Patching Philosophies (Full Version)

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



Message

Johnus -> Patching Philosophies (4/18/2007 12:14:03 AM)

Ageod's AACW has been out about 4 or 5 days and has been patched twice. These have been minor limited patches, "quick fixes" for certain obvious problems. That is exactly my point.

FOF's last beta was wonderful; but it took months to get made. Why not issue patches as problems are fixed. For example, the ANV wondering away from Richmond is an issue. Why not fix that and issue a patch. That particular issue is not connected to, nor need it wait on, a review of whether or not there is an issue with the Union AI's blockading.

Western Civilization's staff can't be smaller than AGEOD's, which, I understand is tiny. I think, however, that its patching philosophy is different and should be revised.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, I think FOF is among the best computer wargames ever made.



LarryP -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/18/2007 12:23:11 AM)

I have been following the forums on AACW. I was surprised to see that a patch was just issued for it. So I bought it. I really like BOA so I figured that AACW has to be better. I also think that FOF is an excellent game and I will be playing it as long as PC's work!

I have also wondered why some patches can't be released sooner and solo to make playing a bit easier. However I never had the guts to ask why... [&o]



Gray_Lensman -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/18/2007 12:30:29 AM)

I agree with Johnnie, it has been somewhat frustrating waiting for weeks for features that are discussed and then mentioned that they are going to appear in the patch, yet we continue to wait. I purchased FOF based on Matrix's reputation for good support and timely patches, WITP being one of the best examples of any game and update patches. WITP released many small Beta patches and then "Comprehensive" patches every so often. Why can't the same be done with FOF? Also, as far as I'm concerned, if a patch is clearly marked "beta", I have no problem if for some reason it malfunctions after all it was a beta.  Once a "Comprehensive" is released I reinstall and repatch to the latest Comprehensive, anyhow.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/18/2007 1:26:27 AM)

Guys,

We also released an "issues" fix for FOF within about a week of its release. What we have now is a "content update" which improves the game in some pretty massive ways. Much as I'd like to say that fixing the issue with the ANV wandering away from Richmond is simple, it's not. Eric fixed that, but we are still trying to "unfix" a few other things that fix caused the AI to do. We expected to have another public beta update out to you by now and I hope it will be this week (and the last one before the update is official).

I can't overstate that the quantity of changes in this update is equivalent to a 2.0 version rather than a typical update and if we'd tried to release it in smaller chunks, not nearly as much would have gotten done. If you're going to make a lot of changes, it's much more efficient to make then and then test them rather than doing a constant test-release cycle. For some of the changes, to really test them testers have to play through an entire campaign or multiple campaigns. I assume you all do want these changes tested first? [;)]

With that said, we've heard you and we are hustling. In fact, it's been a non-stop hustle behind the scenes even though it might not look that way from here.

Regards,

- Erik



LarryP -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/18/2007 1:59:06 AM)

Why is it that I feel just like I did at ten years-old right after a bad whipping?! [:-]



Drex -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/18/2007 2:51:16 AM)

My dad used his belt.



Kipper -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/20/2007 8:44:26 PM)

Erik, I really think you need to re-think your strategy.
Waiting a long time for a "content update" while there are gamebreaker bugs means the game stagnates unplayed on hardrives... new games come out in the meantime... people don't return... forums die... new purchasers shy away...
And then there's the underlying issue that this "content" should have been there at the start when people put their money down....
This really is a lesson.



Gil R. -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/20/2007 9:23:55 PM)

Kipper,
I certainly understand your point. I disagree about there having been "gamebreaker bugs" -- and the proof that that's subjective is that plenty of people have continued to play the game the whole time, and were perfectly happy in doing so. But you're right that there were some glitches affecting playability, and that ideally these would have been stamped out long ago.

The main point I'd make is that most of this new content is being put in because of customer feedback. Admittedly, some of the added features should have been there at the time of release (e.g., our new screen showing unit by unit casualties after a battle), but more than 80% of our new features are being added as bonuses to make players happy rather than because we left something important out of the original release. Moreover, one doesn't have to search too far back in history to think of games that have been missing content that the developers then added through patches; but I can't think of anyone who has added so much new stuff that the developers arguably could claim that an upgrades patch really represents a free 2.0 version. And that's what this patch represents, even if we won't be calling it that.



