Matrix Games Forums

Newest beta version, this is the situation after Germany declares war on Poland. The US got to draw THREE chits.

Seriously, how the hell does this get screwed up and how does it not get caught in the first 5 minutes of testing?

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Newest beta version, this is the situation after Germany declares war on Poland. The US got to draw THREE chits.

Seriously, how the hell does this get screwed up and how does it not get caught in the first 5 minutes of testing?

You shoukd know better by now than to ask for the obvious.

We found three other things before this went out - given the amount of fixes which were waiting to be published Steve didn't want to wait for further internal testing.

Remember this is a public beta - thanks for participating in that program!

Calling it a "public beta" doesn't make it so. Can you name me one other game that is still in beta testing a year after release? Beta testing is what you do prior to release. This isn't an obscure bug that could slip through because it only comes up once every thousand games - this is the first impulse of the first turn of every global war scenario. This release has Steve's name on it - Steve's ok with that? It was beta tested by the actual beta testers and released this way - you're ok with that? Matrix games has their name on it - they're ok with this?

I wouldn't be. I would be falling over myself to apologize and fix something this sloppy that had my name on it, not justifying it by falsely labeling it a "public beta".

If Steve knew there were at least three other problems with this patch, why didn't he warn us before we installed it? Now we have to either live with those issues or figure out how to revert to an older version. Why did he say the next patch was going to be netplay if there are still so many problems with this patch? Why are we waiting a month between patches - if the issue is that there are so many fixes that it justifies releasing a patch that breaks other things, why aren't we getting patches ever few days that have just one or two little fixes so that if something like this comes up it can be fixed immediately? Why hasn't Matrix added another coder to the team - the excuse that it would take a year for someone to get up to speed is wearing thin, since we're now one year in and haven't even started working on Netplay. Not to mention all of the features that were advertised as being part of the game at release that aren't even on the schedule for implementation yet.

You should no better by now than to expect anything other than the obvious from me. Just fix it.

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Calling it a "public beta" doesn't make it so. Can you name me one other game that is still in beta testing a year after release? Beta testing is what you do prior to release. This isn't an obscure bug that could slip through because it only comes up once every thousand games - this is the first impulse of the first turn of every global war scenario. This release has Steve's name on it - Steve's ok with that? It was beta tested by the actual beta testers and released this way - you're ok with that? Matrix games has their name on it - they're ok with this?

I wouldn't be. I would be falling over myself to apologize and fix something this sloppy that had my name on it, not justifying it by falsely labeling it a "public beta".

If Steve knew there were at least three other problems with this patch, why didn't he warn us before we installed it? Now we have to either live with those issues or figure out how to revert to an older version. Why did he say the next patch was going to be netplay if there are still so many problems with this patch? Why are we waiting a month between patches - if the issue is that there are so many fixes that it justifies releasing a patch that breaks other things, why aren't we getting patches ever few days that have just one or two little fixes so that if something like this comes up it can be fixed immediately? Why hasn't Matrix added another coder to the team - the excuse that it would take a year for someone to get up to speed is wearing thin, since we're now one year in and haven't even started working on Netplay. Not to mention all of the features that were advertised as being part of the game at release that aren't even on the schedule for implementation yet.

You should no better by now than to expect anything other than the obvious from me. Just fix it.

We found three things which were repaired immediatly in three different closed beta's, this version was released to us with beta tooling after the public release. We have not tested it.
I will not go into the other arguments, they have been stated and discussed before. I understand your frustration, but it will not help to vent your anger and start cutting us up with your razorsharp use of the english language. The product is getting better every week, the rest is what it is.

For some reason, if you save the game in Weather, just before the German DOW on Poland, exit, and restore, the game operates correctly. If you run straight through, or save the game in Initiative and restore, you get two sets of US entry rolls. Weird.

(I posted this message to the 1.2.2.8 announcement thread, too.)

ORIGINAL: Zartacla
Seriously, how the hell does this get screwed up and how does it not get caught in the first 5 minutes of testing?

I can't speak for other testers, but I don't start a new Global War every time there's a new internal beta release, which is every few days. Just setting up a game with optional rules (which need testing) takes me a couple hours. If I started a new Global War with every internal build, I'd never test anything past the fall of 1939. And then we wouldn't know how changes affect the fall of France, or Vichy, or Barbarossa garrisons, or partisans, or a thousand other things. Maybe we should designate one tester to start a new Global War every build, but I'm not sure that's an efficient use of resources.

In this particular beta, we were focusing on reinforcement bugs, naval movement, naval combat, supply, and a hundred other things not related to the first declaration of war. So I spent a fair bit of time testing and re-testing how my reinforcements arrived in Nov/Dec 1939, after the declaration of war on Poland. Then I spent time testing and re-testing naval movement. That takes a LONG time. So does testing supply.

It's not fun; it's work. I've donated hundreds of hours of that sort of work for this game.

