207 réponses à ce sujet

[Fortack]

justin_sayne1 wrote...

Since you brought up the idea of "acceptable severity", I thought I would share a sample severity ranking:

SEV 1 - System will not function. (I.e. crashes on start)
SEV 2 - System only function in degraded mode or for short duration. (I.e. slows down to unusable or crashes after a time)
SEV 3 - Critical workflow paths cannot be followed. (I.e. engine works fine, but can't complete main tasks)
SEV 4 - Logic error (I.e. host migration error)
SEV 5 - Cosmetic (I.e. Falls off map, wrong graphic, weapon shoots wrong projectile, etc.)

I applaud BioWare QA that we did not see any SEV 1, 2 or 3 issues (OK, well, except for the SEV 3 "online pass" issue after a patch), and only a few SEV 4.  Plus, I am certain that the number of SEV 5 that got out the door pales in comparison to the ones that didn't.

So when I buy, say, a car and the engine doesn't blow when starting (SEV 1), after driving a couple miles (SEV 2), or the brakes fail (SEV 3), I should be happy and "applaud" the designers? What nonsense is this?

Software is a product and I daresay something like a car or an airplane are WAY more complex to design than a computer game yet nobody is going to accept those products failing miserably on a regular basis. Software quality standards are poor (unfortunately) for obvious reason. That's not something anyone should be happy about. We should be pissed and voice our disappointment so maybe things might improve a little in the future.

Of course software (like everything else) will never be "perfect", but as an industry their standards are below par. I don't like to pay good money to be a quasi beta-tester, sorry.

[xtorma]

Ninja Stan wrote...

There are many factors that also prevent bugs from being fixed. Fixing bugs and releasing patches takes more than zero time and effort, so that time and effort have to be spent wisely. Do you fix a couple of giant bugs, or knock out as many tiny bugs as you can? Fixing the giant bugs is super noticeable, but fixing a ton of tiny bugs is also noticeable, just less so.

Bug priority is a big thing. Yeah, you can fix a couple of giant bugs, but how many people does it affect? How easy is it to reproduce? If it's a hugs bug, but only affects a few people, the priority of that bug might be reduced in favour of a smaller bug that affects everyone. Of course, giant bugs that affect everyone will usually have high priorities.

One factor that many people will likely be unaware of is stability. Sure, there may be a big bug that's affecting a bunch of people, but if it's in a system that has a lot of dependencies or is unstable to begin with, messing with the code in that area is like taking a Jenga block out of a section that's already got some blocks removed. Sure, you might fix it without affecting any other system, but then, the entire thing could come crashing down. Of course, once again, huge bugs affecting everyone (such as game crashes, save corruption, and plot states) are usually given priority regardless of how unstable the system is (which may be a bug in and of itself) or how long it takes to fix.

Many people get rather impatient waiting for fixes, but remember all of the steps that need to be followed in order for a fix to appear for you. First of all, the bug needs to be reproduceable. The easier it is for a dev team to reproduce a bug, the easier it'll be to find the root cause and determine whether a fix is feasible. As implied in my previous paragraphs, not all fixes are feasible, no matter how you as a gamer feel about it. Once a bug is reproduced and fixed, it has to be tested a lot. This is to ensure the bug doesn't cause other problems. The more obscure the bug, the harder it is to test. And QA needs to test the fix as cleanly as possible, so if a bug only occurs at the end of the game, QA might have to play through the whole game without cheating any number of times in order to ensure it's fixed. (Remember this the next time you have any kind of "completionist" achievement in a game. Someone had to test that in-game without cheating. Multiple times. Likely for months.) The more dependencies a system has, the more QA has to test, in order to ensure those systems are also not negatively affected by the fix.

Finally, once the fix has been verified in a build--and note that many different fixes are likely implemented at a time in new builds--that new build itself has to be tested. Essentially, the game itself (with the fixes) has to be re-tested.

Done, right? The build's good, which means you get to play the fixed game. Unfortunately, there are still a couple of things left to do. Important things.

The fix had better not be affected by VO or text, because there is more than one version of the game out there, and not all of them display things the same way. This is why patches don't usually include text fixes, translation changes, or wholesale changes to GUI size or layout. You don't want to render the German text unreadable, say, or make the player download hundreds of MB worth of VO or animation files for a patch.

