Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hey, I'm not the one who said it was easy first.  I am not speaking for me.  If you read my posts, I have accounts in all the major file systems.  Its just incredibly inefficient for all to generate a file link every time they want to report something.  So its easier for you to sort through multiple links versus having them loaded into one spot?  You are doing something wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets take a step back and look at this...

I was told that it was easy to create a link for a file to shared with betatesters looking at issues.  So I said that BFC should just create a link for a folder where those files can just be uploaded.  So instead of multiple people loading up files and and creating links, one entity, BFC, creates a public folder where saves can be uploaded to.  You can have all the control at BFC that you want on who can upload and who can't.  As a couple people have already said about this, its not rocket science.

So tell me how having multiple people having to upload files and create links individually is better for everyone than a single shared folder that betatesters can send links to for upload?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I can't speak about every company out there but I've been doing software testing both professionally and for hobbies like CM for decades. Yes, decades. Have yet to see any of said companies set up a place for the end user to upload files. The onus has always been that the user does so. And surprisingly, it works very well indeed from small businesses to companies with thousands of employees working for them, as I've had experience from one extreme to the other. I'm sure there are those out there that do it differently and it works for them. Good for them. 

Good grief.

Edited by Bud Backer
clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Simply take a look at Matrix Games.  You can upload any saves for review and its done constantly on a bunch of their games.  Look at Command.  Every tech issue is requested to post a save file of the issue.  I spent several years in HMI development at GE and the first thing the QA  and service engineers were shown was the FTP site where customers loaded files for analysis.  That was in the mid-90s.

So I am not sure what kind of software company you work for, but everyone had an FTP site.  A number of them have transitioned to dropbox.

Edit:  Also pointing out the reasoning behind FTP sites was so that the customers didn't all have different methods and paths for the service and QA engineers to get at customer files.  It allowed the creation of a very simple and secure way to move customer files from the field around.  That FTP site was the critical point of customer and engineer interaction.

Edited by Thewood1
Expounding a little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I should point out is that the devs of Command on the Matrix site are engaged daily in sorting through tech and app issues.  And that is a team of 3-4 people,  including one developer.  I bet the devs, combined, post a dozen times a day, with the actual coder posting daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Players who believe they have uncovered a bug need only save the game file (must zip it)  and post a comment on the forum dedicated to the game the bug was found.  You should be able attach it to the forum post.  I have attached a save file that was sent to me when working on the 2.2 patch here to demonstrate. Note that it is the 3rd turn of a Campaign. Or the player can send an email to specific beta testers who are responding to the bug report.  When I think I can be of help I often ask the player to send a save file directly to me.

Now to answer the question "Why do the testers need a save game file?".... Not only is it the best evidence,  but also the fastest way to see what the player sees.

The Scottish Corridor 003.zip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone able to provide an update to the issue reported by @Falaise concerning a reproducible evade in the CMBN Roadblock scenario? He's able to show US troops rushing forward through a hedgerow gap 10 out of 10 times in patch 4.02.

His post ...

 

Is it considered a fault? Of so, what corrective action should be expected?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot of back and forth about how bug reporting is done. It would be interesting to know what the process is once the report reaches Battlefront.

The critical thing is perception. I am not sure if the majority feel bugs are being dealt with reasonably or not. However a dedicated process gives customers reassurance. Just like timely updates on what is happening with titles and new additions.

Having worked as one who received and organized the resolution of problems, I found it critical to have reports delivered to one location where they could be prioritized and dealt with in an organized fashion.

I should think this would be beneficial to Battlefront and not a hindrance. It would immediately give those responsible for looking at bugs an idea of the extent of a problem and if it affected more than one title. 

BFC already has the help desk. Perhaps bug reports could go there.

If someone takes the time to offer an idea concerning a problem, no matter if it truly makes sense or not, they are doing so because they care about the game. Perhaps a more thoughtful  response would be " I am not sure if that would work but lets kick it upstairs and see if it might be helpful ".

 

Share this post


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

And this is why you need a more formal process.  ...

Full time QA people would need to do the same work wade through the same files. Given we are *not* lacking any tools I don't see that as making a huge difference. I mean I suppose if they hired three or four full time QA staff they could totally smoke the amount of work squad of volunteer testers.

 

15 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

Your frustration should be with BFC for not providing you the tools that a real QA tester would have.  ...

I feel no frustration with BFC around this issue.  Having saves attached to threads here or send or shared with testers means that the saves have context and can be acted upon. Having users just push saves to some server would not help make things clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, z1812 said:

There is a lot of back and forth about how bug reporting is done. It would be interesting to know what the process is once the report reaches Battlefront.

The critical thing is perception. I am not sure if the majority feel bugs are being dealt with reasonably or not. However a dedicated process gives customers reassurance. Just like timely updates on what is happening with titles and new additions.

That is above my pay grade to implement. Would be a good idea but highly unlikely to actually make everyone happy. So, since the current system is working I predict that nothing will change on that front.

 

8 hours ago, z1812 said:

Having worked as one who received and organized the resolution of problems, I found it critical to have reports delivered to one location where they could be prioritized and dealt with in an organized fashion.

I should think this would be beneficial to Battlefront and not a hindrance. It would immediately give those responsible for looking at bugs an idea of the extent of a problem and if it affected more than one title. 

Yes, internally there is such a bug list. We are talking here about how things get on that list. A direct pipe from customer to devs is absolutely not the right way to go. We need Charles, Steve and the artists to be working verified bugs and features not digging around trying to figure out if X or Y is really a bug or not.

