RE: ETA on the Patch (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [American Civil War] >> Forge of Freedom: The American Civil War 1861-1865



Message

Gil R. -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 6:32:35 AM)

We had nothing to do with WiTP.

And if you wait until the end of March you'll be the last person on your block to have the patch.



Erik Rutins -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 3:20:20 PM)

All of you who are disappointed, I have to say I think you'll be singing a different tune very soon. Gil's being understandably cautious about committing to a date, because of the tremendous number of new features and improvements in this release, which all need testing. However, we're doing our best to get this out ASAP and it's in the final iterations of polish and debugging now.

Regards,

- Erik



Fastheinz -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 3:22:52 PM)

Aye, must chill, it will come...



Dasara II -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 4:01:18 PM)

Thanks for the update Erik, it is good to get any news about what is happening behind closed doors.

That is great news to hear that your in the final "polish and debugging" phase.

Just release it when it is ready, but to say that I am hanging out for this patch/upgrade would be the understatement of the year [;)]



bubbak -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 4:30:52 PM)

I'm for waiting, I would rather have as many of the upgrades done in one patch rather then have to keep down loading and up grading every other day. I don't understand this game from what I'm reading plays very well so play the game. The upgrades are suppose to make it better so when they come out either continue with the game your playing or dump it and start a new game, you shouldn't worry about what you don't have that you would like, you need to enjoy playing the game you have now, dont waste the fun you can have.



Drex -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 5:19:53 PM)

The game is still playable so while I am waiting for the patch,I am getting some good practice time in against the AI who is still beating my butt.



Feltan -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 5:22:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

All of you who are disappointed, I have to say I think you'll be singing a different tune very soon. Gil's being understandably cautious about committing to a date, because of the tremendous number of new features and improvements in this release, which all need testing. However, we're doing our best to get this out ASAP and it's in the final iterations of polish and debugging now.

Regards,

- Erik



Eric (and Gil),

I appreciate the efforts. I have been watching this thread, as many appear to be doing as well, with a good deal of interest and anticipation.

I won't berate you on the timeline issue.

However, if I may, I really suggest a serious scrub of your Software Development Process and, perhaps, have some minimum expectations for the development companies whom you publish. I do software develpment management for a living, and have done so for over twenty years. Albeit, I am involved in business applications. However, my customers would have hung, drawn and quartered me if this situation existed in a business space.

Here is a simple fix. You need to change and manage the expectations of your customers. Stop calling it a patch. In other development environments, there is a clear understanding of the semantics involved. A patch addresses defects. Only defects. A patch fixes broken software. A version release adds new features as well as defect fixes. You mix terms at your peril.

You are developing and releasing a new version of the game. It requires the time and testing that you state is occuring. A patch, if that was what you were working on, should have been out the door within a couple of weeks -- max.

I suspect the current effort started as a patch, and grew from there. It is interesting to note this, because the number one cause of failed software deliveries is scope/requirements growth. Someone, and I am not sure who, needed to exercise some technical leadership a while ago. Some stakes needed to be pounded into the ground within the development and publishing organizations. A patch (a real one) was probably warranted to fix some errors early on. The announcement of a new version release would have, could have, been a positive PR issue -- instead, you all are defending actions that should by all rights be feathers in your cap.

Regards,
Feltan




Erik Rutins -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 5:28:31 PM)

Feltan,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan
You are developing and releasing a new version of the game. It requires the time and testing that you state is occuring. A patch, if that was what you were working on, should have been out the door within a couple of weeks -- max.


While your point on expectations is well taken, we always said that this release would take a while.

We did release a patch within two weeks of the original release to fix the most serious issues. That was done and out to the public very quickly, but from what you're saying it sounds like you missed that.

We then settled in to make an update based on customer feedback involving game balance, new features, etc. We've spoken about it being an upgrade on the forum multiple times and Armchair General did an interview on it. This has taken a few weeks longer than originally planned precisely because it was intended as an upgrade and has required a fair amount of debugging due to new features being put in place and some parts of game balance being changed.

Regards,

- Erik



gunnergoz -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 5:33:57 PM)

Goodness, all this rancor over a game's patch.  Some people really need to get a life...or a job.



Jonathan Palfrey -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 6:15:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
We've spoken about it being an upgrade on the forum multiple times and Armchair General did an interview on it. This has taken a few weeks longer than originally planned precisely because it was intended as an upgrade and has required a fair amount of debugging due to new features being put in place and some parts of game balance being changed.


Fair enough, but the upgrade is mostly commonly referred to on the forum as a "patch", which suggests that the message hasn't got through for some reason. I think neither Feltan nor I are attacking you here, we're trying to help you.