Secondly, the patch installer has to be built and tested. For every platform. For every language. For every version. Not everyone will be installing the patch from PC region 1 ver. 1,01. What about 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, etc.? What about Steam or other digital versions? The Eastern Europe SKU? And consoles? All of those have to be able to patch to the correct version.

And finally, the whole thing has to meet each console manufacturer's certification standards. All product releases on Xbox and PS3 have to work a certain way, and they have to meet certain standards of presentation and reliability. If a developer or publisher fails to meet a certain number of those standards, or miss even one of the must-have standards, the product cannot be approved for release. BioWare, for example, has an entire (tiny) department devoted entirely to knowing about, testing, and documenting the state of these standards.

So if you experience an issue in a software product, before making a statement like "why didn't QA catch this?" please note that QA is just one step among many between unintended behaviour being noticed and a user running a fixed version of the product.

so once again...how long are we supposed to be patient? How much time do you guys need to fix say....the asari justicar power evolution bug? 2 months? 3? 6? or does the fact that a character evolution does not work sit so low on the priority scale, that we will be waiting forever for it?

Absolutly take all the time you need to make it right, but for crissakes let us know something. What is the point of  not saying anything?

[Ninja Stan]

xtorma wrote...

there has to be an average time or no one could get a business plan past the bank, or a board. Why is it different for everyone? I would assume it's because different teams have different skill levels. If this is the case , at what point to we give up and just accept that it wont be fixed?

Fixes cost more than zero time and effort, so it's a money issue more than anything. Developers and publishers are not obligated to release patches. I caught a crapton of flak for this when I used it in discussion a couple of years ago, but if you look at it within the context of this discussion, it's kinda true. Companies release patches so their customers have fewer problems, and if their customers have fewer problems, they are more likely to see the product as useful and worth the money paid for it. And when that happens, a customer is considered to be a "satisfied" one. It's not a quantifiable process (at least, it isn't to me, but there are math people who can and have put numbers to it), but an important one.

Because money is involved, there needs to be a business case made for devoting time and effort to a patch. Product release schedules, manpower allocations, project budgets--all are consulted before making room for a patch. (Note that these days, most studios will already have factored in patch time in their schedules.) And because each company is different when dealing with money and schedules, and the priority placed on such things, each company will release patches differently. One company might only have the time or money to do a single, quick patch before moving onto the next project. A different company might be able to take its time. A third company might be able to do multiple patches. A fourth might be able to take its time but only fix a few things, while a fifth might bust its hump to do one giant day-one patch. A sixth might be able to release official patches for a game 10 years down the line.

Different companies, different priorities.

[Ninja Stan]

Kasrkin wrote...

Toxicity; granted.

3 months of live "playtesting", check.

Balance issues aside, there are several bugs/glitches that need to be *recognized* by Bioware as recreatable/repeatable by them, and acknowledged as existing.

A "Current Known Issues" thread/sticky. That in and of itself would defuse a lot of the frustration that people have in regards to MP.

Not a review of 3 million lines of code. A thread. The absence of said thread speaks volumes to me.

Right now you are thinking "BioWare hasn't acknowledged it, they must not care about it."
Once BioWare acknowledges it, you will be thinking "BioWare knows about it, but they're not fixing it. They must not care about it."
If BioWare acknowledges it, but it doesn't show up in the next patch, you will be thinking "BioWare knows about it, and they fixed all these other things, they must not care about it."

This pattern has repeated itself with every new game product released since Neverwinter Nights. It's not an exaggeration. As a BioWare Moderator and tester, I have seen this very same pattern play out each and every time. Not from everyone, certainly, but there will always be a subset of the community who believes that there is something to be gained by BioWare addressing every single issue being brought up by the community.

[xtorma]

Ninja Stan wrote...

xtorma wrote...

there has to be an average time or no one could get a business plan past the bank, or a board. Why is it different for everyone? I would assume it's because different teams have different skill levels. If this is the case , at what point to we give up and just accept that it wont be fixed?

Fixes cost more than zero time and effort, so it's a money issue more than anything. Developers and publishers are not obligated to release patches. I caught a crapton of flak for this when I used it in discussion a couple of years ago, but if you look at it within the context of this discussion, it's kinda true. Companies release patches so their customers have fewer problems, and if their customers have fewer problems, they are more likely to see the product as useful and worth the money paid for it. And when that happens, a customer is considered to be a "satisfied" one. It's not a quantifiable process (at least, it isn't to me, but there are math people who can and have put numbers to it), but an important one.

