Jump to content
Battlefront.com

Update on Engine 4 patches

Recommended Posts

"That is really just an unacceptable amount of time for a developer to fix a problem that was introduced in a paid upgrade to a product."

I completely agree with you, TGarner. I've hardly played any of the games that I own and paid for (ALL the WWII titles and all upgrades), for the past two years, because of the more infuriating problems with the previous upgrade. I used to love the games and played regularly, so it is even more of a shame that the prevalent culture here is that the customer is little more an an irritant and liable to be ignored for months on end - except when it comes to promoting new product and 'upgrades'. It is hardly surprising that these games are such a niche market when even the small current customer base is treated with such continued disdain. 

Edited by Buck72

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of other game developers release small "hotfix" patches for their games if they find an important issue. Like a patch that just fixes one thing. It makes me wonder why Battlefront never does anything like that. I would rather download several small patches over time than wait two years for one big one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Bozowans said:

A lot of other game developers release small "hotfix" patches for their games if they find an important issue. Like a patch that just fixes one thing. It makes me wonder why Battlefront never does anything like that. I would rather download several small patches over time than wait two years for one big one. 

Thou...I do remember a 'Hotfix' when CMBN was first released, then 'Patches' a couple times a year when Modules were released, etc.

Basically, a 'Hotfix' is generally used when Players detect an actual Game Install issue (can't effectively install or play the Game)...'Patches' are to fix several little engine details, Bugs, etc...'Upgrades' are to enhance the Game Engine to the next level.

Edited by JoMc67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The prevalent culture here is that the customer is little more an an irritant and liable to be ignored for months on end - except when it comes to promoting new product and 'upgrades'. It is hardly surprising that these games are such a niche market when even the small current customer base is treated with such continued disdain"...

I think that's bit (lots) over the top. Battlefront is by all accounts a small company with limited resources, and its games and upgrades don't cost a lot (as far as I can tell from the position of somebody who only buys Battlefront games). They seem passionate about quality, and often warn fans that projects can drag out, and they'll only issue them when they're right.

There's still no game that comes close to the realism and playability of Combat Mission (largely thanks to the WEGO system), and I play only CM WW2 titles. Sure, it's annoying when troops jump out of their trenches into mortar barrages, or don't react quickly enough to enemies right in front of them, but I just put that down to the craziness of stressed-out troops on the battlefield, which I imagine often wrecked the carefully laid plans of real life battalion commanders...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure if BfC had a PR department they'd address these issues in an instant.....But they don't, so they either work on fixing the problem, or take time out to tell you they are working on fixing the problem.  :rolleyes:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya that is often what is said every time this patch is brought up, or at least the last 3 times it has been that I can count.  They can either work on the patch or post on the forums.

First I would say it takes 2 min to post something on the forums, but them not posting on the forums about the patch is not really the issue.

Hey it is what it is at this point, it's pretty much Christmas now and I would never ask that they do anything other than spend that time at home with their families. And I hope that is what they are doing.  They deserve it after getting SF2 out the door.  My frustration with the whole situation isn't going to just change if the patch is released or not at this point.  I am pretty used to not playing the WWII games now. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

speaking of which - I thought sf2 stopped the men running out on to balconies rather than staying inside buildings.  A little disappointed with that. Very disappointed. Maybe patch? yeah right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PIATpunk said:

I am a bit surprised that a patch will be issued soon for SF2 rather than the WW2 titles.  But perhaps the upcoming V4 patch will benefit further from the work gone into the SF2 patch.

The SF2 patch fixed a few specific bugs that were noticed after release. The case of the Marine campaign for instance wasn't noticed because apparently it only shows up if you don' t have all the modules. As far as I know all the beta testers have everything, so we didn't see it. Obvious candidate for a quick update. The "patch" that has to work for all the titles and is a separate thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beta testing is a tough job, especially when the only beta testers are unpaid volunteers.  With that said, whoever is designing the tests or testing plans for the beta testers missed a big one on the Marine campaign.  The whole point of beta testing is to judge performance on multiple setups and configurations.  If everyone is testing on the same set up, you're missing the point of a beta test.  There is no way that tests should all be preformed on systems that have all the products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, coachjohn said:

speaking of which - I thought sf2 stopped the men running out on to balconies rather than staying inside buildings.  A little disappointed with that. Very disappointed. Maybe patch? yeah right!

The only certain way is to avoid the balcony entirely. There is no need to 'patch'. I like the manner the troops spread out on a AS and peak around trees/corners/ditches/etc. and prefer they work on correcting items that can't be so easily mitigated. The best way to fix this is for scenario designers to be aware which I believe most are. Right now, when I want them out on the balcony, I place a waypoint there. Simple.

Skip floors containing balconies. It's the least of our challenges when trying to clear a multistory building as one can pace the assault to rarely stay in place long enough for them to fan out. Plan your breaks with pauses/target arcs as teams lead frog each other throwing grenades.

If you really need to expose men to balconies rather than a protected roof/ground floor; I believe @MOS:96B2Pdetailed a workaround somewhere on this fine board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

Beta testing is a tough job, especially when the only beta testers are unpaid volunteers.  With that said, whoever is designing the tests or testing plans for the beta testers missed a big one on the Marine campaign.  The whole point of beta testing is to judge performance on multiple setups and configurations.  If everyone is testing on the same set up, you're missing the point of a beta test.  There is no way that tests should all be preformed on systems that have all the products.

In a perfect world, sure. That's what we do at work.

