27 replies to this topic

[Joe Mallad]

Before anyone jumps all over me for crying that there is no patch today... I dont care for a content patch. Im not worried about new maps, new mech, new skins and so on. But I do have to say that with us not getting at least a smaller patch to FIX the many ongoing and growing list of bugs and crashes... I am in no way looking forward to next week's patch now. In EVERY patch we get a load of new bugs and crashes that have just been building up as of late. If PGI isnt going to at least try and fix SOME of them this week and HOPE they will have them fixed by next week then what?

We are just going to have most of these current bugs/crashes carry over and with a new content patch as the one we are getting on the 20th, comes many new bugs. And when that happens, the bugs and things that need to be fixed NOW just get pushed back by new issues. The stuff that has been issues from many patches past just ends up getting lost in the process.

Can we at least get a reply on current issues that many have brought to PGI's attention. Can we get an answer on what may be getting attention and what is being held off or not being worked on at all?

At this point I would prefer that no new content is added until you guys can fix ALL the issues with the game that we have now. All thats happening is more content is being added and rushed into the mix and its not even functioning anywhere near the way it should. And you are getting a lot of people who are supporting you by buying your new content with MC and C-bills just to be let down because its nothing that its meant to be.

[Clay Pigeon]

There was a fix patch on the 8th.

[Joe Mallad]

Clay Pigeon, on 13 November 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

There was a fix patch on the 8th.

that was a hotfix to the LRM issue that was caused because of Artemis And the only reason that was fixed because it was a major issue. Ok so 1 major issue was fixed... what about the others? lol

[Clay Pigeon]

You don't really think the only thing fixed in the patch (yes it was a patch, not a server-only hotfix), was the LRMs do you?

[SquareSphere]

lol during close beta we had to go 3-4 weeks without a patch at the beginning. The fact their (mostly) hitting their two week patch goals should be praised.

[Rathe]

PGI's last 3 patches have been utter debacles. I think them taking an extra week to work on this one makes good sense. Turn it around PGI!

[Teliopas]

It is disturbing the amount of negativity towards the people that are spending their lives making this game work for you, I guarantee they put in more hours than you do at work. It seems all MMO players can do is complain.

I look forward to see what they have lined up for us but I'm not going to insult their work when they are doing their best with half the manpower they should have for a game like this. Though I also do hope they address some of the instability issues that have been plaguing us for so long, I'm sure they haven't forgotten about them and doing their best to fix everything.

[Joe Mallad]

Clay Pigeon, on 13 November 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

You don't really think the only thing fixed in the patch (yes it was a patch, not a server-only hotfix), was the LRMs do you?

Im sure other things were tweaked but what about the many crashes? What about people STILL having armor or weapon bug issues that has been going on for IDK... months now? May not be a bug but the whole Heat system is a major issue that the match keeps getting messed up on lol. You would think the lag issues would be more priority. MANY people are still being dropped from game... something that has been going on for ever. We have LRMs firing from mech's backsides lol. Many people are running into the shut down bug that does not let them start back up and or the bug that shows them as always overheated. Many are still having the issue that their mechs are dying randomly. All the larger laser weapons and PPCs are still useless because of the heat system. And Some of those weapons are getting higher heat build up added to them? Why? Every one of these issues are KNOWN issues but how long does it take to fix these KNOWN issues before you add more content that just adds more issues?

[Lanessar]

It's just a matter of testing schedule and how things play out. A redeploy (what we call a "patch") is a pain in the rear to actually accomplish within a week.

In many software companies, there are procedures for test plans, coding, distributing the code, working on branches or on trunk (as far as the base code is concerned). Sometimes, it's easier to wait for the other fixes to be incorporated into the content patch, as things in the content patch version have already been fixed.

Realize it's been clearly stated that the devs are working two patches ahead of the version we are on. To merge that code with the code we are playing on would break more things. Breaking out that code would require more work (say another week's worth) to get working with the live "version" of the code.

So, would you rather 40-80 development hours (this is a conservative estimate) go into making those fixes backwards compatible to fix a relatively "minor" issue, or have those hours going into fixing additional bugs, or adding an additional feature?