Because money is involved, there needs to be a business case made for devoting time and effort to a patch. Product release schedules, manpower allocations, project budgets--all are consulted before making room for a patch. (Note that these days, most studios will already have factored in patch time in their schedules.) And because each company is different when dealing with money and schedules, and the priority placed on such things, each company will release patches differently. One company might only have the time or money to do a single, quick patch before moving onto the next project. A different company might be able to take its time. A third company might be able to do multiple patches. A fourth might be able to take its time but only fix a few things, while a fifth might bust its hump to do one giant day-one patch. A sixth might be able to release official patches for a game 10 years down the line.

Different companies, different priorities.

so is this company commited to patching? Because the only reason i can see for your post, is that they are not, which is why it is taking so long. Would it help if we spent more money on packs? I would be more then happy to spend money to get the patches going, but there is no indicator that it makes a difference one way or another.

You guys have done a good thing here, let us all know how we can help make it better

[Mgamerz]

xtorma wrote...

Mgamerz wrote...

I didn't state any threshhold since it's going to be different for everyone. I'd say about 3 months is as long as a crippling bug can wait. That said, I'm not sure I'd say the vanguard bug is crippling, just 'severe'.
You would have to ask Derek, he's on QA, I'm sure he's read this thread by now

there has to be an average time or no one could get a business plan past the bank, or a board. Why is it different for everyone? I would assume it's because different teams have different skill levels. If this is the case , at what point to we give up and just accept that it wont be fixed?

Obviously no one outside of the company can answer that, in fact , according to you , no one within the company can answer it. 

BTW  lol at the vanguard bug not being crippling. Are you basing that on the fact that we have so many classes to choose from , or are you basing it on the fact that it's ok to fall through the map once every 3 games?

No, I said an acceptable window of fixing a bug is different for everyone - like for me 3 months, for you , 2 months. I don't work for EA/BioWare/Software Dev companies (I run my own software under Mgamerz Productions on Android Market).
I don't know what their policy on bug fixing is, and I don't claim to know it either.


Also, Excellent posts stan. Glad to have some BioWare employees joining the conversation.
I do think a bug tracker, or at least a 'known issues, but no fixes guaranteed' thread would be useful. Or at least fixes that have been confirmed to be fixed thread for next patch release.

Fortack wrote...

justin_sayne1 wrote...

Since you brought up the idea of "acceptable severity", I thought I would share a sample severity ranking:

SEV 1 - System will not function. (I.e. crashes on start)
SEV 2 - System only function in degraded mode or for short duration. (I.e. slows down to unusable or crashes after a time)
SEV 3 - Critical workflow paths cannot be followed. (I.e. engine works fine, but can't complete main tasks)
SEV 4 - Logic error (I.e. host migration error)
SEV 5 - Cosmetic (I.e. Falls off map, wrong graphic, weapon shoots wrong projectile, etc.)

I
applaud BioWare QA that we did not see any SEV 1, 2 or 3 issues (OK,
well, except for the SEV 3 "online pass" issue after a patch), and only a
few SEV 4.  Plus, I am certain that the number of SEV 5 that got out
the door pales in comparison to the ones that didn't.

So
when I buy, say, a car and the engine doesn't blow when starting (SEV
1), after driving a couple miles (SEV 2), or the brakes fail (SEV 3), I
should be happy and "applaud" the designers? What nonsense is this?

Software
is a product and I daresay something like a car or an airplane are WAY
more complex to design than a computer game yet nobody is going to
accept those products failing miserably on a regular basis. Software
quality standards are poor (unfortunately) for obvious reason. That's
not something anyone should be happy about. We should be pissed and
voice our disappointment so maybe things might improve a little in the
future.

Of course software (like everything else) will never be
"perfect", but as an industry their standards are below par. I don't
like to pay good money to be a quasi beta-tester, sorry.

