Named pilots problem

[jwilkerson]

If we do decide to "scrap it" - the intent would be that the "scrapping" would be temporary - with the twin ideas that the original concept still makes sense - but that the closing of the loop holes will take a greater effort than was envisioned for the goal of this feature.

[Halsey]

I agree.

The effort being put forward by these "volunteers" is outstanding.[;)]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Rainer,

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not looking for scapegoats. I've alpha and beta-tested myself and know that it is a frank impossibility to expect every bug to be found.

On the other hand it seems to me that to expect the following is not unreasonable:
1. Disband air unit on Turn A.

2. Allocate  pilots to various units but have a few left over and finish turn.

3. Check Named Pilot Pool on Turn A+1.

4. Notice that the pilots you left in the pool have no disappeared.

5. Report same to programmers as possible bug.


Within 24 hours of the patch being released numerous players had noticed and posted about this bug. Now, while there's no-one trying to find scapegoats in order to beat up on testers and programmers there IS value in asking why such an obvious bug was missed. Why is this? Simple, when you know why it was missed you might be able to put something in place to catch a similar one next time. If you avoid asking these sorts of questions then systemic failures remain and the same results occur again and again.

E.g. If it was missed because this fix got to testers too late for them to test the fix then the solution is to give more time to final testing. If it was missed because it was no-one's responsibility to check its functionality from turn to turn then that, also, can be fixed. Perhaps it was missed because none of the testers involved has a naturally analytical mind ( that's not to say they are dumb or anything like that. There are certain general ways in which minds work and naturally analytical minds are just one small category which tend to be very useful in analysing rule-based systems... aka computer games.). I'm sure they bring many other things to the table but, perhaps, this particular skillset is missing from the testing team. The solution there is to bring on someone with that skillset.
etc etc ad nauseum.

Asking questions as to why mistakes happen is NOT looking for scapegoats as you seem to think. It is precisely the sort of analysis which SHOULD be going on in order to create the appropriate system within which testing can be carried out in as effective and efficient a manner as possible. Note the implication that the system is flawed and not the individuals.

I stand by my assertion that pre-release testing of a patch which fails to notice such an obvious bug is highly likely to have suffered from a systemic flaw which, if unresolved at this stage, will continue to rear its ugly head in future failures in the pre-release testing of future patches. I think it is entirely valid questioning which, if reflected on by the people behind this and future patches, could result in improvements which might prevent such simple bugs making it into future releases. If you think that pointing that out is "unhelpful" and akin to looking for scapegoats then so be it. I doubt there will be much I can say to change your mind. 

So, are you applying for a position??

[Rainer]

Nemo, I see your point and fully agree with what you said.
My earlier response was more geared towards the "kids" here in the Maxis forums (you probably know what/who I mean), who sometimes come on with fairly unreasonable requests/demands.
I stand corrected and apologize.
Cheers
Rainer

[Nemo121]

Rainer,
No worries at all and no apology required. Discussion is good and we must always be prepared to exchange views and, at times, disagree. I see exactly what you were getting at and, for what its worth, I agree with you as regards some of the comments and requests made.
 

Don,
LOL! Are you offering? . Suffice it to say it'd be a pretty poor show if I wasn't willing to put my money where my mouth was. If you want a precis of my previous experience etc drop me an email and I'll be happy to oblige. You can then make the call as regards whether or not I could be of use. Hpwever I certainly wasn't writing the above with a view to securing a position on the team... Anyone who had a naturally analytical mind would do, IMO.

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Halsey,

yes, I've read most of the posts on this forum all the way back to mid-2004 and can see a very welcome evolution in how input is received. I must admit that I think that jwilkerson and Don Bowen have adopted a much better reaction to input/criticism etc. Mistakes/bugs are admitted and then something is done to fix them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't but, in my experience, most players will settle for a good faith effort. We just get annoyed when obfuscation is, intentionally, used as seems to have been the case in the past.

Yes, these guys are doing a great job.
Kudos to all of them!

I dropped off from this forum for 6 months because I was sick and tired of lame excuses, contradictions, lame reasonings and infighting.
The posterior kissing made me want to puke everytime I read one of their posts.[:@]

As a side note, anyone who hates the River Shock Attack can blame me.
I suggested it and Kid liked the solution, even though they couldn't make the entire mechanics thing work.
Units were supposed to stop shock attacking after the river was line was breached.

It was my contribution to WITP.[;)]

[jwilkerson]

Units were supposed to stop shock attacking after the river was line was breached.

Ah !
Not sure we knew that till now - I guess another case of fixing the hole was harder than making it ... hum ... this can probably be fixed one day ... but now we know the "design intent" !!! [:D]
At somepoint, someone suggested that we check the AV already in the hex and if is greater than something (1000?) then no shock attack. This sounds do-able.

[Nemo121]

A better solution ( and more historically accurate) would be, if possible, to add a check of the relative combat power in the hex being moved into and decreasing the losses suffered in a river crossing as the relative combat powers change.
 
E.g. If a 100 AV unit crosses a river into a hex containing a 100 AV defender then the relative combat power check would be 100 : 0 (since no friendly units are currently in the hex) and so the full loss currently applied to units moving across a river into a contested hex would be applied to the attacker.
 
On the other hand if a 100 AV unit crosses a river into a hex containing a 100 AV defender AND a 50 AV friendly unit then the relative combat power check would be 100 : 50 and the new unit moving into the hex would suffer only half of the losses currently applied.
 
I think that it would be fair to eliminate the river crossing losses when the attacker's pre-movement AV is equal to the defender's AV ( this would model troops crossing a river into territory held securely be large numbers of friendly troops) and scale the ratio of losses as the attacker's AV value falls below the defender's AV value.

This would eliminate the situation where forces moving across a river into a contested hex in order to bolster very strong friendly forces suffer massive losses due to the Shock Attack rule... which seems to be the biggest problem with the current system. I, personally, have had many artillery regiments almost completely wrecked moving across a river to support friendly troops which are several times strong than the Chinese troops they are besieging. The proposal above would have avoided this issue.

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Units were supposed to stop shock attacking after the river was line was breached.

Ah !
Not sure we knew that till now - I guess another case of fixing the hole was harder than making it ... hum ... this can probably be fixed one day ... but now we know the "design intent" !!! [:D]
At somepoint, someone suggested that we check the AV already in the hex and if is greater than something (1000?) then no shock attack. This sounds do-able.

A solution related to levels of AV sounds like the answer.
If the mechanics can support this.[;)]

I'll leave it to the new gurus to tackle this.
If it can be done, the shock/river attack will be seen as a more viable option for land combat defense.

Heck, who knows, maybe the WITP community my even accept this. [:D]

By the way, I apologize for hijacking this thread.[:'(]