I personally think the tradeoffs are going to be too great to spend that time making it work for one mini-bug-fix patch. I can play the game, and the bugs I encounter are annoying, but not game-breaking. YMMV, of course, but if the issue affects 3 out of 1000 customers, then delaying a bugfix patch is probably wise. I don't know the numbers so I won't even presume to second-guess the devs on whatever bugs you are referring to.

The LRM issue was absolutely game-breaking, and I'm sure that it was three days work to revert to the "live" code base, fix the issues in the live code, and "hotfix" the code to live servers. Not to mention incorporate those code changes into the newer code base (which wasn't just setting a "2" to a "1" or simple things like that). It's never pleasant, but it was necessary to make the game playable.

[Joe Mallad]

Rathe, on 13 November 2012 - 01:57 PM, said:

PGI's last 3 patches have been utter debacles. I think them taking an extra week to work on this one makes good sense. Turn it around PGI!

thats my point though. I understand that with the next patch, there will be some fixes or attempts at fixes with the lack of a patch this week but next weeks patch is a major content patch... and with major content patches comes more bugs and issues. We all know this. So why not hold off on the content and fix the KNOWN issues first is all im saying.

[Vermaxx]

The phrase 'their best isn't good enough' becomes applicable here.

The hours they're slaving seem wasted, because every major content AND correction patch has come out with some other glaring problem in it. After they ran for weeks in the test engine.

They need to stop the content. STOP THE CONTENT. Cancel all the goals of mechs, and maps, and graphics updates, and nail down what they want heatsinks to do, correct the netcode as much as they can, get DX11 in (that might improve performance for people capable of running it), and make the UI more stable.

After they fix all this borking crap that won't sell MC, they can worry about YelloWang 2.0 and Frozen Caldera.

[aspect]

[Joe Mallad]

Vermaxx, on 13 November 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

The phrase 'their best isn't good enough' becomes applicable here.

The hours they're slaving seem wasted, because every major content AND correction patch has come out with some other glaring problem in it. After they ran for weeks in the test engine.

They need to stop the content. STOP THE CONTENT. Cancel all the goals of mechs, and maps, and graphics updates, and nail down what they want heatsinks to do, correct the netcode as much as they can, get DX11 in (that might improve performance for people capable of running it), and make the UI more stable.

After they fix all this borking crap that won't sell MC, they can worry about YelloWang 2.0 and Frozen Caldera.

THIS!!!! Thank you!

[aspect]

Vermaxx, on 13 November 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

The phrase 'their best isn't good enough' becomes applicable here.

The hours they're slaving seem wasted, because every major content AND correction patch has come out with some other glaring problem in it. After they ran for weeks in the test engine.

They need to stop the content. STOP THE CONTENT. Cancel all the goals of mechs, and maps, and graphics updates, and nail down what they want heatsinks to do, correct the netcode as much as they can, get DX11 in (that might improve performance for people capable of running it), and make the UI more stable.

After they fix all this borking crap that won't sell MC, they can worry about YelloWang 2.0 and Frozen Caldera.

Do you actually, really think that there is a single person working on maps and mechs instead of netcode or balancing at PGI? You do realize that different people have different jobs right?

[Tarman]

Vermaxx, on 13 November 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

The phrase 'their best isn't good enough' becomes applicable here.

The hours they're slaving seem wasted, because every major content AND correction patch has come out with some other glaring problem in it. After they ran for weeks in the test engine.

They need to stop the content. STOP THE CONTENT. Cancel all the goals of mechs, and maps, and graphics updates, and nail down what they want heatsinks to do, correct the netcode as much as they can, get DX11 in (that might improve performance for people capable of running it), and make the UI more stable.

After they fix all this borking crap that won't sell MC, they can worry about YelloWang 2.0 and Frozen Caldera.

YES.

I submit that we get all the art and design guys down in the codemonkey room even though they know nothing about coding! That will surely help to make sure that unforseen problems will fit nicely into a timed schedule.

[Joe Mallad]

aspect, on 13 November 2012 - 02:04 PM, said:

You thought of that all by yourself?

aspect, on 13 November 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

Do you actually, really think that there is a single person working on maps and mechs instead of netcode or balancing at PGI? You do realize that different people have different jobs right?

the issue is the guys working on Netcoding or balancing dont seem to be making much progress as of late lol. The guys making the mechs and visual looks of the game are not the issue.