I think software is a lot more difficult than a car, since you don't have to redesign a car every 2 years from pretty much scratch.
Cars typically have minimal tweaks between years, and cars are not software. You don't get 'bugs' in a car (well... cockroaches in the cupholders). You don't hear about problems with cars and planes unless it's in the news.
Every time a part in a car fails, you have to fix it right? New tires, brakes, GAS? Same for coding. 'huge' problems are car not starting and stuff... But maintainece is the same as patches. It's a money issue, should I keep pouring money into a game that has diminishing returns? And this isn't just 'EA'. This applies to almost all software companies.

Modifié par Mgamerz, 26 juin 2012 - 09:44 .

[xtorma]

by the way , thanks for answering Mr. Stan

[xtorma]

Mgamerz wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Mgamerz wrote...

I didn't state any threshhold since it's going to be different for everyone. I'd say about 3 months is as long as a crippling bug can wait. That said, I'm not sure I'd say the vanguard bug is crippling, just 'severe'.
You would have to ask Derek, he's on QA, I'm sure he's read this thread by now

there has to be an average time or no one could get a business plan past the bank, or a board. Why is it different for everyone? I would assume it's because different teams have different skill levels. If this is the case , at what point to we give up and just accept that it wont be fixed?

Obviously no one outside of the company can answer that, in fact , according to you , no one within the company can answer it. 

BTW  lol at the vanguard bug not being crippling. Are you basing that on the fact that we have so many classes to choose from , or are you basing it on the fact that it's ok to fall through the map once every 3 games?

No, I said an acceptable window of fixing a bug is different for everyone - like for me 3 months, for you , 2 months. I don't work for EA/BioWare/Software Dev companies (I run my own software under Mgamerz Productions on Android Market).
I don't know what their policy on bug fixing is, and I don't claim to know it either.

If the acceptable window is different for everyone, then how are us mere mortals supposed to know when it's time to shoot the horse?

[Ninja Stan]

xtorma wrote...
so is this company commited to patching?

Define "committed to patching." Working hard to eliminate what problems they can with the time and resources available? I would say yes, as BioWare routinely releases more than one patch for their games. Addressing every issue that someone feels is important? Absolutely not. BioWare's priorities may not be the same as yours, and that may go for each and every customer BioWare has. You haven't the same information BioWare has, you don't know their budgets, you don't know their priorities, and they are unlikely to routinely share such information until such time as a patch is a sure thing and about to be released, for example, or they start asking for input on what issues the community is having.

Because the only reason i can see for your post, is that they are not, which is why it is taking so long. Would it help if we spent more money on packs? I would be more then happy to spend money to get the patches going, but there is no indicator that it makes a difference one way or another.

I suppose you would know better than anyone how game development works, and it can't possibly work any other way than the way you think.

You guys have done a good thing here, let us all know how we can help make it better

Mature, civil discussions like the one in this thread are a good start. Learning about the process, as some in this thread have done through their education or their jobs, also helps. The more you know, the more you start to know what you don't know. Constructive feedback is helpful. "Blame" is not. And it's not a bad idea to realize that, sometimes, there may not be anything you can do except to better manage your expectations when it comes to entertainment products and media. Simple concepts in theory, but difficult for many people to do.

[Mgamerz]

xtorma wrote...

Mgamerz wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Mgamerz wrote...

I didn't state any threshhold since it's going to be different for everyone. I'd say about 3 months is as long as a crippling bug can wait. That said, I'm not sure I'd say the vanguard bug is crippling, just 'severe'.
You would have to ask Derek, he's on QA, I'm sure he's read this thread by now

there has to be an average time or no one could get a business plan past the bank, or a board. Why is it different for everyone? I would assume it's because different teams have different skill levels. If this is the case , at what point to we give up and just accept that it wont be fixed?

Obviously no one outside of the company can answer that, in fact , according to you , no one within the company can answer it. 

BTW  lol at the vanguard bug not being crippling. Are you basing that on the fact that we have so many classes to choose from , or are you basing it on the fact that it's ok to fall through the map once every 3 games?

No, I said an acceptable window of fixing a bug is different for everyone - like for me 3 months, for you , 2 months. I don't work for EA/BioWare/Software Dev companies (I run my own software under Mgamerz Productions on Android Market).
I don't know what their policy on bug fixing is, and I don't claim to know it either.

If the acceptable window is different for everyone, then how are us mere mortals supposed to know when it's time to shoot the horse?

