Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
Moderators: GSH, VSMIT, Red Devil, Commando
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
Whoa whoa, not noticing and unable to reproduce are two different things... tread lightly please.
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
I do not mean to be rude but...Zax wrote:Whoa whoa, not noticing and unable to reproduce are two different things... tread lightly please.
I don't think light tread is required. This bug is sort of an all, not an all or nothing.Zax wrote:Note: When he says reduced lag/warp, that's the understatement of the year. Nearly Eliminated is more accurate.
If I get both sides angry at me it means I am doing it right.
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
I've said this before in private, and I'll say it again: lag/warp is not one giant SUV-sized bug. It's a swarm of small bugs that may be about the size of a SUV. I work on individual small issues. When I fix one issue, I refer to that one issue. Not the whole cluster. So, when people say "it's not fixed," that's a uselessly vague pronoun fail. "It" does not describe warp/lag bugs. You need to say "the one with purple toenails at this position."
I get annoyed by the terms lag/warp because they're as useful in diagnosing what went wrong as my 2 month old's catchall crying. Dirty diaper? Cry. Hungry? Cry. Need burping? Cry. Something else? Cry. Saying "warp/lag" is a general "I don't like what I see," but it doesn't accurately describe *what* you saw. A rule for bug reports is that you should be able to give the steps in the bug report to someone else, and they can get it to happen, and describe the end results in clear words. In other words, "When I did steps A, B, C, I expected X to happen, but Y happened." See how that bug report template differs from the crybaby "warp/lag" catchall for "I don't like what I saw, but I can't actually be arsed to describe it." Some testers have actually gotten this, and submitted videos. That's useful, but sometimes, people have said "see, there's warp/lag in this video" -- and nobody's been able to break it down to the "expected X, got Y"
(Update): A good read on programmers vs designers (or armchair designers) here. I'm a programmer. Speaking non-programmer vagueness doesn't help.
-- GSH
I get annoyed by the terms lag/warp because they're as useful in diagnosing what went wrong as my 2 month old's catchall crying. Dirty diaper? Cry. Hungry? Cry. Need burping? Cry. Something else? Cry. Saying "warp/lag" is a general "I don't like what I see," but it doesn't accurately describe *what* you saw. A rule for bug reports is that you should be able to give the steps in the bug report to someone else, and they can get it to happen, and describe the end results in clear words. In other words, "When I did steps A, B, C, I expected X to happen, but Y happened." See how that bug report template differs from the crybaby "warp/lag" catchall for "I don't like what I saw, but I can't actually be arsed to describe it." Some testers have actually gotten this, and submitted videos. That's useful, but sometimes, people have said "see, there's warp/lag in this video" -- and nobody's been able to break it down to the "expected X, got Y"
(Update): A good read on programmers vs designers (or armchair designers) here. I'm a programmer. Speaking non-programmer vagueness doesn't help.
-- GSH
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
Get both sides angry enough and one might walk.Nielk1 wrote:I do not mean to be rude but...Zax wrote:Whoa whoa, not noticing and unable to reproduce are two different things... tread lightly please.
I don't think light tread is required. This bug is sort of an all, not an all or nothing.Zax wrote:Note: When he says reduced lag/warp, that's the understatement of the year. Nearly Eliminated is more accurate.
If I get both sides angry at me it means I am doing it right.
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
Good way to put it GSH. I am sure by the next page we will get "it still has lag" posted by someone though.
@Zax: I am the one looking at leaving, or did you not bother reading past the part that mentioned you and numerous others by name?
I am tired of trying to keep things together with the two sides only to have the one most level headed person go and called the patch an 'MPI patch' and a 'STRAT killer'. I can only take such stupid comments so long.
@Zax: I am the one looking at leaving, or did you not bother reading past the part that mentioned you and numerous others by name?
I am tired of trying to keep things together with the two sides only to have the one most level headed person go and called the patch an 'MPI patch' and a 'STRAT killer'. I can only take such stupid comments so long.
