Any plans for 1.12?

[womble]

There's still a few planks (don't think it quite qualifies as a raft any more) of bugs waiting to get fixed in BN: mortar retargetting; deploy times, at least. Any news on the patch to fix 'em?

[Lt Belenko]

I think 2.01 with the QB PBEM 5% problem is a priority.

[womble]

Personally, I think older bugs should get fixed first. Then newer products don't need them fixing. But the modular software approach should make porting the fix for mortars and deploy times from 2.00 a trivial matter.

[Childress]

I believe deploy time was fixed, no?

[Sublime]

I think he means the bug where the crew members start crawling or wandering off when you try to deploy any crew weapons now. =(

the PBEM bug has struck me too and it sucks. And yes the mortar thing would help with making them a tad bit less lethal...

[womble]

I believe deploy time was fixed, no?

Not in 1.11, they weren't.

[Sublime]

wow. Sorry I just realized that the title has always said 1.12 not 2.01

So in 1.11 the deploy time wasnt fixed. 2.00 it is, but now a random crew member goes to the last waypoint or something, in my case they almost always crawl, and the weapon doesn't set up. I now give a waypoint 1 AS away before deploy waypoint. Not sure if it's working or not yet really =/ ( I just PBEM and started last night )

[womble]

Yeah, there does appear to be a "small issue" with deploying, introduced in 2.0 with the actual application of deployment times. I'm sure there'll be a 2.01 fairly soon, but I'm waiting to see if BFC expect us to pay for the two bugs I mentioned in my OP to be fixed.

[Faelwolf]

With what I've read of the deployment bug and others, I am waiting to see what they do in the patch before buying the upgrade. I imagine others are, too.

[womble]

With what I've read of the deployment bug and others, I am waiting to see what they do in the patch before buying the upgrade. I imagine others are, too.

I'm waiting to see what they do with 1.12 before buying anything else.

[slysniper]

I doubt you will ever see another fix for version 1

I have not bought version 2, for the simple fact that most of my games were in CMFI at the moment and the only HtH game in CMBN, my opponant has not upgraded, so why should I.

But now I figure I might wait just because version 2.0 bugs make it sound like playing 1.11 is the better choice til fixed.

But I am excited to get my CMBN to level 2.0 when the time comes.

I like the features in CMFI and will enjoy being able to update CMBN to it.

[womble]

I doubt you will ever see another fix for version 1...

So the BFC assertion that "bugs get fixed in free patches" is so much marketing hogwash? And the modular nature of the code is an equal amount of technical balderdash?

[Wodin]

Any bugs in version 2 will be fixed in patches I'm 100% certain.

[Battlefront.com]

So the BFC assertion that "bugs get fixed in free patches" is so much marketing hogwash?

Er, no. First off, have you received patches for v1.x for free already? Yes. So by definition it isn't "marketing hogwash". We also provided a 1.11 patch alongside 2.01. Which should indicate further that you're making yourself look rather silly.

Now, how much longer will be support v1.x? Longer than we would have under the old plan, that's for sure. But support will not be forever. Just like we don't support CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, CMSF, or CMA. No game is ever bug free, nor can it be, so that's an unreasonable expectation. At some point the games are considered "done" and we move on.

How many more patches will we do for CMBN v1.x? I don't know. We are planning on doing v1.12. We also will certainly stop supporting v1.x when we release v3.0 standard sometime towards the end of 2013.

And the modular nature of the code is an equal amount of technical balderdash?

There is no "balderdash" in the first lump of poo you put out in your post, so the second lump of poo is equally off the mark. Which means you are correct only because you are equally wrong on both counts.

Honestly, I don't know what gets into you guys sometimes. It's as if you sometimes need to invent things to bitch about.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Any bugs in version 2 will be fixed in patches I'm 100% certain.

