A constructive discussion about stability, patches and bug fixes

[Figeac]

First of all, I would like to thank the development team for continuing to support Command: Modern Operations after more than a decade. It is genuinely admirable that new patches are still being released on a regular basis. Very few games receive this level of long-term commitment, and as a longtime player, I truly appreciate it.

That said, I would like to share a concern that has become increasingly frustrating over the years. This is not meant as empty criticism, but rather as feedback from someone who genuinely loves the game and wants to see it become the best version of itself.

I was actually part of the original beta testing team back in the CMANO days. At the time, I was happy to help by reproducing bugs, writing reports, creating save files, and testing fixes. Eventually, however, it became exhausting. I found myself spending more time documenting issues than actually enjoying the game, so I decided to step away from the beta team. Even so, I have continued playing because I truly love what this simulation tries to achieve.

Unfortunately, with almost every new patch, old bugs seem to return, new ones appear, and some long-standing critical issues never seem to be fully resolved. Problems such as ships failing to defend themselves automatically, aircraft formations refusing to maintain formation, or aircraft ignoring basic commands like refueling or simply following their assigned flight plan (just to mention a few of the issues that have surfaced in the latest beta patch) can make scenarios extremely frustrating to play.

I fully understand that CMO is an incredibly complex simulation, and I have great respect for the technical challenges involved in maintaining a game of this scale. However, after more than ten years, it is discouraging to see the same categories of bugs repeatedly resurfacing. Sometimes it feels as though one patch fixes a problem only for another update to unintentionally reintroduce it.

For me, the issue is no longer the existence of bugs—every complex piece of software has them—but rather the recurring nature of the same bugs. Over the past few years, I have found myself gradually playing less and less, not because the game has become less interesting, but because the accumulation of recurring issues eventually breaks immersion and, in some cases, makes scenarios difficult to enjoy.

Perhaps it is worth reconsidering the current development or patching process, especially regarding regression testing before releases. Again, I say this with complete respect and humility, because I am not a software developer. I am simply a player who wants his favorite simulation to be as stable and reliable as its incredible design deserves.

CMO remains, in my opinion, the finest modern warfare simulation ever created. That is precisely why it is so frustrating to see its enormous potential held back by problems that seem to come back time and time again.

Finally, I would be genuinely interested in hearing what other players think about this. Have your experiences been similar, or have they been different? I would also greatly appreciate hearing the perspective of the developers, if they are willing to share it. This is not intended to assign blame or start an argument, but to encourage a constructive discussion about how CMO can continue to improve in the years ahead.

Thank you for continuing to support the game, and thank you for taking the time to read this. I sincerely hope these comments are received in the constructive spirit in which they are intended.

[Dimitris]

Thank you for the very constructive (and kind!) feedback. This is definitely worth considering and addressing carefully.

[thewood1]

I've said this before, as someone that has product managed many releases of very complex software, bug fix patches should be frequent and separate releases from new feature or testing releases. On a personal note, I can wait patiently for new features for quite some time. My expectations are low for most software on this. It is a HUGE benefit that CMPO devs continue to expand and extend the game for free.

But simple bugs that show up that completely change the way the sim operates should be addresses fast and separately with heavy testing for any regression. But I don't have a real problem with how it is today. Its better like this than something like Steel Beasts that takes 1-2 years for an update. Even for serious bugs. And don't get me started on Combat Mission.

[Nikel]

While this is not a democracy, I would create a poll.

- Continue with current situation, new features are added, new bugs appear or reappear, more complications to fix them. Repeat.

- Stop adding new features completely, only bug fixes, perhaps some tweak.


Considering also that most of CMO users will not vote, my bet is that the silent majority that are casual players would prefer stability to new features by a huge amount.


Let the new added features for a future release, Command v3. After all, CMO is not going to be supported for ever, and some years have already passed since release.

[SerLar]

Totally agree.
I haven't played any large-scale scenario yet I already got the feeling of bugginess. Consider that the CPE version is being used by government agencies around the world, this feels more like an unfinished product not only from a game's perspective but a software that is meant to be for professional use.
And I also believe that this project is SERIOUSLY underfunded. There are only like 15 people's names on the credits page, for such an ambitious project this is astonishingly few.

[schweggy]

Perhaps formalize the bug reporting process?

I know that, at least informally, there's only one required item (well, two if you include a description) and that's a game save. It may be helpful to the developers if there was specific information from the player that would help them diagnose the issue that currently isn't being included in the informal bug reports. I'd have an online form, or a list of things that needed to be included in a bug report. Clarifications on features, or questions about them should probably go elsewhere.

