Regarding Bugs, Errors, Crashes, and all that (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Les_the_Sarge_9_1 -> Regarding Bugs, Errors, Crashes, and all that (2/14/2002 8:08:00 PM)

I have been playing Steel Panthers since it was just called steel Panthers. I only started reeeeeally playing it when Matrix made it Steel Panthers WaW though. I was playing it on a computer back when computers had no idea what a "Gigabyte" was too. Now I am fortunate to be running Win XP Pro which surprisingly enough doesnt friggin crash on me, after BIll has redesigned it several times (and made ****loads of cash selling each new bloody version). Matrix on the other hand has never sold me a damn thing (until just recently). The game gets better and better and better and better (repeat until the words are burned into your head).
They took a great game and made it awesome and didnt expect a damn thing for it.
Bloody generous I think.
Then they provide us this forum so I have some neat place to hang out. So it is sooooo contemptible to complain about the game from anything but a fully prostrated position in my opinion.
Until a fan has a copy of a Mega Campaign in their possession, I am of the opinion you have not even earned the right to come to your knee and look Matrix in the eye yet eh.
To actually stand requires a person has had actual development time put in on the game itself. When you consider how Bill makes us pay a small fortune for his buggy crash prone security bedeviled versions of a major program while becoming obscenely rich....
I am not even the slightest bit concerned if after a lot of hard work, my Lost Victories has a goofy trait or two (which I know they will tirelessly pursue out and kill off like some vermin). Yes I paid good cash to get my Mega Campaign. All my cash is good cash.
But I paid only a small sum for such a big effort from such a modest sized company that has already done so much for so many. Lot more than Bill ever did for me.



Warrior -> (2/15/2002 2:17:00 AM)

Absolutely and totally RIGHT ON!



Dan Bozza -> (2/15/2002 4:25:00 AM)

I don't drink, but - beer.



skukko -> (2/16/2002 1:23:00 AM)

compared to *****soft Matrix updates work mosh



Bing -> (2/16/2002 3:24:00 AM)

I'll second Mosh here. Micro-do-do just issued a patch for their Train Simulator - its only been out since last summer and buggy as a July night n a swamp. Cosmetic is the word I would apply. MS don't care, they are the thousand pound gorilla, they sleep where and when they want. Bing



Fuerte -> (2/16/2002 3:35:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1:
So it is sooooo contemptible to complain about the game from anything but a fully prostrated position in my opinion.
May I disagree? I think that posting bug reports and other complaints is the only way to make it better. I don't understand why people get upset from a bug report. I am a professional programmer, been for 15 years, and when someone sends me a bug report I thank him. Especially when the bug is repeatable. Of course when the program is free, then the developer does not need to do anything about it, but usually the programmers are such people that they fix all that they can and have time to. I fully understand that Matrix programmers don't have time to fix all SPWAW problems, because there are several new games in development. And I think that this is a good thing as well, the priority is right here. The only thing that is not ideal in this situation, is the fact that the source code is not free. If the program is free and will always be, and the programmers don't have time to fix all problems that we wish, then it would be logical that the source code would be released to the public. But unfortunately this is not possible because of the licence that Matrix has for Steel Panthers. If SPWAW would be open source, we would soon have SPWAW:Modern Battles etc, and there would be a SPWAW developer community like Falcon has at the moment (I wouldn't be part of it, though). Think about it, even Netscape develops the browser as open source nowadays (unfortunately in this case the end result, Mozilla 6, was not so good).



Mikimoto -> (2/16/2002 5:07:00 AM)

Fully agree with Fuerte: Bug reports helps to make great this game. And fully disagree with Less. He has the same bad attitude against complainers that he had when the Fairy tale issue happened, as others had... But the Fairy Tale issue and others Bugs issues were/are good for bug hunting. Without those issues bug hunting will be a very looooooong process... more polite, less rude, but a lot longer... In my humble opinion, of course, gentlemen...