Not necessarily. Here's the problem with supporting two standards. There is the v1.0 standard which has certain code structures, sub components, features, and what not. Then there is v2.0 standard which, although it shares a ton of common stuff, is not the same. Which is to say they are two entirely separate code bases.

Before Womble gets his knickers in a twist again, let me explain to you laypeople how things work.

We have two code bases. There is the previous version (in this case v1.0) and the current version (in this case v2.0). We have to maintain each one separately from each other because they are, in no small way, significantly different from each other. And the more time that goes on the more different they become. It could be that a change, like setup times, is easily "ported" from one to another. It could also be that it isn't because other functions have changed.

Think of it like a novel. If you rewrite significant sections for your second draft, it might not be so easy to make the same change in both. Maybe a character only exists in one of the drafts. Perhaps the town it is set in is changed to a city, which means that rural Sheriff character is now a Chief of Police. The second draft is now set in a cold climate and has a significant plot revolving around snow, while the first one was set in Florida had had mention of alligators in several places.

Sure, maybe the two drafts of the novel appear largely the same, but the devil is always in the details and details matter.

Steve

[WynnterGreen]

Personally I'm not sure why you would consider improving or altering v1.x after launching v2.0 accept for bug fixing so that the product 'works as intended'?

A couple of things while, hopefully, I have your ear.

The first is in regards to the quantity of people being plagued by the various PBEM [crash dump], [5% hangup] etc.

How did this get passed testing?

As a member of the subset of players who only play HTH PBEM games it's been an extraordinary disruption.

v2.0 is simply unplayable for a large percentage of the people I regularly play with, including myself.

Which is fine to the extent that I know, it will get fixed, and I can continue on with v1.11 until it is.

But, to me, CMBN 2.0 smacks slightly of being 'rushed out' before Christmas.

It would be really good to hear a simple explanation of the issue and a rough but realistic time frame before a patch.

To be honest, the real problem from the perspective of a user is the break break in coherency of the community of people I play with, which is quite large, into those that 'can' and those that 'want to, but cant' us there v2.0 of this otherwise amazing game.

The second thing is, in the 'Casualties, Wounded or Dead' thread.

You made a comment about 'needing a dedicated ambush button'.

Do you really need a dedicated button????

Couldn't you adjust existing behaviour so that;

If a unit is hidden and given a face command, it remains hidden no matter what happens, unless self preservation overrides all else.

But, if a Target Arc, or Target Armour Arc is set, the hidden unit remains so until it spots an appropriate enemy within the arc, at which point the unit simply un-hides.

That way you get both an Ambush, and Ambush Armour effect built into the Hide Button.

Cheers, and thanks.

[Wodin]

Not necessarily. Here's the problem with supporting two standards. There is the v1.0 standard which has certain code structures, sub components, features, and what not. Then there is v2.0 standard which, although it shares a ton of common stuff, is not the same. Which is to say they are two entirely separate code bases.

Before Womble gets his knickers in a twist again, let me explain to you laypeople how things work.

We have two code bases. There is the previous version (in this case v1.0) and the current version (in this case v2.0). We have to maintain each one separately from each other because they are, in no small way, significantly different from each other. And the more time that goes on the more different they become. It could be that a change, like setup times, is easily "ported" from one to another. It could also be that it isn't because other functions have changed.

Think of it like a novel. If you rewrite significant sections for your second draft, it might not be so easy to make the same change in both. Maybe a character only exists in one of the drafts. Perhaps the town it is set in is changed to a city, which means that rural Sheriff character is now a Chief of Police. The second draft is now set in a cold climate and has a significant plot revolving around snow, while the first one was set in Florida had had mention of alligators in several places.

Sure, maybe the two drafts of the novel appear largely the same, but the devil is always in the details and details matter.

Steve

So you wont be fixing any bugs in Version 2 for free then using patches? I'm now confused..are you saying that any bugs in version 2 wont be fixed or we will have to pay for them if we want them fixed? You'll only fix bugs in version 1? I've stuck up for you whenever possible, surely your not going to turn around and say we get no bug fixes in version 2 even though you paid for the upgrade? If so I can't defend that statement.