Kipper -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/20/2007 9:40:24 PM)

I hear you Gil, but the main point remains that gamebreaker bug fixes should not wait for major content updates. Patch the serious issues and keep the game alive while you produce the new content.

"Gamebreaker bugs" is subjective like most other things in this business - but there are a lot of people not playing this title because they perceive gamebreakers. Whether they are gamebreakers or not is beside the point - there are players who perceive them to be and that is the most important thing.

It's a really good game and the fruit of a lot of work and the patch sounds great. I am just saying that bug fixes should be have #1 priority and certainly should not be delayed by long periods as new content is developed and tested.



desertstorm -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/20/2007 10:14:53 PM)

"Gamebreaker" bugs fixed first or later........, the big question is now, when comes the new beta Patch??????



Erik Rutins -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/20/2007 10:17:05 PM)

Kipper,

Your comments are well taken. We never intended the second update to take as long as it has, but one thing led to another. The result is far beyond what was originally planned and serves as a major and free improvement to the game. I agree it would have been better to release a second issues update and then make this a third content update, but that did not work out. With that said, the public beta is available and has been for three weeks and if you haven't installed it yet you should!

Regards,

- Erik



Erik Rutins -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/20/2007 10:18:21 PM)

desertstorm,

Eric's (the main developer's) computer was hit by a virus and required a rebuild. I was hopeful we'd have the next public beta out this week and make it official next week, but I'd say now we're aiming for having out next week and official the week after. The current build looks pretty good but came with a new save game bug that is unreleasable.

Regards,

- Erik



LarryP -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/20/2007 10:22:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

desertstorm,

Eric's (the main developer's) computer was hit by a virus and required a rebuild. I was hopeful we'd have the next public beta out this week and make it official next week, but I'd say now we're aiming for having out next week and official the week after. The current build looks pretty good but came with a new save game bug that is unreleasable.

Regards,

- Erik


I know what Eric's gone through. I just got hit three weeks ago with two trojans and a few viruses! What a job it is! Sorry to hear that and it can happen no matter how safe you think you operate.



Kipper -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/20/2007 10:25:27 PM)

That's bad luck!

I hope you have a good marketing campaign lined up and sell this as a re-launch of FOF because that is what it is, essentially.



LarryP -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 12:13:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kipper

That's bad luck!


Good thing I don't believe in luck then. [;)]



Gil R. -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 12:22:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kipper

That's bad luck!

I hope you have a good marketing campaign lined up and sell this as a re-launch of FOF because that is what it is, essentially.



Yeah, we won't be keeping it secret.[;)]

One thing we plan, and I mentioned this elsewhere on the forum, is a big "Forge of Freedom" AAR contest, with the first prize to be a replica cavalry saber. (And not some cheap thing from Toys 'r' Us, I assure you.) Details will follow once the patch is officially released. The contest will permit either AAR's of full campaigns or single battles.

And I definitely understand your points above. It's just that a lot of unanticipated things happened to make the patch take far longer than was ever intended. Once the patch is out, this will be behind us. But we will definitely be remembering this for our next game.



LarryP -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 12:35:13 AM)

Gil;

I really admire your patience when answering some of these posts. You were made for the Administrators job. Not me! [sm=00000106.gif][sm=duel.gif][sm=00000030.gif][sm=00000036.gif][sm=00000054.gif][sm=fighting0043.gif] [sm=sterb032.gif]

I couldn't resist using some of your smileys to reinforce my point.



Kipper -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 12:44:48 AM)

LarryP
Heheh - stay away from customer service as a career ;-)
Kipper



LarryP -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 2:01:38 AM)

Kipper;

I avoided it like syphillus. [;)]



Johnus -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 3:03:50 AM)

Dear Erik, eric and Gil:

The fact remains that the new beta is going the way of the first beta; it is taking a long time. This is not a complaint, nor do I mean to tell you your business. But I agree with Kipper, a gamebreaker is whatever one thinks it is. When a player puts a game aside, it can't be good for business.