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Calling it a "public beta" doesn't make it so. Can you name me one other game that is still in beta testing a year after release? Beta testing is what you do prior to release. This isn't an obscure bug that could slip through because it only comes up once every thousand games - this is the first impulse of the first turn of every global war scenario. This release has Steve's name on it - Steve's ok with that? It was beta tested by the actual beta testers and released this way - you're ok with that? Matrix games has their name on it - they're ok with this?

I wouldn't be. I would be falling over myself to apologize and fix something this sloppy that had my name on it, not justifying it by falsely labeling it a "public beta".

If Steve knew there were at least three other problems with this patch, why didn't he warn us before we installed it? Now we have to either live with those issues or figure out how to revert to an older version. Why did he say the next patch was going to be netplay if there are still so many problems with this patch? Why are we waiting a month between patches - if the issue is that there are so many fixes that it justifies releasing a patch that breaks other things, why aren't we getting patches ever few days that have just one or two little fixes so that if something like this comes up it can be fixed immediately? Why hasn't Matrix added another coder to the team - the excuse that it would take a year for someone to get up to speed is wearing thin, since we're now one year in and haven't even started working on Netplay. Not to mention all of the features that were advertised as being part of the game at release that aren't even on the schedule for implementation yet.

You should no better by now than to expect anything other than the obvious from me. Just fix it.

I have rarely made a comment on your posts but I usually agree with most of them, I even leaned towards you on a disagreement you had with Paul, you have a right to complain but as you stated above something is wearing thin, and that could be you also. You can blame Matrix and Erik and I am 100% behind you, you can blame Steve and I stand behind you reluctantly, but when you cut up the testers for not seeing this in the first 5 minutes I see red.

We the testers asked for more time on this 1.2.2.8 Public fix, we did not get it. AxelNL asked Steve for more time as we had just got this a few hours before it was uploaded. There are very few testers left Zartacla and when we got it we covered a few outstanding bugs that were supposed to be fixed but were not, Steve was notified about some of them but I am not sure about the one your talking about.

I cannot speak for Steve but maybe he felt that this fix was a long time in coming and he wanted to get out a lot of the major changes he has stated in the fix so people could look them over and feel something is being done. And if they find errors great we appreciate it.

I am not as familiar with rules and such as you are because I never had the board game but if this comment you have about US entry is a game breaker then I feel bad, but if it can be worked around with just a little effort and everybody can enjoy the other fixes for the moment then you are just busting our chops and that is not appreciated. Please check out all the other fixes and then maybe you could report with your findings a little more civil.

I just went back to my fast start game and it starts with Polish units to be placed on the map so I do not see the US entry marker popup at all, and had no idea there was problem with it also we do not test the first part of every scenario each time we test just the parts that Steve said he fixed.

Thank you

Bo

Apparently the "beta testers" belong in the same trash pile as the game itself.. Perhaps that is because they are not payed and don't know jack about quality control or software and testing on any level. Pitty you are all enabling Matrix/Slithering to make money on the side with this farce, while they are doing exactly NOTHING but wasting a great licence for a great game.

I have to puke.. hold on..

p.s.: am still first in line for a refund! Don't forget that..

I personally am having a great time with this game. No madexcept errors at all. Game progresses smoothly through the turns. If players want to play with a beta version that's their choice but don't get upset if a bug is encountered. Many, many computer games come out with public betas and once feedback is reviewed it gets converted to official release. Its the process and how the industry works.
Beta testers are doing a superhuman effort and Steve is doing a fantastic job bringing this great game to the computer gaming public.
This release is no different than other first releases of computer games. They ALL have bugs. What makes this game harder to appear perfect is because it is trying to match it exactly to the board version. Other computer games that don't have a board version to compare against you will never know if it is a bug because you think it is just the way it is. I just purchased the latest Civilization computer game, Beyond Earth, and do you think it doesn't have any bugs?
Every time I play this game I am amazed at how well it plays and the amount of data that's in it. It's a piece of art.

Trash pile, hmmm fits your description of yourself more than us. That post was for Zartacla, whether he accepts it or not that is up to him it was not addressed to an idiot like you. Even if you got a refund, and I do hope you don't you would still badmouth the beta testers. Bug off jerk!

P.S. Hey bonehead did you actually read my post, I have not a clue what you are talking about.

Bo

Guess why I came to this pukehole.. because of claims there would be a computer version of "World in Flames". Apparently you can use that as an advertisement and an excuse.. just another bit of "how the industry works", hmm. I say F**K the industry.. lets burn it to the ground!! At least the part responsible for all the rainbow-puke..

Be nice, please.

All right, I took Orm's advice and decided to be nice.

Instead I'll repeat what I said earlier: we testers can't possibly play a new Global War scenario from start to finish every week, which is about how often we get new builds. We instead focus on particular areas of the game to test. This build, we were focusing on reinforcements, naval combat, and naval movement, not declarations of war.

