Matrix Games Forums

Bubbak, the idea of public betatesting is certainly something we have thought of, but right now (Feb. 21, 2007, just before 1:00 EST) that would be a bad idea because it would create way too much work for us simply to keep up with the reports we'd be getting, and would actually slow down the process of finishing the patch. For public betatesting to be valuable a patch must be free of known problems before it is released to the public, and right now we know of some bugs that we need to fix. (Essentially, to put this in a Rumsfeldian way, public betatesting is intended to find "unknown unknowns," but right now we'd have to deal with countless reports telling us about the "known knowns," and that would waste everyone's time -- testers' and development team's.)

So, is 30 to 60 days correct? I may be playing AACW by then. 

I'd be surprised if it were to take that long. But I'm out of the game of making specific predictions. We'll keep you posted as we make progress. Right now, there is a serious detailed battle bug that was introduced by the most recent version of the beta patch (and therefore should be relatively easy to spot, I'd think), and there is a serious PBEM bug related to our new PBEM replay feature. We also have just developed a new diagnostic tool to make sure that detailed battle is working the way it should, so we're giving that a thorough check, and have another diagnostic tool that we're using to make the strategic AI's purchasing and OOB decisions smarter, so we're likewise monitoring that. There are also a small number of other issues (e.g., in PBEM for some reason we're no longer getting new generals after Turn 1), but those are the big ones. And there's no way to estimate how long it will take to fix them. Sometimes, Eric fixes a bug in less than an hour, other times it can take days. But that's what we're looking at, essentially.

Plus, I discovered last night that we only included one of the two CSA generals named R.H. Anderson (Richard vs. Robert), and we seem to have included the photo of the wrong guy, so I'm trying to fix that. Surely, no one wants us to release the patch until we have two R.H. Andersons...

While you're adding Anderson you should add Innis Palmer and John Farnsworth.

ORIGINAL: chris0827

While you're adding Anderson you should add Innis Palmer and John Farnsworth.

Hmm. Hadn't noticed those. Okay, thanks, I'll try to get those guys in there too. Thanks!

Gil R,

Most of my comment was directed at the you have our money part from Jack616. I guess since I picket the game up from someone who didn't like the game and not directly from Matrix maybe I don't understand, even though I paied almost as much. I have not had a lot of time to play FOF, since my wife will be out of town next weekend I'm getting ready to spend a large amount of time playing, ya I love to have the patch but if the game plays half as good as I'm reading about I'll be happy to wait, of course not forever. I played The Blue and The Gray from Impressions years ago, loved the idea of being able to build my forces where I wanted and then move them into a battle, of course you were suppose to be able to fight a minis type battle, I guess for some it worked but I mostly ended up quick fighting.

Am I right in assuming that I can build armies and move them into battle without having to worry about economics and politics that much.

Cant wait to get into this, my lap top my wife and I are going on a cruise and I've been planning on having sometime to play.

Yes, an important part of the game is building up your armies and arranging them as you want, and if you're not that much into economics and politics you can toggle off many of those features, letting you focus on the military side. (I posted a screenshot of the revised options screen in the thread devoted to the patch's contents.)

We'll try to finish by the time of your cruise, but I'm not making any promises...

It's a month away, like I said if this plays as good as I think then I'll be happy right know. I like what I'm hearing for up grades to this game I realy like the Total Victory, I want to end this war when I'm good and ready to give up or I'm good and ready to let the other side give up.

If we are not VICTORIOUS then let no man come back alive.

How about a pop up appearing when you move your cursor over a general which shows his pre-war biography, major accomplishments during the civil war, post-war biography, and a short note describing how his progeny did in subsequent wars. Dare I ask, maybe a family tree could be included.

All I wanted was the retreat bug fixed; okay, maybe also to have the confederate navy eliminated. But as long as you are doing a patch, then do a real patch. Complying with the above requests should not add much more waiting time.

Ok soooo check back at the end of March for a bloody update on this game!!?[:@]  This is getting past ridiculous.  You guys were so great with updating WiTP making my $70 way worth the amount.
 
Yall coul;d have just done a simple update get rid of the time limit, fix the scoring issues, etc.  Then do the major upgrade at your own pace and avoid all the pissed off fans.
 
Yah I know patience..etc etc... but this is getting old. I am disappointed.

We had nothing to do with WiTP.

And if you wait until the end of March you'll be the last person on your block to have the patch.