[aspect]

Yoseful Mallad, on 13 November 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

You thought of that all by yourself?

Make an immature thread, get immature replies...

Level designer != mech designer != artist != balancing developer != netcode programmer != QA tester

[MrPenguin]

Lanessar, on 13 November 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

It's just a matter of testing schedule and how things play out. A redeploy (what we call a "patch") is a pain in the rear to actually accomplish within a week.

In many software companies, there are procedures for test plans, coding, distributing the code, working on branches or on trunk (as far as the base code is concerned). Sometimes, it's easier to wait for the other fixes to be incorporated into the content patch, as things in the content patch version have already been fixed.

Realize it's been clearly stated that the devs are working two patches ahead of the version we are on. To merge that code with the code we are playing on would break more things. Breaking out that code would require more work (say another week's worth) to get working with the live "version" of the code.

So, would you rather 40-80 development hours (this is a conservative estimate) go into making those fixes backwards compatible to fix a relatively "minor" issue, or have those hours going into fixing additional bugs, or adding an additional feature?

I personally think the tradeoffs are going to be too great to spend that time making it work for one mini-bug-fix patch. I can play the game, and the bugs I encounter are annoying, but not game-breaking. YMMV, of course, but if the issue affects 3 out of 1000 customers, then delaying a bugfix patch is probably wise. I don't know the numbers so I won't even presume to second-guess the devs on whatever bugs you are referring to.

The LRM issue was absolutely game-breaking, and I'm sure that it was three days work to revert to the "live" code base, fix the issues in the live code, and "hotfix" the code to live servers. Not to mention incorporate those code changes into the newer code base (which wasn't just setting a "2" to a "1" or simple things like that). It's never pleasant, but it was necessary to make the game playable.

Can we just make this a thread and sticky it?

Vermaxx, on 13 November 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

The hours they're slaving seem wasted, because every major content AND correction patch has come out with some other glaring problem in it.

This is exactly how it feels like to be a programer. :/

[Lanessar]

Vermaxx, on 13 November 2012 - 02:03 PM, said:

The phrase 'their best isn't good enough' becomes applicable here.

The hours they're slaving seem wasted, because every major content AND correction patch has come out with some other glaring problem in it. After they ran for weeks in the test engine.

They need to stop the content. STOP THE CONTENT. Cancel all the goals of mechs, and maps, and graphics updates, and nail down what they want heatsinks to do, correct the netcode as much as they can, get DX11 in (that might improve performance for people capable of running it), and make the UI more stable.

After they fix all this borking crap that won't sell MC, they can worry about YelloWang 2.0 and Frozen Caldera.

Honestly... I can't disagree with this sentiment. However, they may have 1,000 customers to 3 that feel differently. I'm a Product Manager in software (used to be Lead QA), so I'm sort of on the "clean up existing code, then introduce a new set of changes (and bugs) after the old stuff is fixed".

However, since becoming Product Manager, I also have learned that there is a feature demand from end-users which must be appeased. This is usually pushed by the... well, "me's", and other higher-ups. There is no way to avoid this in development. You have to get up to "feature complete" before ironing everything else out, or it will just be knackered as soon as you do
introduce the new stuff.

I'm not looking at their code, so I'm not sure if they can just do a code freeze or not. It may not be viable. Hence "beta". Not to use that as an excuse for bad dev practice; just mentioning how it might not be feasible to do what you want.

[aspect]

Yoseful Mallad, on 13 November 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

the issue is the guys working on Netcoding or balancing dont seem to be making much progress as of late lol. The guys making the mechs and visual looks of the game are not the issue.

You said:
"At this point I would prefer that no new content is added until you guys can fix ALL the issues with the game that we have now."

...and agreed with a guy who said:
"They need to stop the content. STOP THE CONTENT. Cancel all the goals of mechs, and maps, and graphics updates, and nail down what they want heatsinks to do, correct the netcode as much as they can, get DX11 in (that might improve performance for people capable of running it), and make the UI more stable."

Please explain how you are not lumping the content people in with the testing/programming people.

What do you propose to solve the problem of them "not making enough progress". Should they be working weekends? All night? Maybe they should bring you in so you can manage the team?

What message are you trying to get across besides "I am disappointed in the progress on solving issues even though I don't know what causes them or how much work is involved in fixing them"?