I want the game to do well and I think it may end up a classic. I do still believe, however, that your (whoever makes this type of decision) patching philosophy is wrong.

Ageod has just issued its fourth patch for AACW, a game which is one week old. To be fair, these are quick fix patches. But what is wrong with that ?? See a problem, fix a problem and on to the next problem.

Just my two cents.



Queeg -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 3:44:49 AM)

On balance, I think they are taking the right approach. I'm having a great time right now playing AACW - it's a great game. But it's also a very different game than FOF - and I'm looking forward to getting back into FOF when it's finished. But it really needs to be "finished" when it's finished. The time they are taking to really get it right is time well spent, I think. I'll play and enjoy AACW for the great game that it is. But I'll return to FOF too when it's done - because it offers a very different game than AACW.



Johnus -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 4:50:20 AM)

Queeg:

I understand your view and I'm not comparing the two games. They are very different. I am just learning AACW. I am also anxious to get back to FOF, which I love.

My issue is with the patches. I think BOA is on its eleventh numbered patch. When the game was new it seemed to be patched once a week. Saves were compatable with the new patches and problems were fixed before I even knew about them. I don't care if a game has 50 patches which fix 50 different problems. I don't think all problems (to say nothing about numerous improvements, which are not "fixes" at all) have to be fixed with one patch for which you have to wait a long time.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 7:13:54 AM)

Johnnie,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Johnnie
Ageod has just issued its fourth patch for AACW, a game which is one week old. To be fair, these are quick fix patches. But what is wrong with that ?? See a problem, fix a problem and on to the next problem.


You can't really compare these two things. Fixing minor issues is much faster and safer than changing the AI, which is what has taken a while (up to when Eric's computer got hit by the virus). Then there's the need for testing, which when you make significant improvements in gameplay, features and AI is significant. As I noted, we released an update with quite a few fixes a week after the initial release. The current public beta, despite its name is stable and has effectively been a major patch release out for several weeks now while work has continued to improve it further. I know we've done everything we can to get this out as fast as possible to you.



Gil R. -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 10:27:12 AM)

What Erik wrote. These changes might seem like they should be relatively quick and easy, but they're not, especially when it comes to making changes to the AI. We're going about this the right way. Regardless of whether more things should have been patched initially, in terms of this current public beta patch and our efforts to get it ready for official release, there is no better way to do things than the way we're doing them now.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 2:44:43 PM)

Well, I don't know that we've done a perfect job, but I can say we've done our best. As I said above, I think we agree a second quick issues patch would have been helpful but for various reasons we ended up with a mega-update which is now almost complete and a public beta available for everyone to try in the meantime.



Yogi the Great -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 4:19:20 PM)

Here is my basic feeling about "patches philosophy"  My opinion and 50 cents can't even buy me a cup of coffee, but what the heck I'm sitting here before work needing to feel productive.  This is about games in general, not specifically Forge of Freedom by the way.

When I buy a game, I use to expect it to work great out of the box.  I really don't care to have to endlessly work on bugs, play balance, graphics, sound, overall quality and mechanics, etc. etc. etc.

Today it seems (probably needing some money coming in) games are rushed out sometimes well before they are ready.  The philosophy seems to be, no problem we can fix it with a patch.  Soon the 7th major patch will be out for a game I eagerly awaited for and was one of the first to purchase about 8 months ago.

While it is nice that today we can download and patch, if you don't happen to have home access to high-speed internet it can become a real problem and frustration.  Further some will just give up on a game when it is so disssappointing and never even consider that a patch has fixed it.  Game manufacturers should also realize that when they issue a poor game out of the box - they may be losing a customer for life who vows never to buy a game from that company again.  They may even let a few others know (especially via internet forums) about the bad game.[:-]


I'm not suggesting patches aren't important and don't accomplish a  good thing.  I am suggesting that maybe today they are relied on too heavily and maybe game companies should worry a bit more about the quality of the first issue of a game (even if it takes longer) then the "easy fix" later.  While some of us may want the quick release of an anticipated favorite topic game of ours - perhaps some us also want it to be a great game, without the need to make a life project out of finding, loading and installing patch after patch.[;)]



Erik Rutins -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 4:59:13 PM)

It's simply a fact of life that issues will slip through. The more complex the game, the more likely this is to happen, for a variety of reasons. Then there's the fact that PC hardware is as varied as can be and it is simply impossible to test all configurations. The combination of complexity and compatibility leads to the vast majority of at-release issues, even after thorough testing and leads to situations where a player with a particular play style and system configuration says "how could you miss bug x, it always happens!", yet it never happens for testers or developers, etc.