I point out that companies do sometimes release an enhanced version of a game... and charge more for it. As Firaxis does with its Civilization series, for instance. I'm not asking you to charge me more for this coming upgrade (I add hastily!), but it's something to bear in mind in general. Customers who are satisfied with a game may be quite willing to pay for an enhanced version of the same game.



Curious -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 6:41:51 PM)

PR word games are fun, aren't they.  Some might call it "spin doctoring".  Just call "patches" "updates" and call new versions "service packs".  That's what M$ does and they make billions of $'s.  So they must be doing something right.  But none of these "word games" get the revised software to the customer any faster -- so who cares?

CB



Gil R. -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 7:05:40 PM)

Addressing Feltan, Erik, and others,

This "patch" contains a combination of fixes and new features, and I'm also of the opinion that since people call it a patch that's what we should call it, even if I recognize the accuracy of Feltan's points. It has been suggested by several people that we should have fixed known problems first, and then comes out with a features patch separately, but people forget that not all of the problems were reported at the same time -- so, we (= Eric the programmer) would fix a few glitches and then add some new widely requested features, and then more glitches would be reported and fixed, etc. etc. There was never really a point when we had reached a clear breaking point at which we should have stopped adding to the patch and gotten it out there. So I think we're doing the right thing combining fixes and features -- especially since the game is playable and none of the fixes is of overwhelming urgency, in my opinion. (Yes, fighting multiple battles against lone brigades stupidly routed by the AI right in the path of an army is irksome, but the game still works; and yes, people want the Union to be much richer than the Confederacy and are waiting for the new scenario, but a greater disparity can be approached by resetting the power levels; and so forth.)

From a p.r. point of view, my only regret is giving a false (in retrospect) expectation that the patch would be done some time ago. I had originally predicted "early Januaryish" -- a phrase which might be to this forum what "Mission Accomplished" is to the Iraq war -- but that was before it became clear that several more things had to be added to the patch. Perhaps if I had never made that original prediction people wouldn't be under the impression that the patch is overdue, when in reality patches take as long as they take and therefore by definition it's not overdue. That, I think, is the greater p.r. issue.

Anyway, we're getting close. Yesterday Eric fixed a new issue that had been caused by a recent change, and another "bug" I had mentioned here or on another thread turns out to have been caused by my starting a game using beta-patch 1.6 and continuing it under 1.6.2, and therefore isn't a bug. The key things are still fixing a new PBEM bug caused by the replay function and then making sure that the strategic and tactical AI's are functioning properly in light of all of these changes. Plus I still need to figure out which special abilities Gen. Heth should teach his troops...



fortdick -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 7:19:07 PM)

Gil R>:

Keep doing what you are doing. I appreciate your efforts to give everyone the game they want, even if it takes a little longer.

As far as Heth, maybe he can teach his troops how to interpret orders and attack piecemeal. Those might be his best attributes. [:)]



christof139 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/22/2007 10:00:26 PM)

I eagerly await the new patch, and realize it involves a lot of work, having made mods myself in the past, but no hard programming for me since I an not a C++ nor AF+4 person (AF+4 = Annie Fannie + 4, what it means I have no idea, I just like acronyms and Annie Fannie, can't determine if the 4 = something related to being only P4 compastible or Annie's 4 bumps, oh well, I'll never know I guess). [8|]

Chris





Johnus -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/23/2007 2:26:18 AM)

Dear Gil R:

I don't mind so much that a prediction in timing was off. This is a game. No one dies if a patch is never issued. The reason (reasons) for the said delay is the number of things added and added and added. Sounds somewhat silly, me complaining about the number of improvements you guys are adding to the game, but that is exactly the point. Someone should have (six weeks ago) drawn the line somewhere on what to include. Otherwise you could literally add improvements indefinitely and the testers would be the only people to see them.

Anyway good luck with it and I hope to see it soon.



Titanwarrior89 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/23/2007 2:41:39 AM)

Take your time guys on the patch.  No rush here.[;)]



MorningDew -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/23/2007 5:58:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Take your time guys on the patch.  No rush here.[;)]


Ditto. As someone aptly pointed out, anyone screaming about the time a patch takes to release needs to get a life or job. Yes, a business might be upset at the amount of time, but I hope no one is using FoF to run a business. The way some people react to the time it takes to deliver quality software, you would think their main source of income was down. Hmmmmmm.....



Dasara II -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/24/2007 2:38:52 PM)

I have been skipping the detailed combat as I did with Crown of Glory, but as the new patch/upgrade seems to have some detailed combat enhancements I thought that I would give it a go in my current game.

And it was great, much, much better than Crown of Glory and brings back fond memories of "American civil war generals 2" [:)]

I find myself fighting the big battles in Detailed combat now and really adds so much more personality to each brigade.

