sttp

Le cimetière de Colleville-sur -Mer:






 
 
 

Dans le musé du cimetière:

Before I buy anymore modules I would like to see the wierd infantry evasion bug/behavior fixed... It's a real game wrecker for me, I have stopped playing because of it 😞

Do you see the screenshot?

Hi BFCElvis,
Thank you very much for your answer!
But it seems that the  hedgerow "gap charging" problem continues arising in some situations:
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/134988-hummm-patche-4-i-need-your-opinion/?do=findComment&comment=1792929
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/135173-irrational-behaviour/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-1793211
Do you recognize this as a bug in the 4.02 version? Are you planning to fix this buggy behavior soon?
Thanks in advance!
Txema

The main reason is I have more money than time.  I am always willing to share my success with people willing to save me time.  
Just thought it would be a good model for someone not involved in BFC's volunteer brigade.  They can approach BFC and have a plan and timeline for updating by game or module.  BFC or volunteers QAs them.  They get posted on BFC and $ can be split.
If not, I'll just play what I have when I have time.  The short of it is, I want to spend my time playing, not rebuilding scenarios.

I really hope this module wont be as big of a disappointment as Gustav Line was. 
The CMBN MG module set the bar extremely high in content and bang for your buck. Gustav Line didn't have one map I deemed worthy. I really havent touched FI at all. CMRT looks more promising right now. 
It also bothers me how the module is advertised as 50 new vehicles when most are just reskins. I understand BF is a small company and I'm not demanding the impossible... but I hate seeing these things. Modern titles are much better value. 
That being said - I still plan on buying this, as to keep my collection complete. But I am totally prepared to be disappointed again. 

Great news! Thanks.
The product page for Rome to Victory says that it has 2 campaigns and 8 standalone battles. I assume that should be 18 standalone battles, to bring it in line with the other similarly priced modules? (Even the $10 battle packs have had a campaign and 10+ battles....)

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.

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.

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 ".
 

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?

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.

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 am more than willing to pay more for faster patches and releases.  I have said this for many years.  CM1 and CM2 are teals at what is charged for them.  So mark me down for paying more for a commitment to better communications, more organized patching, and faster releases.
btw, about the free account.  Can you ask the same question of betatesters and BFC?  Isn't that where the question should be asked?  Why ask every individual customer to have an acocunt so they can load a save file for someone they don't really know can download it into some mysterious QA process?  I just can't fathom not seeing that that responsibility should be on the developer.  And its so easy.  Its not rocket science.

Also, you can put controls in place for the saves.  Or maybe do what a lot of other companies do and let them add them to the forum.  As the frontline QA, delete saves on ones you think aren't effective, load the good ones in the bug tracking system. 
As was said above, this isn't rocket science.  A simple place for when you need a save from a customer, send them the link.  I have about a gig available on OneDrive that is free and fast.  I would imagine someone from BFC's unofficial employees has access to something similar.

And this is why you need a more formal process.  You need dedicated people doing QA.  You can't have betatesters doing sorting of issues and filtering of this stuff.  Look at the issues that have kept creeping into patches.  I'm not saying betatesters are completely ineffective, but they are less effective than someone with the tools and dedication to a formal process.  A sure sign of that is not a single place to put saves for real feedback.
Your frustration should be with BFC for not providing you the tools that a real QA tester would have.  Like a single repository for saves.  The universal opinion seems to be that it would be easy to set up a dropbox or drive folder.  So maybe someone from BFC should do it.  Again, instead of a couple dozen links from "customers".

Exactly, and especially when the presentation of a save game is used as a sort of gatekeeping method for bug reporting. The whole forum, at times, has had a kind of "save game or it didn't happen" sort of feel to it.
It's great that we, as customers, can help the developers isolate their software's bugs, but if a potential bug report isn't going to be taken 100% seriously until save-game evidence is presented, then there really should be some kind of simple, official, and centralized method for uploading those saved games.

Exactly, and especially when the presentation of a save game is used as a sort of gatekeeping method for bug reporting. The whole forum, at times, has had a kind of "save game or it didn't happen" sort of feel to it.
It's great that we, as customers, can help the developers isolate their software's bugs, but if a potential bug report isn't going to be taken 100% seriously until save-game evidence is presented, then there really should be some kind of simple, official, and centralized method for uploading those saved games.

I'm not saying its difficult.  Why is the onus on the customer.  There is a website and forum right here where saves could be posted.  Instead of a formal QA process, we have unpaid volunteers gathering files from 3rd party sites to help BFC.  Why can't BFC just step up and take the saves directly.  Instead of 30 people all creating links, have one place to do it.

So its not much effort.  We agree.  So why doesn't BFC do it.  Are you asking BFC staff the same questions?  They could set something up once instead of each of their customers doing it individually.

Yes you can.  Again the point is, why doesn't BFC do that?  Why have their customers all go through the effort.  It is relatively simple.  I don't hand out file links as a matter of principle.  But BFC is a business.  Why wouldn't they want to provide that level of support?

I have dropbox, drive, onedrive, etc.  But I don't hand out access to many people and then only people I know and trust personally.  So I can understand completely not wanting bother creating an account just because a commercial enterprise wants a save to help fix their product.  My expectation is if a company insists on saves to resolve issues, they would provide their own mechanism for it.  Even Matrix Games, with one of the most backward forum infrastructures around, lets you post compressed saves.