Tetchyy -> (2/16/2002 7:35:00 AM)

I am of the opinion (are newbies allowed one? ) that there is room for both points of view in this discussion. That is to say I agree that Bug reports are not only helpfull but vital to the production of a *good game. I am new here but I doubt that we got to V7.1 without the help of people playing the game, finding bugs, and reporting them here. Having said the above, I have read thru many a page in this forum where the BUG report reads much more as a complaint then a helpfull note. Questions like: "Why is this bug still here?" & "I reported this bug 2 days ago, when will we see a patch?" are certainly not helpfull. Part of the problem can be traced to either inexperienced posters OR differences in language. It is always advisable to look not just at the words on the screen but thru them to find the meaning behind them, "Seek first to understand". Truthfully, after reading some posts in here I too wonder how anyone can complain when they got something for virtually nothing. It helps to remember that the majority of the world still operates on a dial-up connection and that DOES cost something. It ALSO helps to remember that the people whom work so tirelessly on SPWaW are not getting paid for their hundreds of hours they put into this *Great game. What value could any of us put on that? To sum it up.... BUG reports GOOD, Complaints BAD. There are two sides two every coin *I* flip. Rambling on?....Sorry. Tetchyy (Cliff, owner of three MegaCampaigns therefore on my knees as I type this.) (How many more posts till I become a vetran? Do I actually have to post about the game? Who made the rules anyway? Why is Canada losing 5-1 to Sweden? where's my Beer? What is....) [ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Tetchyy ]



MirageG3 -> (2/16/2002 10:49:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Tetchyy:
Why is Canada losing 5-1 to Sweden?
Dunno, but it sure feels good



Paul Vebber -> (2/16/2002 11:14:00 AM)

We don't mind getting bug reports. What bugs me in particular is when its acknowledged that a bug can't ebe fixed (and we are designing a whole new game to fix them) people CONTINUE to post about the same bugs over and over.... Having to click twice on recon units will never be fixed. Air units "spying" for the enemy will never be fixed, the occasioanl "vampire" or "undead" in online play will never be fixed. We have to redo the WHOLE FRIGGEN GAME to fix them... so the fix will be THE NEW GAME>
I have a build that I THINK fixes the splash damage bug protecting the target and I emailed it to gmenfan. What we can fix we fix, what we can't fix we are desinging a whole new game to address. I just posted example spotting tables and modifiers on the CL forum. I will be doing the same with other game systems as we approach betat to get input from as many as we can. We can only do so much for a game we give away without bankrupting ourselves. So report all the bugs you want, just understand when we get testy about the ones we've said a dozen times we can't fix...or are you disagreeing withe fundamental game design... [ February 15, 2002: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



sebagonzalez -> (2/16/2002 12:39:00 PM)

There is something that really intrigues me since a long time. I heard lot of times that some stuff or bugs or whathever can not be fixed since it would demand to remake the whole code, then the whole game again. Then the "Wait for Combat Leader" phrase shows up. Ok, i can accept it, is very reasonable...but now...here comes the question that really intrigues me.... Is not Combat Leader, in fact, based on other game engine (dont remember the name now)? So...if when Combat Leader is released...will the same phrase "we cant change the code since it would demand to remake the whole game" so live with the bug and wait for.......(whathever comes)?. Or maybe Combat Leader will have a fully editable code so u guys can change and fix anything?. I am very anxious for buying Combat Leader, but i must admit that what i tell is something that really affraids me, and i share this concern with many others. Can please somebody enlight me? If this topic has been treated or there is a post in CL forum regarding to this just link me with it. Thks.



Supervisor -> (2/16/2002 1:00:00 PM)

To the best of my knowledge CL is being created from the ground up, fresh, with everything we love from SPWAW and hopefully none of those things we don't. Because it's fresh it does give them the capabilties to add, repair, rework and replace things without having to rewrite the entire game code, it will be much more developer friendly to correct any issues or concerns that may pop up. Currently a playable beta version has a target date of March 31st. Progress will be reported as that time nears.



sebagonzalez -> (2/16/2002 1:33:00 PM)

Thanks for the quick answer Gmenfan. Thats exactly what i hoped to recieve as an answer. Well, seems i can now eliminate this question from my mind (thks god) and Thks again to you. Let me say that you are doing a magnificent job as moderator in this forum. LA WEB DEL SPWAW http://spwaw.tripod.com/



Supervisor -> (2/16/2002 1:40:00 PM)

Thank you. It is very appreciative to have someone say that.