All of you who are disappointed, I have to say I think you'll be singing a different tune very soon. Gil's being understandably cautious about committing to a date, because of the tremendous number of new features and improvements in this release, which all need testing. However, we're doing our best to get this out ASAP and it's in the final iterations of polish and debugging now.

Regards,

- Erik

Aye, must chill, it will come...

Thanks for the update Erik, it is good to get any news about what is happening behind closed doors.

That is great news to hear that your in the final "polish and debugging" phase.

Just release it when it is ready, but to say that I am hanging out for this patch/upgrade would be the understatement of the year [;)]

I'm for waiting, I would rather have as many of the upgrades done in one patch rather then have to keep down loading and up grading every other day. I don't understand this game from what I'm reading plays very well so play the game. The upgrades are suppose to make it better so when they come out either continue with the game your playing or dump it and start a new game, you shouldn't worry about what you don't have that you would like, you need to enjoy playing the game you have now, dont waste the fun you can have.

The game is still playable so while I am waiting for the patch,I am getting some good practice time in against the AI who is still beating my butt.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

All of you who are disappointed, I have to say I think you'll be singing a different tune very soon. Gil's being understandably cautious about committing to a date, because of the tremendous number of new features and improvements in this release, which all need testing. However, we're doing our best to get this out ASAP and it's in the final iterations of polish and debugging now.

Regards,

- Erik

Eric (and Gil),

I appreciate the efforts. I have been watching this thread, as many appear to be doing as well, with a good deal of interest and anticipation.

I won't berate you on the timeline issue.

However, if I may, I really suggest a serious scrub of your Software Development Process and, perhaps, have some minimum expectations for the development companies whom you publish. I do software develpment management for a living, and have done so for over twenty years. Albeit, I am involved in business applications. However, my customers would have hung, drawn and quartered me if this situation existed in a business space.

Here is a simple fix. You need to change and manage the expectations of your customers. Stop calling it a patch. In other development environments, there is a clear understanding of the semantics involved. A patch addresses defects. Only defects. A patch fixes broken software. A version release adds new features as well as defect fixes. You mix terms at your peril.

You are developing and releasing a new version of the game. It requires the time and testing that you state is occuring. A patch, if that was what you were working on, should have been out the door within a couple of weeks -- max.

I suspect the current effort started as a patch, and grew from there. It is interesting to note this, because the number one cause of failed software deliveries is scope/requirements growth. Someone, and I am not sure who, needed to exercise some technical leadership a while ago. Some stakes needed to be pounded into the ground within the development and publishing organizations. A patch (a real one) was probably warranted to fix some errors early on. The announcement of a new version release would have, could have, been a positive PR issue -- instead, you all are defending actions that should by all rights be feathers in your cap.

Regards,
Feltan

Feltan,

ORIGINAL: Feltan
You are developing and releasing a new version of the game. It requires the time and testing that you state is occuring. A patch, if that was what you were working on, should have been out the door within a couple of weeks -- max.

While your point on expectations is well taken, we always said that this release would take a while.

We did release a patch within two weeks of the original release to fix the most serious issues. That was done and out to the public very quickly, but from what you're saying it sounds like you missed that.

We then settled in to make an update based on customer feedback involving game balance, new features, etc. We've spoken about it being an upgrade on the forum multiple times and Armchair General did an interview on it. This has taken a few weeks longer than originally planned precisely because it was intended as an upgrade and has required a fair amount of debugging due to new features being put in place and some parts of game balance being changed.

Regards,

- Erik

Goodness, all this rancor over a game's patch.  Some people really need to get a life...or a job.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
We've spoken about it being an upgrade on the forum multiple times and Armchair General did an interview on it. This has taken a few weeks longer than originally planned precisely because it was intended as an upgrade and has required a fair amount of debugging due to new features being put in place and some parts of game balance being changed.

Fair enough, but the upgrade is mostly commonly referred to on the forum as a "patch", which suggests that the message hasn't got through for some reason. I think neither Feltan nor I are attacking you here, we're trying to help you.

I point out that companies do sometimes release an enhanced version of a game... and charge more for it. As Firaxis does with its Civilization series, for instance. I'm not asking you to charge me more for this coming upgrade (I add hastily!), but it's something to bear in mind in general. Customers who are satisfied with a game may be quite willing to pay for an enhanced version of the same game.