There was one (1) crash bug in the release of Forge of Freedom which was fixed within a week. There were some other issues, some of them more serious than others. We tried to fix everything that seemed significant in that first update and then started work on the next. I don't know how many different ways I can tell you all that we did not intend for the second update to take as long as it did, that we have been working hard throughout and that it could not have been done any faster than it was without throwing testing out the window and saying "let's hope it works!".

Regards,

- Erik



LarryP -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 5:52:04 PM)

I have been watching these debates over patches for a long time in different forums and threads. I own probably more games than five people combined, it's a bad habit of mine at times. Money wise. What I have to add probably won't really help either side much, but I can sympathize with both.

On the gamers side, I am tired of software being released that's so buggy. Some games I have over ten patches downloaded into my trusty d:\download\games\game_name directory! Other games I simply stopped playing because I am waiting for a patch to fix a dreaded lockup at a certain point every time I play the dang thing. I don't like being at the mercy of a software companies schedule of patching after I plopped down $50.

On the software side, I know better than most gamers what can happen as I have been a hobby type programmer for almost twenty-years. I know four different programming languages (Basic, Delphi or Pascal, C++, and C#). I have an extensive programming library (another bad habit of mine) of well over two hundred excellent coding books. I have written lots of programs and small games, none though to the extent of Forge Of Freedom though. Not even close. I DO KNOW THIS... one little change can have many unexpected results! And those in turn can have many more unexpected results which creates a chain reaction of problems. Then there are the simple changes like a graphical box that just needs sprucing up and the underlying code need not be touched. Or adding numbers in a loop that counts how many times a player has fired a gun. That's the kind of fix that grants a quick patch and makes gamers happy and surprised.

I know from looking inside the FOF exe file that Matrix probably used C++ for their main coding. They also used inflate-deflate for security purposes so it's hard to read much, kind of like Winzip but for distributing exe files. I know from hours upon hours of pulling my hair out that just one single pointer not released properly and your program is nothing but a huge bug. C++ is nothing without pointers so there are probably tons of them, unless they used dotNets Managed code. Even then it can be a nightmare when exe's get as big as FOF is. Add Flash to it and you got lots of places for bugs and problems. Little problems with lots of relatives!

I think the best that we can do is trust Matrix on this. Surely they are not sitting on their duffs and intentionally drawing this out. That would be suicide. They have too many successful titles under their belts. These days games are constantly reaching out to untested territory that requires many different hardware configurations to find those elusive problems. Games are so big now that it takes a collective mass of players to punch that certain combination of keys to make that screen turn to mush. [;)] DirectX is always changing and Microsoft keeps changing their rules for it. Video drivers are also changing monthly. Now we have Vista that just finally came out that programmers have to cater to differently. The hoops keep moving and staying in those hoops is a full time job in itself. It’s a huge balancing act when you add monitoring these forums and working on other issues. I can’t imagine how hard it is. At least we have a company that does care and keep in touch, and how they continually interact with us is a great example. I’m old and tired I guess.

My 2 cents worth.




Yogi the Great -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 6:31:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LarryP

My 2 cents worth.



Nice post LarryP but you undervalue yourself. It was worth at least a buck two-eighty [:)]



LarryP -> RE: Patching Philosophies (4/21/2007 7:37:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great


quote:

ORIGINAL: LarryP

My 2 cents worth.



Nice post LarryP but you undervalue yourself. It was worth at least a buck two-eighty [:)]



Thanks for making me laugh! Your post above was excellent and I understand and relate to all of it. It's a tough situation for all so there is no perfect answer.

By the way, I love Beagles. I can hear their bark now as I think about it. I have a Beagle story I will tell sometime. [:)]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8115234