I can't wait for the patch, but I am having a lot of fun leading my boys on the battlefield.

By the way, I remember reading that the new patch/upgrade will have more causalities fro each combat encounter. I hope so, maybe the battles won't always go on for so long if that is the case. Time is main reason I can not play more detailed combat but sometimes it it worth it to get some free artillery [:D]



decaturkev -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/25/2007 2:58:20 AM)

I find the detailed combat the most intriguing, and variable, aspect of the game. I have restored and replayed the same enagagement over and over to diffrerent outcomes each time. Without DC, I find the game somewhat predictable for both sides at any difficuly setting once the nuances of the various upgrade and technology impacts are understood. I wish I could zoom in to greater detail in DC, like CC, to observe the action. It would help if a time/speed control were available as the the reporps seem to come through rapidly. Even better would be to make the FOF DC like CC.



Drex -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/25/2007 7:14:32 PM)

Sounds like you are talking about a separate game here, a tactical ACW game based on the CC engine. or CoI engine.



Greyhunterlp -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/25/2007 8:53:08 PM)

hmm, how to do this without advertizing another game,

what you really want to do in DC is Take Command.

(now if these two games could be bolted together, then we'd be in paridise, but i doubt it would work well.)



Johnus -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/27/2007 7:15:38 PM)

From the thread started December 14,  2006: "We are getting closer to releasing a second patch" . . .

I presume we are now even closer.   Anyone willing to risk an ETA.  I only ask because I really want to play this game again.



Gil R. -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/27/2007 7:28:07 PM)

The programming of new features is essentially done (though I think there's still one more info screen to be programmed, though that's something that takes little time). The main thing now is to get detailed battle working the way it should, plus a few tweaks need to be made to the strategic AI (e.g., it's not assigning generals as smartly as it should). We're testing away...



freeboy -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/27/2007 8:10:26 PM)

sounds great, can I edit the sound files? I want to add My favorite army tune, that lovely ballad, you never knew that did u?" Gary Owen"



Gil R. -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/27/2007 8:17:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

sounds great, can I edit the sound files? I want to add My favorite army tune, that lovely ballad, you never knew that did u?" Gary Owen"


Yes, you can, though I don't remember how. Somewhere on this forum someone posted info on this some time ago. If you can't find it, just ask in the support forum and Eric will explain what to do. (He's likely to see a posting there sooner than in this thread.)



Mike13z50 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/27/2007 11:38:26 PM)

Hurray!
As in hip-hip, not hurry as in up.[:)]



hedererp -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/28/2007 7:04:31 AM)





Hello,

Reading the impatience for the patch has made me reminisce...

I'm going date myself a bit here, but I can still remember when you had to get a patch via the mail. You sent in a request, with some type of proof of purchase, via (wait for it) the mail (gasp), and then they sent you you're patch via a floppy back in the mail.
If you were lucky you could go by Egghead Computer (are they still around?) and the guy there would give you the patch on a disk you brought in.
That was if you even heard about the patch, cuz there weren't no inner' net. [:D]

Paul



christof139 -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/28/2007 7:56:47 AM)

quote:

Hello,

Reading the impatience for the patch has made me reminisce...

I'm going date myself a bit here, but I can still remember when you had to get a patch via the mail. You sent in a request, with some type of proof of purchase, via (wait for it) the mail (gasp), and then they sent you you're patch via a floppy back in the mail.
If you were lucky you could go by Egghead Computer (are they still around?) and the guy there would give you the patch on a disk you brought in.
That was if you even heard about the patch, cuz there weren't no inner' net.

Paul


I stayed away from compooters and other push-button electronic gadgets back then, because I always thought they started nuclear wars. Telephones and radios and televisions were bad enough.[&:][8|]

Chris [>:][>:][>:][>:]



Maurym -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/28/2007 3:48:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hedererp





Hello,

Reading the impatience for the patch has made me reminisce...

I'm going date myself a bit here, but I can still remember when you had to get a patch via the mail. You sent in a request, with some type of proof of purchase, via (wait for it) the mail (gasp), and then they sent you you're patch via a floppy back in the mail.
If you were lucky you could go by Egghead Computer (are they still around?) and the guy there would give you the patch on a disk you brought in.
That was if you even heard about the patch, cuz there weren't no inner' net. [:D]

Paul


I remember those days fondly...first PC game was UMS (Universal Military Simulator); I ran it on my 64kb RAM, 4 MB HD machine...no color DOS 2.something. Played (and replayed) the Battle of Gettysburg till the sun rose.



Drex -> RE: ETA on the Patch (2/28/2007 3:51:51 PM)

I had UMS I and II. That was a long time ago.



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625