-
darkwarrior
- Drunken Constructor
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:26 am
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
I think that one of the first things we should do to get things done more smoothly is to STOP POINT OUT FLAWS IN OTHER PEOPLE. God it is completely ridiculous, how majority of this thread has responses and replies, about what I have said wrong, or what Sly has said wrong (ex. WarFreak typing an essay about a point that SLY made about how it is incorrect.) In reality everyone on this forum just loves to argue and they are putting that in front of actually working together for a solution.
Just to admit to it, I will claim that yes, I did feel strats were ignored, it was just the vibe that the testing team was giving off as it just seemed to have a lot of issues to me. MY apologies. I also admit to wasting time arguing as well. At the same time, I can agree with and disagree with some points. I also admit to typing a long essay-like response as I commented on Warfreak's approach.
For example Sly's point on experience and WarFreak's point on testing gameplay is the public's job. Both of you are right, and both of you are wrong. And you have CLEARLY explained why in your replies. However, it is a matter of meeting these points on moderation, meeting halfway. I believe the gameplay should not be left to the public, that doesn't make to much sense because you have to look at the audience of BZ2, right now it is a matter of keeping players and I don't care what anyone says. Releasing a patch that does have issues such as this one, is a great learning experiences, but at the same time it shouldn't happen. Disappointing some of the newer players, or this new generation of players should be something we at least try to avoid.
Another that does not help is when or if a bad patch comes out, having to wait for the next one. As we all know GSH is busy, and is the only person that can fix the bugs atm, aside from Ken. However, if bad patches are not fixed quickly population declines. As of right now I am seeing many less games. I suppose other contributing factors could be a part of this (summer on its way), however, population declines as a fact, have happened when the patch came out for obvious playability reasons. Now these issues have happened in the past, and then 5.1, came out and a lot of people got back into the game. Then 6.0 came out and even more people got in, mostly due to the ability to host freely. However, with around the time 5.1 came out, a new generation of gamers came along, hence the new members on these forums. This audience appears to be younger and more fresh to the game, but as we know about trying to introduce something to someone, a bad impression must be avoided. These players are already not showing up in games and though they can revert to 6.0 or 5.1, when a small population splits into two, both those populations decline simultaneously, as to be expected in BZ2. As such, 6.1 has unfortunately, left a bad impression, which we should all work hard to fix ASAP.
Anyways to be conclusive to what I have said, I will point out a few bugs, and then reproduce them and create logs later when I able to so that we can be on the right chat.
Private Beta 1.3.6.1 BUGS:
Just to admit to it, I will claim that yes, I did feel strats were ignored, it was just the vibe that the testing team was giving off as it just seemed to have a lot of issues to me. MY apologies. I also admit to wasting time arguing as well. At the same time, I can agree with and disagree with some points. I also admit to typing a long essay-like response as I commented on Warfreak's approach.
For example Sly's point on experience and WarFreak's point on testing gameplay is the public's job. Both of you are right, and both of you are wrong. And you have CLEARLY explained why in your replies. However, it is a matter of meeting these points on moderation, meeting halfway. I believe the gameplay should not be left to the public, that doesn't make to much sense because you have to look at the audience of BZ2, right now it is a matter of keeping players and I don't care what anyone says. Releasing a patch that does have issues such as this one, is a great learning experiences, but at the same time it shouldn't happen. Disappointing some of the newer players, or this new generation of players should be something we at least try to avoid.
Another that does not help is when or if a bad patch comes out, having to wait for the next one. As we all know GSH is busy, and is the only person that can fix the bugs atm, aside from Ken. However, if bad patches are not fixed quickly population declines. As of right now I am seeing many less games. I suppose other contributing factors could be a part of this (summer on its way), however, population declines as a fact, have happened when the patch came out for obvious playability reasons. Now these issues have happened in the past, and then 5.1, came out and a lot of people got back into the game. Then 6.0 came out and even more people got in, mostly due to the ability to host freely. However, with around the time 5.1 came out, a new generation of gamers came along, hence the new members on these forums. This audience appears to be younger and more fresh to the game, but as we know about trying to introduce something to someone, a bad impression must be avoided. These players are already not showing up in games and though they can revert to 6.0 or 5.1, when a small population splits into two, both those populations decline simultaneously, as to be expected in BZ2. As such, 6.1 has unfortunately, left a bad impression, which we should all work hard to fix ASAP.