In this case that would require testing each scenario and each campaign scenario 16 times (if I figured that correctly - combinations + Mac and PC versions) to check all the installation combinations, each time having to uninstall and re-install SF2 and relicense it. That could obviously be broken down into assignments but still.....   there aren't a large number of people testing scenarios.  It took long enough with different people checking different scenarios.  One item along those lines slipped through and it's being patched as we speak.  That seems not so bad.  YMMV of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, it doesn't have to be that rigid.  I would have thought a commonsense task is to test each scenario with modules removed.  It seems like there are a number of testers and that would seem to be the most basic test and one of the first tests that should be run.  Someone built the scenarios, someone, I am hoping,  ran it at least once.  Have that person run it with base module and keep adding modules until it works.  Also, that is one of those things that a good QA program would have automated fairly easily.  No one has to sit there and run each one, but it wouldn't hurt.  A fairly simple iterative program could be built to automate that for any combinations of modules if BFC gives someone access to setting DRM licenses. 

If you wanted more manual intervention, I would also imagine that BFC has or could easily build an OOB list of each scenario and a master list with an attribute being module.  Just manually or automatically run a compare.  This is one of those easy productivity tools that costs an hour upfront and saves 10 hours immediately and maybe 100 hours down the road patching.  I've seen it, done it, and felt the pain.

Again, I'll point out that you build a beta organization of people running and configuring the product many different ways.  I would have assumed that one category was different module configs.  If you don't, you end up issuing hotfixes and taking a couple years to issue patches.  I'm not sure what is happening behind the scenes at BFC, but the patching process is taking longer and the quality of the releases has slipped significantly over the years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thewood1 said:

If you wanted more manual intervention, I would also imagine that BFC has or could easily build an OOB list of each scenario and a master list with an attribute being module.  Just manually or automatically run a compare.  This is one of those easy productivity tools that costs an hour upfront and saves 10 hours immediately and maybe 100 hours down the road patching.  I've seen it, done it, and felt the pain.

So much truth in the bit I put in boldface that it may rip a hole through space time.

Edited by BletchleyGeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

Beta testing is a tough job, especially when the only beta testers are unpaid volunteers.  With that said, whoever is designing the tests or testing plans for the beta testers missed a big one on the Marine campaign.  The whole point of beta testing is to judge performance on multiple setups and configurations.  If everyone is testing on the same set up, you're missing the point of a beta test.  There is no way that tests should all be preformed on systems that have all the products.

Ha you assume there are test plans...

;)

It is what it is and I am looking forward to the major patch and then I might find my mojo to play some more, but like others I have had quite some time not playing, waiting for the patch...

I hope SF2 keeps them afloat to do some more in 2019...

Now to get dressed and see if Santa has been here...

Happy Christmas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

Beta testing is a tough job, especially when the only beta testers are unpaid volunteers.  

As @Ultradave said in a fully staffed team that is the kind of thing that we would do. I bolded that part so it may burn a hole in space time. :D

When I started I brought a little of my software development experience - and from hanging around with testers - and try to attack this with a systematic approach. But we are volunteers and there are limits. I like testing and creating but I'm not a fan of installing and uninstalling evey which way. I want some time to play too. So, I'll continue to do my best but there will be limits

Edited by IanL
Added smilely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you get as a result exactly what is put into it.  A very typical old school way of running a software company is to think no testing saves time and money for doing "real" coding in work.  In reality, it does the opposite, as we are seeing here.  Years and months between patches and customers getting antsy.  BFC obviously runs their company the way they want, but sure seems like a an all volunteer testing force with a testing plan with some holes in it is just leading to trouble.

Even one man coding shops can be easily found that have rigid testing tasks.  Those are the people that understand about paying a dollar now saves ten down the road.  It is a lesson I can't believe has to be discussed again.  It gets relearned constantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

It is a lesson I can't believe has to be discussed again. 

LOL you are discussing it. You are literally in control of if it is discussed again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IanL said:

LOL you are discussing it. You are literally in control of if it is discussed again.

I'll rephrase it then...I can't believe software developers keep having to relearn it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I always do a little post mortem after a release and try to lean something new to do better next time. I actually have a couple of thoughts that come from that problem. Hopefully they will help.

Honestly the "why didn't you find X horrible bug" discussions are of very little interest to me. I try to shut them down at work too. Its kind of like "why are things always in the last place I look?" It is hard to know in advance what you missed and execute everything perfectly.

The correct thing to do is look at what got into the wild and ask what could be  added or changed to prevent that from happening in the future. And balance that with all the other things you are doing and creating a new plan for next time.

BTW anyone who thinks those are both the same question needs to observe and learn more about human psychology. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not dial back to 3.0 until the patch, rather than not play for two years? Curse the darkness, or light a candle. Regardless, it is finally getting close, and besides, Merry Christmas!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mjkerner said:

Why not dial back to 3.0 until the patch, rather than not play for two years? Curse the darkness, or light a candle. Regardless, it is finally getting close, and besides, Merry Christmas!

Does anyone know if it's possible to have two installations of CMBN running on the same PC, one at version 3.0 and the other at 4.0? I have a battle or two that were started on 4.0 that I can't lose access to, yet the thought of returning to 3.0's AI behavior is also very appealing.

I assume I'd just need to start another install, point it to a different directory, then enter a bunch of serial numbers under the "Activate New Products" link? Is that all? Does the order you enter the addons' serial numbers matter? Would having two versions installed use up another activation and make the BF servers flag me as some kind of freeloading scuzzbucket, lol?!

Digging up all my old purchase orders and then fighting the installer (again) sounds absolutely dreadful, but I do have the whole week off and I sure miss my WW2-era Combat Mission games. (I don't play the modern titles at all.)

Edited by sttp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×