And no, we're not paid. I've been testing this game for years, unpaid. It's a lot of work. For my trouble, some forum users here choose to insult me. Thanks a lot.

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Apparently the "beta testers" belong in the same trash pile as the game itself.. Perhaps that is because they are not payed and don't know jack about quality control or software and testing on any level. Pitty you are all enabling Matrix/Slithering to make money on the side with this farce, while they are doing exactly NOTHING but wasting a great licence for a great game.

I'm not a private beta tester but I do know a thing or two about LARGE software development, testing and release efforts. There's a saying in software development and that is you can pick any two:

(A) Cheap

(B) Fast

(C) Good.

Because our hobby is a niche (i.e., small) market I'd say that (1) Cheap is a must. Realistically, commercial software of this complexity for such a small market could easily go for $5000 per license. So, in my experience, $100 per license for software of this complexity and for this small market is a bargain, hence, option "(A) cheap" is one of the two. So, which do you want for the second, (B) Fast or (C) Good? I think the decision is (C) Good. So we have (A) cheap and (C) good, which means it's not going to be fast. This is the "law" of complex software development and, in my opinion, this law is as unbreakable as exceeding the speed of light.

ORIGINAL: Grotius

All right, I took Orm's advice and decided to be nice.

Instead I'll repeat what I said earlier: we testers can't possibly play a new Global War scenario from start to finish every week, which is about how often we get new builds. We instead focus on particular areas of the game to test. This build, we were focusing on reinforcements, naval combat, and naval movement, not declarations of war.

And no, we're not paid. I've been testing this game for years, unpaid. It's a lot of work.

You and the other private beta testers and contributors is what made / makes MWiF possible. Thank you!

P.S. Any by the way, with respect to cost, I'm down to less than 10 cents per hour if I divide the cost ($100) by the time I've spent with this game. I cannot stress how much of a bargain this game is compared to the hours of enjoyment that I've already got from it!

Thanks, rkr! I appreciate the support.

Really enjoying your AAR, by the way.

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Thanks, rkr! I appreciate the support.

Really enjoying your AAR, by the way.

+1 [:)]

Bo

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Guess why I came to this pukehole.. because of claims there would be a computer version of "World in Flames". Apparently you can use that as an advertisement and an excuse.. just another bit of "how the industry works", hmm. I say F**K the industry.. lets burn it to the ground!! At least the part responsible for all the rainbow-puke..

warspite1

To be fair Dabrion, you're kind of sexy when you're angry and start talking all dirty an' s^&*.

My thought is that the person ?managing? the playtesters should arrange that say 25% start from zero, 25% from mid40, 25% from mid 43 and 25% from towards end game.

The testers should also get encouragement to try the major events like US Entry, Declarations of War and some of the "odd" events which AAR have shown cause problems.

Not just , here's a new beta, have fun. The game has so many twists and turns that testing must be driven, not just left to the testers and I would have thought that Matrix had a SOP for testing after sending out so many partially developed games.

Jeff - there is no test manager. Steve provides a new closed beta, and sometimes asks specifically to test a certain function. In this case I prevented a bug in the reinforcement phase when a game was saved in that phase.

Again - it is what it is, and I am happy to see the progress we have made. I have started playing a game over mail and I enjoy it. Pity others cannot.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

My thought is that the person ?managing? the playtesters should arrange that say 25% start from zero, 25% from mid40, 25% from mid 43 and 25% from towards end game.

The testers should also get encouragement to try the major events like US Entry, Declarations of War and some of the "odd" events which AAR have shown cause problems.

Not just , here's a new beta, have fun. The game has so many twists and turns that testing must be driven, not just left to the testers and I would have thought that Matrix had a SOP for testing after sending out so many partially developed games.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

My thought is that the person ?managing? the playtesters should arrange that say 25% start from zero, 25% from mid40, 25% from mid 43 and 25% from towards end game.

The testers should also get encouragement to try the major events like US Entry, Declarations of War and some of the "odd" events which AAR have shown cause problems.

Not just , here's a new beta, have fun. The game has so many twists and turns that testing must be driven, not just left to the testers and I would have thought that Matrix had a SOP for testing after sending out so many partially developed games.

warspite1

Hi JeffK

There's a few issues with your (otherwise reasonable) proposal:

a) there are too few beta testers (this is the reason a public beta was required)
b) even if there were, there is then the problem that they hold down jobs and have lives. Getting all the 25%'s tested properly in the time available is slim
c) how many of the beta testers actually know all the rules and what they are looking for? There are some - but otherwise the knowledge base is mixed - with the best will in the world stuff will get missed.
d) there is soooo much to test. Just take one naval battle with subs, air and TRS (in addition to naval (inc carriers). To properly test it the sheer number of goes would be staggering.

Bottom line. I have no problem with anger coming from anyone who has paid good money for this game. The situation is as frustrating as hell. But the lazy, half-arsed, blame game - which totally misses the target - is just rubbish.