OK guys can we get some bugs fixed please?

[delatbabel]

tm.asp?m=1739144

G16 has been around for a long time.
D15 has been around for a long time and breaks an important part of the game -- it removes the incentive for creating the Confederation of the Rhine.
D30 has been reported and talked about a lot. It appears to be a game-breaker.
N12 should be an easy fix.
N24 should be an easy fix.
L4 should be easy to verify and fix, and has been reported by at least two people.
L19 is a serious problem and should be fixed asap.
LC3 is a serious problem as it aborts the game at that point, so should be fixed very soon.
E9 warrants an urgent fix I think.

It's been some time since the last (beta) patch release -- and I think those of us in the playing (and paying) community have been quite patient. Some of the above bugs are fairly serious and IMHO should be fixed as a priority to allow games to continue going forwards. At least a timeline should be placed on some of the game-breaking ones, as there are those of us who are waiting to start games pending these bug fixes.

Any news from the developers on the above?

[obsidiandrag]

Though I agree to an extent, I am still derriving some enjoyment out of the game.  I do believe the game was and is a bit overpriced as I paid some $82 for the service and shipping included. I do think as I am playtesting the game for them as with most of the current players there should have been some compensation.  There comes to mind the question of wether or not the first release was infact tested at all?  For the cost, if there is no company testing going on, there should deffinately be some more expedient service correcting the bugs and issuing new patches to keep the current and future customers happy with thier purchase of a game that does not have nearly the graphics or AI that most new released games include for about half the price.  But like I said, I am enjoying the game as is, but would like the bugs to be worked as quickly as possible.

[Marshall Ellis]

Hey guys:
 
I'm trying to get my head above the water on the above issues. I appreciate your patience and I'm trying to keep up but there are more of you than there are of me
 
I'm already into 1.03 and fixing as we speak!
 
 
 
 
 

[delatbabel]

I appreciate the attention, Marshall.

The point of my post is that:

* It appears that some game-breaking bugs are sitting around without any action.
* It appears that some bugs that, to me (with 20+ years experience in software development) sound, on the surface without having looked into the source code, to be simple to fix are not getting fixed.
* It appears that there are a lot of bug fixes for cosmetic or semi-cosmetic issues -- e.g. D16, D27, R12, N15, L28, LC7, LC13, none of which are truly game breakers.

Furthermore there doesn't appear to be a bug tracking system in place (I would recommend bugzilla) nor an effective priority management system for the bugs that do exist. Bugzilla would be simple enough to set up and manage for a project like this.

[Marshall Ellis]

Del:
 
I hear ya and appreciate the call.
There is a lot that we could do better. Prioritization is one for sure.
Noted.
 
 
 

[gwheelock]

As another item: When standard commercial software is developed; there is something created called a test plan.
This is a list of VERY SPECIFIC test cases AND EXPECTED RESPONSES.  These may involve defining an
initial data state; a specific test and then the expected results.  If the program does not conform; it is
considered a bug.  This test base may be quite large (I was once involved with a project that had over
6000 specific test cases) and is usually developed in parallel with the app itself.  Before the app is even
released for BETA; it must pass all of the tests in the test base.  If any bugs are found that are not
covered by the test base; a new test for that specific error is created and added to the test base.
This prevents errors from being reintroduced & assures that the product gets BETTER over time.
 
 

[Marshall Ellis]

The engine actually has a systems test mode where it counts a certain number of events as I play a game. It tracks events such as a sieges, amphib landings, land combats, sea combats, cedings, surrenders, alliances, kingdom creation, freestate creations, etc. These parameters are totalled until I clear them. I try to play and play and play and total these events and build some precedents over a period of time such as, When I do X amphib lands and X land combats without a problem then we have a good idea how stable it is. This local to a game so doesn't cover backwards compatiblity which is what I am adding in our tests. Our largest problem right now is that we really do not have enough active testers. I'm never in favor of a coder being the only tester!
 

[Grapeshot Bob]

I don't want to anger anyone here but Matrix might want to indicate how many other games the programming team has successfully released in the blurb about the game.

Are the testing team positions paid positions?

Are those of us who find and log bug fixes considered testers? If this is the case it does not bode well for the future of this game because it seems to me that the fan base for this game is evaporating at a catastrophic rate.

$70 gives me the right to ask these questions.