[sburke]

Personally I'm not sure why you would consider improving or altering v1.x after launching v2.0 accept for bug fixing so that the product 'works as intended'?

A couple of things while, hopefully, I have your ear.

The first is in regards to the quantity of people being plagued by the various PBEM [crash dump], [5% hangup] etc.

How did this get passed testing?

As a member of the subset of players who only play HTH PBEM games it's been an extraordinary disruption.

v2.0 is simply unplayable for a large percentage of the people I regularly play with, including myself.

Which is fine to the extent that I know, it will get fixed, and I can continue on with v1.11 until it is.

But, to me, CMBN 2.0 smacks slightly of being 'rushed out' before Christmas.

It would be really good to hear a simple explanation of the issue and a rough but realistic time frame before a patch.

To be honest, the real problem from the perspective of a user is the break break in coherency of the community of people I play with, which is quite large, into those that 'can' and those that 'want to, but cant' us there v2.0 of this otherwise amazing game.

The only systemic crashing issue with PBEMs as far as I know has to do with QBs. PBEM is certainly not unplayable by any stretch of the imagination- I have several going on. QBs I don't normally use, sorry about that one but if you wanted absolutely everything tested it would be a long time between releases.

No offense but do you recall just how many threads there were pushing BF to do or announce something... and then when they do they get - this seems rushed? LOL Please don't take offense this is not directed at you just a general observation of how we behave.

The last sentence is broken up but you do know you can have multiple installs at different versions right? There is no reason there has to be a break in the community, you simply need to confirm versions before creating the PBEM.

[Zatoichi]

So you wont be fixing any bugs in Version 2 for free then using patches? I'm now confused..are you saying that any bugs in version 2 wont be fixed or we will have to pay for them if we want them fixed? You'll only fix bugs in version 1? I've stuck up for you whenever possible, surely your not going to turn around and say we get no bug fixes in version 2 even though you paid for the upgrade? If so I can't defend that statement.

No, that's not what was said.

Version 1.x will get patches for bugs up until version 3.0 is released at some point in the future (possibly by the end of this year - yay!), at which point the version 1.x game will be considered 'done' as far as supporting it goes (as 'done' as CMBO, CMBB & CMAK are). Steve's post was just saying that it is more difficult to maintain two separate code bases going forwards, not that there would be any charges for patches. So don't worry!

Edit to add: From what Steve said, version 2.x will continue to have free patches at the same time that version 1.x is getting free patches, and I'm extrapolating here, version 2.x will presumably be considered 'done' if/when version 4.0 is released in the dim distant future. There will never be paid for patches, only paid for upgrades.

[womble]

Er, no. First off, have you received patches for v1.x for free already? Yes. So by definition it isn't "marketing hogwash". We also provided a 1.11 patch alongside 2.01. Which should indicate further that you're making yourself look rather silly.

I asked a question. It got an answer:

We are planning on doing v1.12.

Which is fantastic news.

No game is ever bug free...that's an unreasonable expectation.

Is it that unreasonable that a bug which can be fixed in v2 of a modular code base that's grown from v1 can be fixed in v1.11?

There is no "balderdash" in the first lump of poo...

I made no statement. Note the question mark.

That I have to ask a challenging question to get a response out of you is the reason your mushroom-farming based customer relationship management model needs amending, Steve.

Honestly, I don't know what gets into you guys sometimes. It's as if you sometimes need to invent things to bitch about.

So those bugs are invented? Really?

[Battlefront.com]

So you wont be fixing any bugs in Version 2 for free then using patches?

Holy crow... how did you get THAT out of what I wrote? Of COURSE we will fix things in v2.0 for free. Have we ever done anything to indicate we wouldn't support something we just started selling? The question was about v1.x, specifically if there is to be a v1.12. That's what I was addressing.