 

8 hours ago, z1812 said:

BFC already has the help desk. Perhaps bug reports could go there.

They absolutely can - go for it.

 

8 hours ago, z1812 said:

If someone takes the time to offer an idea concerning a problem, no matter if it truly makes sense or not, they are doing so because they care about the game. Perhaps a more thoughtful  response would be " I am not sure if that would work but lets kick it upstairs and see if it might be helpful ".

Yeah, no. Random thoughts on things that might or might not be a problem are a complete waste of time for developers to deal with. Ideas go through the Steve design filter and turned into feature plans and bugs go through the tester filter to create reproducible test cases for developers to take action on. It is a system that works pretty well in the software industry. Well we are all still alive using that process anyway :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Howler said:

Is anyone able to provide an update to the issue reported by @Falaise concerning a reproducible evade in the CMBN Roadblock scenario? He's able to show US troops rushing forward through a hedgerow gap 10 out of 10 times in patch 4.02.

His post ...

 

Is it considered a fault? Of so, what corrective action should be expected?

I have been looking at this one and trying to get the same results, it doesn't always happen when I play the same battle. I hope to have some time tonight to look deeper at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Weird thing is I can't see it in the test scenario put out a while back, however playing through Scottish Corridor Campaign battles it's happening a plenty.

Edited by Wicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Wicky said:

Weird thing is I can't see it in the test scenario put out a while back, however playing through Scottish Corridor Campaign battles it's happening a plenty.

Yeah just loaded up the first battle in that one and got it right away - in same place I saw previously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not get this to happen in the Roadblock scenario no matter what combinations I tried, in multiple attempts. However in the Scottish Corridor first scenario, it's pretty consistent, in two places. I related this in the beta forum with a idea of what is happening and how to reproduce so that someone besides just me can check. Also, I'm on a Mac. Occasionally Mac vs. PC makes a difference. In this case I would bet it doesn't. It's a logic thing, not graphics.

Posting this here so that people know that when something like this gets posted, it does get looked at right away, reproduced, and acted on (acted on for right now would be posting a bug report to the database).  It appears to be some specific sets of circumstances to me. But that's why others need to verify it. I could also be wrong 🙂

Saved game files REALLY help, if it's something reproducible so that you can get a save. That way we can compare the save to us running it fresh.  In this case it was much easier to see what was happening by running it myself at Basic Training level, because I could see all the Germans and what was happening to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, Ultradave said:

Also, I'm on a Mac. Occasionally Mac vs. PC makes a difference. In this case I would bet it doesn't. It's a logic thing, not graphics.

Some of the most mysterious "logical" or "physical" bugs that in CM2 - bridge crossing, units unable to leave or enter buildings - were traced back to graphics card/drivers updates.

As potentially relevant stuff to consider there's also the issue of squad elements getting separated when going through hedgerows under certain conditions. I sent two bug reports through the helpdesk each time I have found them over the past three years and probably were as random as this issue seems to be.

 

Just for reference, I hope it is useful, here's the ticket numbers with the reports 

Ticket ID: 20187570 Date: 2018-08-08

Ticket ID: 14570189 Date: 2017-05-02

The issue was first discussed in Christmas 2016 

 

in both cases I have seen it happening, it happened on bocage maps with intricate elevantion changes. The most recent instance was in a test game with @HeirloomTomato on a huge map by Ithikial.

Edited by BletchleyGeek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen infantry squads get split by tall walls in CM:SF2, but that was prior to the two recent patches, so I've no idea if it still happens.....It was not a common occurrence for me, but when it did happen it was reasonably consistent and removing the offending section of wall instantly fixed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2019 at 12:23 PM, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I've seen infantry squads get split by tall walls in CM:SF2, but that was prior to the two recent patches, so I've no idea if it still happens.....It was not a common occurrence for me, but when it did happen it was reasonably consistent and removing the offending section of wall instantly fixed it.

Just happened to me recently so yeah you do need to pay attention to your teams in built up areas (this was on the Ramadi map).  What I have not seen is one that just will not correct.  So far in every instance I have just had the team return to the "stuck" unit and then it seems to be fine after that.  It usually occurs to me only when I am giving extended movement orders which in built up maps is only a small amount on the time.  Most of my movement in those conditions is a couple AS typically.  I write it off as those guys getting caught up interacting with civilians.  Once I started thinking that way, it almost became a feature. :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sburke said:

Just happened to me recently so yeah you do need to pay attention to your teams in built up areas (this was on the Ramadi map).  What I have not seen is one that just will not correct.  So far in every instance I have just had the team return to the "stuck" unit and then it seems to be fine after that.  It usually occurs to me only when I am giving extended movement orders which in built up maps is only a small amount on the time.  Most of my movement in those conditions is a couple AS typically.  I write it off as those guys getting caught up interacting with civilians.  Once I started thinking that way, it almost became a feature. :D 

I occasionally get that when I'm testing the dense urban map I'm doing for CMRT. I've always been able to get them back together, but sometimes, it takes a few tries. The corrective waypoints need to be few, straighforward and clear of obstacles. Overall, it hasn't been a problem. In fact, as with your rationalization about getting caught up with the civilians, it's kinda' cool sometimes -- like when your dudes started wandering off in the Close Combat series. In-game Straggler generation! 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol yeah. CMSF is sometimes easier for rationalizing behavior. The civilian element was in reality always an element for modern warfare. Reading Day of the Rangers now and Somalia civilian behavior was a whole other thing. Hard to get your head around deliberately putting women and children in the way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...