 7 and latest updates. Not sure if my opponent has a Mac or a PC.

[John N]

Currently playing a QB meeting engagement -- we did not have a setup issue. I am playing with Windows 7 and latest updates. Not sure if my opponent has a Mac or a PC.

Windows XP.

[A Canadian Cat]

This reversing of the setup zones only happens occasionally when you play an attack, assault or probe with the axis attacking.

[Childress]

We took the report seriously, we just couldn't reproduce it. We also have people using ATI Cards but they had the option turned off. Took a while to figure out it was unrelated to pathing and scenarios itself.

That messed me up for a week until I located the cause through trial and error and shared it on the forum. This sounds like a legacy option that can be safely deleted on the next update.