It's a little disheartening to see how quickly faith can be shaken by one misread response, even after 14 years of solid track record to check against.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Personally I'm not sure why you would consider improving or altering v1.x after launching v2.0 accept for bug fixing so that the product 'works as intended'?

That's the extent of what we will do for the previous version of CM is (in this case v1.x). And even then only if it is technically feasible.

The first is in regards to the quantity of people being plagued by the various PBEM [crash dump], [5% hangup] etc.

How did this get passed testing?

Stuff always gets through testing, even for products with literally thousands of testers (Microsoft [fill in blank product] is a perfect example).

For us, it's the downside of having a game with so much going on and so many different ways to play. It is impractical to test for every single possibility every single time we get a new build to play with. For all I know there was no PBEM problem for the first 3 months we were testing and it was only introduced the last build.

As a member of the subset of players who only play HTH PBEM games it's been an extraordinary disruption.

No doubt. And the fact that this is only biting an extremely small number of people in the rump is no comfort either. Totally understandable.

But, to me, CMBN 2.0 smacks slightly of being 'rushed out' before Christmas.

Nah, it was just bad luck. Something had to not work as expected and in this case it was something you use a lot.

It would be really good to hear a simple explanation of the issue and a rough but realistic time frame before a patch.

Oh, that's an easy one

1. The issue is it doesn't work in specific circumstances

2. Those circumstances were unfortunately not tested when it was not working

3. We found the problem

4. We fixed the problem

5. We will release a patch as soon as we're reasonably sure we didn't break something else.

Timeframe? Very soon.

To be honest, the real problem from the perspective of a user is the break break in coherency of the community of people I play with, which is quite large, into those that 'can' and those that 'want to, but cant' us there v2.0 of this otherwise amazing game.

Yup, and that is regrettable even if it is temporary. However, there is a completely viable work around as sburke points out below...

The second thing is, in the 'Casualties, Wounded or Dead' thread.

You made a comment about 'needing a dedicated ambush button'.

Do you really need a dedicated button????

We had hoped not, but given the experience since 2007 I think it would be good to have. Following your suggestion, if Hide were conditional based on the Arc, then you would not be able to Hide a unit for protection or saving ammo unless you first canceled the Arc. There comes a time when a single Command is being asked to do too much, even when used in conjunction with another Command.

No offense but do you recall just how many threads there were pushing BF to do or announce something... and then when they do they get - this seems rushed? LOL Please don't take offense this is not directed at you just a general observation of how we behave.

The irony is never lost on me, even after all these years

The last sentence is broken up but you do know you can have multiple installs at different versions right? There is no reason there has to be a break in the community, you simply need to confirm versions before creating the PBEM.

Quite.

No, that's not what was said.

Version 1.x will get patches for bugs up until version 3.0 is released at some point in the future (possibly by the end of this year - yay!), at which point the version 1.x game will be considered 'done' as far as supporting it goes (as 'done' as CMBO, CMBB & CMAK are). Steve's post was just saying that it is more difficult to maintain two separate code bases going forwards, not that there would be any charges for patches. So don't worry!

Edit to add: From what Steve said, version 2.x will continue to have free patches at the same time that version 1.x is getting free patches, and I'm extrapolating here, version 2.x will presumably be considered 'done' if/when version 4.0 is released in the dim distant future. There will never be paid for patches, only paid for upgrades.

You, sir, have been paying attention. Gold star for you

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I asked a question. It got an answer:

Which is fantastic news.

Glad you liked it.

Is it that unreasonable that a bug which can be fixed in v2 of a modular code base that's grown from v1 can be fixed in v1.11?

As a general expectation? Yes, it is unreasonable. But it really does come down to specifics. v2 is modular only for other v2 products, not earlier and not later. Maybe x thing can be fixed easily, maybe not. Totally depends on what x is.