I don't know. But the rocket glitch was found out like what, two weeks ago? And people are DEMANDING that they fix it RIGHT NOW. Hell, if they fixed only that bug the instant it was found, it probably wouldn't even be through certification yet.
I'm trying to make a constructive thread that tones down some negativity towards BioWare. I happen to like ME/2/3, and wouldn't want to discourage the people working there because of the negativity they see on their own forums.

Modifié par Mgamerz, 26 juin 2012 - 09:47 .

[Ninja Stan]

Mgamerz wrote...

Also, Excellent posts stan. Glad to have some BioWare employees joining the conversation.

Former BioWare employee. But you're welcome.

I do think a bug tracker, or at least a 'known issues, but no fixes guaranteed' thread would be useful. Or at least fixes that have been confirmed to be fixed thread for next patch release.

What makes you think BioWare doesn't already have something like this, but isn't sharing the information publicly, for reasons stated in my previous post about "acknowledging issues"?

[Kasrkin]

On a side note, the game is fun at the moment, bugs and all.
It would be *more* fun were they corrected.

I cannot speak for anyone else in the community but a simple "Hey, these are issues we're looking at, thanks for finding these," thread would go a long way to reduce frustration *for me.*

I do see your reasoning as to why one has not been made; I simply do not agree with it.

But meh, no names; no pack drill.

[Edalborez]

+1 to the OP and Ninja Stan for shining a bit of light onto "the process". I had similar thoughts as to how these things take time, but the world today is a very impatient one that wants everything now. All attempts to educate and pacify elsewhere usually meet with the stereotypical "the customer is always right" act.

Here's to accepting that change takes time.

[xtorma]

Ninja Stan wrote...

xtorma wrote...
so is this company commited to patching?

Define "committed to patching." Working hard to eliminate what problems they can with the time and resources available? I would say yes, as BioWare routinely releases more than one patch for their games. Addressing every issue that someone feels is important? Absolutely not. BioWare's priorities may not be the same as yours, and that may go for each and every customer BioWare has. You haven't the same information BioWare has, you don't know their budgets, you don't know their priorities, and they are unlikely to routinely share such information until such time as a patch is a sure thing and about to be released, for example, or they start asking for input on what issues the community is having.

Because the only reason i can see for your post, is that they are not, which is why it is taking so long. Would it help if we spent more money on packs? I would be more then happy to spend money to get the patches going, but there is no indicator that it makes a difference one way or another.

I suppose you would know better than anyone how game development works, and it can't possibly work any other way than the way you think.

You guys have done a good thing here, let us all know how we can help make it better

Mature, civil discussions like the one in this thread are a good start. Learning about the process, as some in this thread have done through their education or their jobs, also helps. The more you know, the more you start to know what you don't know. Constructive feedback is helpful. "Blame" is not. And it's not a bad idea to realize that, sometimes, there may not be anything you can do except to better manage your expectations when it comes to entertainment products and media. Simple concepts in theory, but difficult for many people to do.

1. define comming to patching? really?
2. No I do not know better, I have to go with what I can see, because you guys don't talk about where you are at in the process. If you have read all my posts, it's not about blame, it's about sitting in the dark wondering. Thank you for discussing with us, we all appriciate it. Most of the time, it's all we really want. If I get left in the dark , of course i will come up with my own conclusions. What would you do?

If you don't have the money or resources to fix bugs then tell us. the conversation would be over. If you can't fix smglm say so , people will stop asking about it. It's not a huge deal. If you need more money say something. I promise you that you will see a boost in revenue, because people love this game. I know you guys have the numbers to believe that is true.

Once again sir, thank you.

[Mgamerz]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Mgamerz wrote...

Also, Excellent posts stan. Glad to have some BioWare employees joining the conversation.

Former BioWare employee. But you're welcome.

I do think a bug tracker, or at least a 'known issues, but no fixes guaranteed' thread would be useful. Or at least fixes that have been confirmed to be fixed thread for next patch release.

What makes you think BioWare doesn't already have something like this, but isn't sharing the information publicly, for reasons stated in my previous post about "acknowledging issues"?

I did read your post, that's why I said 'no guarantees!'
Or perhaps have people sign an NDA 
And sorry, didn't know you were a former employee. Of course you  BioWare has an internal bug tracker, what big software company doesn't

Modifié par Mgamerz, 26 juin 2012 - 10:05 .