Fuerte -> (2/18/2002 12:37:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Having to click twice on recon units will never be fixed.
This is sad, because it seems that all that is needed is if (recon_unit)
show_complete_movement_range();
else
show_command_and_control_movement_range(); at some point of the source code. If this is impossible to do, then the source code must really be spaghetti!



Wild Bill -> (2/18/2002 12:57:00 AM)

Er...would you identify that "Bill" a little more carefully? Wild Bill (not the "Bill" of the post, I hope!)



Paul Vebber -> (2/18/2002 1:37:00 PM)

When you desing a game you have to make certain decisions about how data is used. OInce you make those decisions you can't weasily change them. COmbat Leader is being designed with an eye to avoiding a lot of problems SP:WaW has. WIll it be perfect? No. WIll there be things the architecture of that game will not allow to be fixed? Of course...you can never predict and account for the things you don;t predict and account for. CL will be a big improvement, but no game is "infinitely flexible". THere will always be things that are so becasue of decisions made in the design phase. and once done are done. That's just the way it is.



Paul Vebber -> (2/18/2002 1:42:00 PM)

Damn, you mean all this time all we had to do was put in a line if (game_unrealistic)
make_game_realistic()
else
continue() THe problem isn;t the need to add something, but to figure out why the code that shows it for all other units, doesn;t show it for recon units. Its just not worth the time to save you a mouse click (clicking twice on a recon unit brings up the move radius...) [ February 18, 2002: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



Colonel von Blitz -> (2/18/2002 1:46:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber:

-snip- CL will be a big improvement -snip-

so often it is mentioned, if someone reports a bug, that this and that cannot be fixed. Instead, this and that feature will be seen in Combat Leader...Combat Leader here, Combat Leader there. Maybe it's just me, but I somehow fail to see Combat Leader at the top. I've seen this many times with several strategy games...they are probably better technically than Panthers, but SP just has that "something" that keeps me coming back. And this is what I "fear" that happens to Combat Leader too. I hope I'm wrong though... Colonel von Blitz



Redleg -> (2/18/2002 2:05:00 PM)

Clicking twice on a recon unit doesn't bother me. My mouse seems to be holding also. You really don't have to click twice on a recon. All you must do is click outside the cone if you want to change direction Some of us long-term, die-hard SPWAW players are just going to have to realize that the old warhorse has reached the end of its tether and is a "mature" program. Period. That doesn't take away from SPWAW. It is great as it is. Whether CL or any other program can lure me away remains to be seen. "There is just something about SPWAW"..... how many times have you heard it?



Fuerte -> (2/19/2002 4:24:00 AM)

Yeah, but one more (last) comment... Because the game shows a different movement range when C&C is on, there is already code like if (command_and_control)
show_restricted_movement_range();
else
show_complete_movement_range(); Now this code must be in several places, and in most of them (double-click, N and P keys) it is like if (command_and_control && !recon_unit)
show_restricted_movement_range();
else
show_complete_movement_range(); Only when you click the unit for the very first time it does the first version of the code. Only that should be fixed, I can't understand why it is so hard... of course the real code is probably nothing like that though, but still.



Capt Chris -> (2/21/2002 5:39:00 AM)

if ( unit == "recon" ){
printf("Recon, we don't need no stinking recon!!!");
}
I think Paul and the other developers have done a fine job. Taking a DOS based game and making sure it run on Windows. (Even though Windoze has enough trouble by itself) I am still fairly new to the game but from what I have seen here, they always pay attention to the feedback, good or bad. Keep up the good work and I anxiously await CL.



RedMike -> (3/16/2002 7:02:07 AM)

Give that man a cigar!!!!!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875