When I ran a software development shop for the U.S. Army we had all sorts of reporting, versioning and code repository tools at our disposal. Some helpful, some not. So this suggestion may not fit with the current development system here. But anything that would help the developers isolate bugs would probably be a good thing.

[thewood1]

"Stop adding new features completely, only bug fixes, perhaps some tweak."

This is a very unreasonable request, in my opinion. Complex software is never perfect. Waiting until ALL bugs are fixed will bring ALL development to a halt. A better approach is a little more transparent triage on severity of bugs and the timeline to fix them. I know of no dev that produces some many added features and adjustments for over a decade at the pace these devs do. And all without any cost to the player. I'm sure the devs' investors would love it if the stopped adding features in lieu of fix ALL bugs.

[Nikel]

Not all bugs of course, because that is impossible.

I am sure CMANO has bugs and the development was stopped and left as it was.

The same will happen to CMO, and will be left with the remaining bugs.

Why not stop now adding more features and naturally complications to fix new and old bugs?

Perhaps the devs are already developing Cv3 in parallel.

[Knightpawn]

Gentlemen,

Although I agree with much of what has been said and the pragmatic approach of the penultimate post, let us all just remember that we are expressing frustration over a beta. The purpose of a beta is to be beta tested; and that is what we are essentially all doing since 1825. It is not mandatory to install the betas

Now, having said that, I would like to be able to roll back to any of the official versions released in the past which does not seem to be the case for steam clients (unless I am missing something obvious which usually happens to me)

[thewood1]

You can roll back at least to the release version on Steam very easily. I think you might also be able to roll back Steam to other versions using a Matrix version. I know I did it with CMNAO before.

What I typically do is have Matrix version on the latest beta and Steam on either release or a stable Steam version.

[Nikel]

let us all just remember that we are expressing frustration over a beta. The purpose of a beta is to be beta tested; and that is what we are essentially all doing since 1825. It is not mandatory to install the betas

Now, having said that, I would like to be able to roll back to any of the official versions released in the past which does not seem to be the case for steam clients (unless I am missing something obvious which usually happens to me)

It is not over a beta, this same discussion happened years before.

In steam you should be able to go back to 1825.15

[Knightpawn]

In steam you should be able to go back to 1825.15

Yes this I can do. But not to any other prior official releases before that

[Nikel]

In steam you should be able to go back to 1825.15

Yes this I can do. But not to any other prior official releases before that

To what version do you want to go back?

[RFalvo69]

"Stop adding new features completely, only bug fixes, perhaps some tweak."

This is a very unreasonable request, in my opinion. Complex software is never perfect. Waiting until ALL bugs are fixed will bring ALL development to a halt.

Fixing bugs is part of the development, so, no, fixing bugs doesn't stop development. If anything, a stabler game will be easier to expand in the future.

And what else can we ask from Command? My list says "Multiplayer" (and multiplayer requires a game as stable as possible anyway). Maybe a more in-depth model of drone warfare in the current age. Honestly, I can think of little else.

[thewood1]

"Stop adding new features completely, only bug fixes, perhaps some tweak."

This is a very unreasonable request, in my opinion. Complex software is never perfect. Waiting until ALL bugs are fixed will bring ALL development to a halt.

Fixing bugs is part of the development, so, no, fixing bugs doesn't stop development. If anything, a stabler game will be easier to expand in the future.

And what else can we ask from Command? My list says "Multiplayer" (and multiplayer requires a game as stable as possible anyway). Maybe a more in-depth model of drone warfare in the current age. Honestly, I can think of little else.

I know. Thats my entire point. Nikel is the one saying stop development and fix bugs. My point is more frequent bug fixing patches and separate them from new feature releases.

[schweggy]

There could be bug fix releases that do not have any sort of feature enhancements. Maybe even done on a schedule, like monthly as then become available to deploy.

Our development environment was very restrictive due to the nature of the applications. Therefore we focused on bugs on a predictable schedule and new, or refined features quarterly. The versioning software was key to finding issues. Being U.S. Army, it was serious overkill, but with a non-technical user base we needed to know what specific build and function/feature was an issue.

Again... a formal reporting system for bugs or features not working as expected with info the developers need would likely be useful. For them.

As for the beta vs stable version discussion... I personally don't think it matters which is being discussed. Use the same methodology to examine and fix issues. I've no issue with "buggy" beta software. I do have an issue with bugs identified in releases that were not addressed.

I'll still use the software in either case and like others here, have a "stable" version and a "beta" version to toy with.

YMMV

[Nikel]

And nobody is talking about the new naval formation editor...

Being new it must have glitches, but the look is modern and fantastic. A bit dark perhaps, cannot see clearly the cells.

Congrats to the devs team

NF.gif (4.1 MiB) Viewed 64 times

[thewood1]

It has been mentioned.