[Kasrkin]

Indeed, a little insight as to the Vanguard flight and ULM malfunction would do wonders for me. I know a lot of other things are not necessarily working as intended. And again, the list of bugs people would want daily status updates on is probably longer than my arm.

But *some* sort of official statement from Bioware would really allay my fears as to whether anything will *ever* be fixed. You see?

No clamouring for heads, or torches, etc. A SITREP. It would be a courtesy and received as such by me, at least.

[xtorma]

Mgamerz wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Mgamerz wrote...

xtorma wrote...

Mgamerz wrote...

I didn't state any threshhold since it's going to be different for everyone. I'd say about 3 months is as long as a crippling bug can wait. That said, I'm not sure I'd say the vanguard bug is crippling, just 'severe'.
You would have to ask Derek, he's on QA, I'm sure he's read this thread by now

there has to be an average time or no one could get a business plan past the bank, or a board. Why is it different for everyone? I would assume it's because different teams have different skill levels. If this is the case , at what point to we give up and just accept that it wont be fixed?

Obviously no one outside of the company can answer that, in fact , according to you , no one within the company can answer it. 

BTW  lol at the vanguard bug not being crippling. Are you basing that on the fact that we have so many classes to choose from , or are you basing it on the fact that it's ok to fall through the map once every 3 games?

No, I said an acceptable window of fixing a bug is different for everyone - like for me 3 months, for you , 2 months. I don't work for EA/BioWare/Software Dev companies (I run my own software under Mgamerz Productions on Android Market).
I don't know what their policy on bug fixing is, and I don't claim to know it either.

If the acceptable window is different for everyone, then how are us mere mortals supposed to know when it's time to shoot the horse?

I don't know. But the rocket glitch was found out like what, two weeks ago? And people are DEMANDING that they fix it RIGHT NOW. Hell, if they fixed only that bug the instant it was found, it probably wouldn't even be through certification yet.
I'm trying to make a constructive thread that tones down some negativity towards BioWare. I happen to like ME/2/3, and wouldn't want to discourage the people working there because of the negativity they see on their own forums.

so what about the credit glitch?

what I am trying to get across , is it is really difficut to ask for patience , when it "seems" like nothing is getting done. If bioware posted a monthy letter saying what they were working on and what they were having problems with , then 3/4 of the complaining would vanish.

The average joe, like myself who was as engineer, not a programmer, understand setbacks and problems. But if i was working for a client and had a problem, i would explain it to them in as much detail as i felt they could understand, and that usually bought me the time i needed to complete the project.

The negativity you so adamantly oppose is a direct result of ignorence. ignorence that could be eliminated by a few honest posts.

[Chealec]

One small point though - how much of the code did BioWare actually write for Mass Effect 3? The underlying engine is, IIRC, the Unreal 3 engine - which means they probably didn't do a whole lot with the physics or the GPU API... I could be wrong, it could be the most heavily modified version of that engine ever - but I doubt it.

There's still an absolute metric ***tonne of code that BioWare did write under the hood I'm sure, and I'd imagine that code they've got a pretty decent handle on... but working on modified third party code; yeah, it speeds up the initial development process a lot - but it can lead to some real headaches when it comes to modifying or maintaining it.

[Star fury]

So, patchnote for patch 1.03 - vanguard glitch and SMG ULM glitch are written as fixed, but they're not. Can somebody explain me is it that hard to test that fix is working properly before paying money for patching your game? Also you can debate is vanguard glitch game-breaking or not, but now it prevents entire class from playing.
Then I'm not a software developer, but how to call a patch that didn't fix known issues but in turn implemented new bugs that majority of players never encountered before?

[BjornDaDwarf]

Ninja Stan wrote...

What makes you think BioWare doesn't already have something like this, but isn't sharing the information publicly, for reasons stated in my previous post about "acknowledging issues"?

Thanks for joining in the discussion Stan, it is appreciated.

As I mentioned earlier, I come from a communications background, not programming.  And I guess I usually operate under the theory that more information is better, and that there is almost always a way to deliver a message effectively and get no more backlash than you are already getting, while gaining other bonuses along the way.