Test the theory for yourself. Ask a Czech something in Slovene and tell me how easily you're understood even though the two languages come from a common source. If you're asking for 2 beers it will almost certainly work. If you're asking for directions to the center of town, it might work. If you want an explanation for the split with Slovakia, I'm guessing it might be a lost cause.

Or more local to you, ask a Scotsman anything in English and see if you understand the answer. (said with much love and affection for the Scottish take on English )

I made no statement. Note the question mark.

Snide questions generally imply a certain negative expectation ahead of the answer. Otherwise they wouldn't be snide.

That I have to ask a challenging question to get a response out of you

Hmm... so what you are saying is the only way to get me to answer a question is to be disrespectful and obnoxious? That's an interesting theory.

is the reason your mushroom-farming based customer relationship management model needs amending, Steve.

I answer questions in the same tone they are posed. You were unnecessarily rude so I answered you in an appropriate tone. If you had posted in a respectful manner then you would have received a very different answer. Which means my customer relationship management model is working perfectly.

So those bugs are invented? Really?

No, suggesting that we don't release free patches when we have done so dozens of times before is invented.

Nobody forced you to write what you wrote. Be mature enough to accept the consequences.

Steve

[Pvt. Ryan]

Seeing as tomorrow is 1.12, I can announce that my plans are a haircut, lunch, watching football and playing CM.

[womble]

As a general expectation? Yes, it is unreasonable. But it really does come down to specifics. v2 is modular only for other v2 products, not earlier and not later.

That's pretty boggling, Steve. Are you saying there was no code reuse between CMx2 v1 and v2? That every function was rewritten? The mortar targeting thing is just a state that's not being reset when it should be. Even if Charles and Phil completely rewrote the mortar direct lay targeting algorithms, that would strongly inform them as to where in the v1 code they needed to look to make sure the state was being reset.

Totally depends on what x is.

Personally, the only x that I care enough about to fret is the mortar targeting thing. Deploy times are a "nice to have", but, to use an over- (and usually badly) used metaphor, the mortar thing is a bit like buying a car with a defective parking brake: if you know about it one can generally get by without it, since one is "average" and therefore an excellent driver, but you're always at risk of the thing rolling away and wrecking other cars or street furniture.

Or more local to you, ask a Scotsman anything in English and see if you understand the answer. (said with much love and affection for the Scottish take on English )

That will depend very much on the Scot.

Snide questions generally imply a certain negative expectation ahead of the answer. Otherwise they wouldn't be snide.

They weren't snide, they were hyperbolic. And they were in response to someone stating an opinion that you weren't doing a 1.12. I asked those questions in the hope that the answer would be, materially, what you answered.

Hmm... so what you are saying is the only way to get me to answer a question is to be disrespectful and obnoxious? That's an interesting theory.

I have to apologise for that particularly hubristic and solipsistic point. I can offer in mitigation only that it was late, and I wanted to answer before I hit the sack, so I rushed.

I answer questions in the same tone they are posed. You were unnecessarily rude so I answered you in an appropriate tone. If you had posted in a respectful manner then you would have received a very different answer. Which means my customer relationship management model is working perfectly.

Did you read my initial post? That was, I believe, entirely without any potential for interpretation as rude or disrespectful. The post you responded to was a response to another, and as I said was hyperbolic, and not intended as an attack on you.

No, suggesting that we don't release free patches when we have done so dozens of times before is invented.

The point I'm trying to make, I think, is:

1) There is a bug

2) It's fixed in the paid-for upgrade

3) It's not fixed in the free patch

4) This generates the perception that you are charging for bug fixes.

That prception is harmful to you, even when it's only some bugs. I have, here and in other places, defended BFC from broad sweep "Charging for patches" accusations. I don't believe you ever intend to stop giving free patches for bugs. My agenda, which should be perfectly obvious, is to get the mortar bug fixed in CMBN v1 so I can honestly say that I believe you'll fix all the serious bugs before dropping support for a line.