GSB

[Erik Rutins]

Bob,

ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob
Are those of us who find and log bug fixes considered testers? If this is the case it does not bode well for the future of this game because it seems to me that the fan base for this game is evaporating at a catastrophic rate.
$70 gives me the right to ask these questions.

To be frank, we are doing everything we can to re-test and fix issues reported both externally and internally as soon as humanly possible.

However, the truth is that even at $70 per game, because this is a niche market that's not enough to put together the size of team required for some of the processes used in larger commercial projects. This is not an excuse, but it's worth keeping in mind for perspective.

Piling on Marshall at this point is not helpful. We understand that while some customers are fairy happy with EIA, a lot are not and we are working hard to make sure everyone feels their money was well spent. The more time Marshall has for coding, the sooner the list of issues will be cleared up.

We are in the process of reinvesting in EIA post-release specifically on the testing and project management side to help Marshall and the rest of the team resolve the remaining issues as quickly as possible.

Regards,

- Erik

[joviel]

Erik,

Just in case you think this isn't important, I've been buying Matrix games for many years (check my stats). I have stopped. I would have bought Battle of Britain (I really enjoyed the original) but held off because I can no longer count on quality products. Short, simple and true.

Scott Uhrick

[Marshall Ellis]

Scott:
 
Your input is noted and appreciated.
If I may step in for Erik, real quick ... I don't think there is a single person involved in this project that doesn't think this is important? A lot of people spent a lot of time on this! Too much time for it not to be important!
Call me a terrible coder, slow, whatever but I assure you this is important to Erik and everybody!

[joviel]

Marshall,

Thanks for the calm and understanding reply. I'm hanging in there, although the third multiplayer game I was involved with has now been given up on, that's zero for three.

If I may make a suggestion, concentrate on fixing the battle system. It should be fairly easy to make more bulletproof and all three games cratered because of user error in the current error-prone system. There are too many possible points of failure for we poor falible humans. I suggest;

1) Making sure that the end-of-turn button cannot be pressed until all battles are complete to the games satisfaction.
2) Name each battle file uniquely so that there is no confusion (eg, game-turn-player-area-round.battle). We are having to make sure the battle directory is cleared before each round, a p.i.t.a.
3) Perhaps make each battle file a full dump of the game similar to a saved game rather than a stub? In this age of high-speed internet, file size isn't as important as it once was.

I won't be playing the game again until the battle-system is fixed, this is more important than gameplay issues. When someone complains about the AI they are indignantly told (not by you) that they are a fool for expecting a robust AI. And now the multiplayer aspect is fundamentally flawed. Ouch.

Scott Uhrick

[Erik Rutins]

Scott,

I hear you and I'm sorry regarding the bad experience you've had with EIA. I do hope we're allowed to make a mistake once in a long while, especially if we work hard to fix it and that is what we are doing. I hope you'll be a customer of ours again in the future.

Regards,

- Erik

[delatbabel]

Well I heard what everyone's saying.

I've volunteered to join the new test team and Marshall says that will be up and running with the 1.02 release going in to 1.03. I hope that some time after that my experience in software testing and bug management can be put to some use, especially in terms of setting up a bug management system and prioritising tasks that need completion to get the software into a useable state.

Personally I still enjoy playing and using the EiANW game as is. I've played a number of solo games and participated in some PBEM games albeit not to completion. I hope that one day it reaches the state where it's stable and bug free. I understand that the EiA team is fairly small and the game only appeals to a niche market. I'm also looking forwards to the day that the team release a useable replacement for War in Russia.

[Marshall Ellis]

Del:
 
You will be used
Did you get my last message?
 
 
 
 
 

[obsidiandrag]

I am sure this is a dead horse but I have one question just in case it hasn't been raised...  Is there a way to make this a play online game?  I know "it's a long game" [blah blah] but, PBEM takes a while too so that is not relevent to me.  It seems to me if all the players were sitting at the computers at a designated time each week most of these issues would be a thing of the past.  You  would not have to send files, all the battles would be real time.  I know this is a totally different direction and alot of change in code etc.  But real time would mean you wouldn't need all of the check boxes to tell the computer what to do when it was not your turn, a simple prompt would suffice.  Let me know how bad an idea this is and I won't say anymore... 

[Grognot]

That horse is dead, rottting, and exploded.  Do a search for TCP/IP.

[delatbabel]

Hi Marshall,

I got your message. Replied. I never received a copy of the NDA, please send again. Other than that I'm all in.