- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,220
- Reaction score
- 1,669
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
I do love how you are starting from the assumption that you are correct and infallible with regard to what is or is not a bug. /s
How about a Petition
- Thread starter Titan
- Start date
I love how you're not quoting anybody, so we have to guess whom you're replying to
If it's me, then I don't consider this a bug, but a gameplay balance issue. However, it might still be tracked in their bug tracker together with the 10,000 other issues.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,220
- Reaction score
- 1,669
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
LOL fair. I was mainly voicing my frustration with the common practice that I see over and over from many people: "I just saw something I didn't like. It's a bug and must be fixed". So few people actually look at things critically and try to decern the difference between they didn't like what happened and the game is behaving outside of its expected range of out comes. I see this over and over and over again on a variety of forums.
Let's be clear as far as I know Steve thinks the QB points are just fine the way they are. I'm sure he knows there could be some rational suggestions that changes could be made but they are not neccessarily needed and the game is working just fine as it is. So, if you want to see changes then: yes you do need something to get his attention such as a petition. To act like that's silly is well just silly
And I find it silly to say that it should be silly to find it silly...
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,220
- Reaction score
- 1,669
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
Since I got reprimanded for not quoting before ...
...Interesting. I'm not sure where you got the number 4 from.Off the top of my head I know of 4 requests for changes in QB prices now pending in BFC's bug tracker.* I have no idea if any of them will be acted upon but they are there.
*None involve StuGs
Nope. Not even close. And in case people start getting all nutty on me the real number is way way lower.
It is not.Oh it's way more than that
That's interesting, because I didn't just pull that number out of thin air. A beta tester wrote it on the official forum.
Also I really don't think anybody here wants to "go all nutty" on you. It's a friendly place usually..
I support the idea as well. Moreover I have a long list of improvements I would like to see.
That's how many I have written.
LOL, I wasn't expecting anyone to take that seriously.
Oh wow, I thought you were being hyperbolic, hence my tongue in cheek response. Do you remember who the beta tester was, specifically? Because I suspect you are misremembering, or perhaps taking that number in a more literal context than it was intended. I don't know how many known bugs there are in the CM games but I do know it's a tiny fraction of 10,000.
Sure:
Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.
As I have played combat mission over a few years now, one thing that I have constantly seen is how disorganized the process of bug tracking/fixing appears to be. People post multiple topics for each game, other bugs simply get lost in existing topics, and unless a beta tester or one of the devs h...
Thanks! Two observations. First, he's referring to the total number of entries, which includes bugs already fixed and stuff that were never bugs to begin with. Secondly, he totally pulled that number out of the airSure:
Battlefront should implement a publically viewable bug tracking site.
As I have played combat mission over a few years now, one thing that I have constantly seen is how disorganized the process of bug tracking/fixing appears to be. People post multiple topics for each game, other bugs simply get lost in existing topics, and unless a beta tester or one of the devs h...community.battlefront.com
. The real number is in the thousands but it's nowhere near TEN thousand.
Usually a bugtracker is also used for feature requests among other things. Spanning many years of development and multiple games 10k items isn't a crazy number.
Exactly. It's a suggestion box + bug tracker. And many reported bugs turn out to be working as intended. Also, a lot of the actual bugs are things like "Sturm squads have too many StG44s" or "the Mosin-Nagant model has a post war butt stock".
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2015
- Messages
- 2,220
- Reaction score
- 1,669
- Location
- Ontario, Canada
- Website
- www.lesliesoftware.com
Indeed. The company I work with has over 13 000 but we do have a few more moving parts and a lot more people generating features and code (plus a few bugs
10K active bugs would be quite an achievement for a one men DEV team.
I do use QBs quite a bit and I would like too to see a review of QB items prices, but I would like that it would make things easier for the auto purchase method to come up with more varied and balanced setups. I use auto purchase for the fog of war, and over the years I have had great gaming moments with some curveballs the QB generator has thrown at me. It's an underappreciated feature imo.
Regarding values, my assumption is that the values are the output of some formula that balances stuff like anti armour firepower (how many mm's of armour you get through at some given range), anti infantry firepower (how many folks per hour you can frag), mobility, thickness and quality of armour, and some other factors (e.g. quality of optics, availability of specific types of ordnance, having a turret, etc.). I am also quite sure this is all determined in one huge spreadsheet.
Considering the above, I am pretty sure that we can track issues in prices to one or more factors above being too generous or too conservative (e.g. StuGs having plenty of AP rounds?). Also, typos. Anyone here that has ever tried to mod unit databases for TOAW or CmdOps can attest to the "fat fingers" effect.
In an ideal world I would like that QB prices depended on the situation (dimensions of the map, visibility, whether the side doing the purchase is attacking or defending, and so on). A piece of equipment value is measured by its usefulness, and that's very sensitive to the context. I am quite sure it won't happen, too, unless BFC decides to construct CMx3 out of CMx2 a bit like an alien larva bursts out of a human chest.
Re: turrets or else.
If the situation is such that visibility is low and you are in the attack, you really want the AFV that is 1) fastest/nimblest, 2) can traverse its gun FAST. As you advance on the enemy chances are that the battle will break down into short range 1:1 or 1:2 engagements, and it will be very difficult to use superior optics or guns into play. In that case Shermans trump German heavy armour or TDs more often than not. That very cool JPz IV becomes a liability rather than an asset.
Change visibility to fair (like 1km or above) and Shermans value nosedives like a Stuka (but doesn't come up eventually).
Without situation aware prices what we can reasonably aim for is that 1) issues following from manual data entry are amended, 2) a more satisfying compromise is struck between casualties per hour metrics and tactical flexibility.
Good points!
Agreed that the context makes all the difference. Which is probably also what makes establishing 'common ground' for a petition difficult. My personal impression is that tactical flexibility is underrated compared to AP/HE firepower and armour metrics.