In this case, I completely believe the scenario you laid out earlier.  However, the scenario you described essentially exists.  We know that BW knows about at least most of the common bugs (or at least it's reasonable to believe they know about all the ones we know about).   And so, you already have the kind of blame/backlash/accusation cycle that currently exists on the BSN.  A minority will use an official confirmation by BW as ammunition for their consipiracy theories and complaints.  Most will read it, appreciate knowing for sure and move on.  Another minority will gain greater trust in BW for being open and honest.  I think there's a net gain in the last two groups when weighed against the first group.

But my personal bias is believing that more, and more open, communication is a net gain in all areas of our lives (personal, business and governmental).

Modifié par BjornDaDwarf, 26 juin 2012 - 10:35 .

[Mgamerz]

If you make a patch, as this thread has already stated, new bugs occur. It's part of developing software. This game depends on other parts of the game that get patched, and there is too much work to test every single little thing. It's possibly why the rocket glitch showed up.
Also, bugs can have more than 1 way of being produced. They might have fixed one of the ways the vanguard glitch occurs, so they marked it as fixed. But in reality, there were other ways they didn't know about that could have caused the glitch (not sure about vanguard on this one).
Introducing new bugs with patches is pretty common really... Windows updates typically have patches to patches, which is why you have to reboot to install new patches on a clean installation.

[Chealec]

Star fury wrote...

So, patchnote for patch 1.03 - vanguard glitch and SMG ULM glitch are written as fixed, but they're not. Can somebody explain me is it that hard to test that fix is working properly before paying money for patching your game? Also you can debate is vanguard glitch game-breaking or not, but now it prevents entire class from playing.
Then I'm not a software developer, but how to call a patch that didn't fix known issues but in turn implemented new bugs that majority of players never encountered before?

That's the nature of patches though - you have to be very, very careful that a fix/improvement you're implementing doesn't break something else in an unforeseen manner.

The problem with the ULM glitch is that it requires a lot of play-testing to notice whether it's fixed or not; it seemed to be fixed, the power menu was properly reporting the cooldown times with ULM - now you'd assume that the code that reported those times was the same code that actually runs the underlying mechanics in the game - therefore if that's reporting correctly, in theory, the mechanics must be working properly in-game.

The fact that what's displayed in the power menu is different to the reality strikes me as somewhat bizarre - but that could be a bolt-on to another block of code, that resides in an underlying, third party engine module... I've not seen the source code though - it could be a pristine, properly object oriented, joy - but I suspect with the development cycle it's more like a bowl of spaghetti code, at least in places, a mess that's nigh on impossible to untangle, maintain and bugfix.

As XKCD so brilliantly puts it:

[Bryan Johnson]

I think Mgamerz and Ninja Stan have a good understand of most of the challenges faced. Of course there is more to picture that can't be discussed for various reasons.

I can say we do have a list of issues, we do watch the forums. Oh and we do play our own game, have I personally seen issues called out, yes. There has been attempts to try and catalog everything that people have noted. The more places we as employees have information written the more places information is to get lost. That is why we have our own internal bug tracking methods and we include forum information in them. Every fan made attempt (that I have seen) to maintain a list has not lasted more than 2 weeks from the difficulty it is to verify things etc.

Another note, especially about multiplayer is user style testing needs 4 people and then as Ninja Stan mentioned there is a ton of questions. Is this something that just came up in the last patch, has it been there since ship, does it occur only after extended play, does it only happen on a certain platform etc.

Oh and yes I am QA

[Mgamerz]

That picture is a good representation of the coding cycle. You hit that 'requirements have changed' block quite a bit.
I typically use eclipse to program, and when you miss a single \\, and 2000 lines of code stop working and it underlines the entire code as being wrong and you have no idea where that \\ goes...
Drives you freaking nuts.

[Kasrkin]

Thank you for posting here, Bryan. I *suspected* that there was a tally of known issues, but again, without any official word . . .
I do understand keeping your actual list, priorities and such as privileged information. You guys are in coding and QA, not the PR department.

The bug list kept by Talon is pretty accurate, but has been sent to page 6-7 (or farther back) hell by all the "Nerf THIS nowz!, buff dis n0w" threadery and general complaining/thread duplication.

I think if such a thread were to receive a sticky status, that would go a long way to alleviate some of the frustrations of those of us who read the forums.