Anyways to be conclusive to what I have said, I will point out a few bugs, and then reproduce them and create logs later when I able to so that we can be on the right chat.
Private Beta 1.3.6.1 BUGS:
- Lag from joiners - Joiners cause multiple game syncs and can cause all players to lag out and be kicked, happens majority of the time. FFAs are very un-enjoyable as bases are swapped around upon rejoining.
Constructor + Builder stuck in build - The building will finish, however the constructor/builder, will be stuck in the building animation and their build options are grayed out. Temporary fix is telling them to move or follow after the building is done. This issue happens occasionally.
AI UNITS being non-responsive - After building 2 waves of scouts, and telling them to attack a specific target around 10 times, they would ignore commands and just sit in one location. This issue will have to be looked at under different scenarios. I had selected both waves to attack and the first one started moving after a few times telling them to attack and the 2nd, disobeyed a lot of the time. The solution was to have them moved into the enemy's base and then tell them to hold, such that they would attack.
Positional Warp - Warp of which the position of your ship is altered (discussed with GSH) - It seems we were on the right path were it was reduced more, but in this build it is brutal (to no offense). While in base it will just happen randomly, while not even interacting with other players.
AI Warp - Positional glitches with the AIs, like the warp above. AIs in my base while being built would have glitches in their building animations and delays, of which, they would look 20% done, then skip to 90% done. When moving the weird teleport in different locations.
Building of Units and buildings canceled - In the past people may recall when building things, sometimes it would cancel, but still eat up the scrap. Well these issue continually happens and it is annoying as it can change the outcome of the game since it happens so much. Basically for example, when building a gun-tower it could cancel and still eat up the 50 scrap. Another example is when queuing the building of units, lets say mtr bikes. It will cancel once u begin to queue causing the loss of 45 scrap.
I will try to get more info on these, it would be nice if others can contribute to this list or add extra feedback to these bugs.
Last edited by darkwarrior on Wed Jun 15, 2011 9:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
To emphasize, what we (Specifically GSH) needs is the log files and either a save or a list of actions to recreate the situations so he can look for any functions involved and focus his efforts (thank you for taking the right step DW).
Given the vibe I get off a lot of these new people that actually post on the forums I could care less for them. To me, the few I've taken the time to observe through their posts think that the patches are being done for them and that they should either be done fully and perfectly right off the bat and if not GSH should just quit on the community. No they are not. They are being done essentially as a hobby by a very busy person who has a day job to keep up and a family to feed. It is just coincidence that he cares enough to make sure his actions result in an overall better game and honestly he is a saint for that.
Also, no one said that these things are on a schedule and if anything we all lucked out with this patch being released (I didn't even expect a patch this soon). They will be released when they are ready, although that doesn't necessarily mean they are perfect.
The reason I say we don't test gameplay is that we only check for bugs that would hinder the existing notion of what you can and cannot do in normal play. It would be pointless for us to test if you could recycler rush if nothing was changed to hinder/empower that to a greater degree. The recent patches are meant to ensure networking works and that is what the testing is being directed at.
If anything what is needed is 8 people who can be on at the same time to do 4v4s every day with maybe a 1 hour game and then sending in the log files, mentioning bugs highlighted by the log files and if necessary writing down what they did in-game that didn't do what it was supposed to (I ordered unit A to pos (x,y) and instead unit B self-destructed, here is how to replicate issue and the logs of the game)
Lastly (too much of an essay for you?), these words are lengthy because this is not texting, its a forum where ideas are posted and discussions are fleshed out (or in some cases rants).
Given the vibe I get off a lot of these new people that actually post on the forums I could care less for them. To me, the few I've taken the time to observe through their posts think that the patches are being done for them and that they should either be done fully and perfectly right off the bat and if not GSH should just quit on the community. No they are not. They are being done essentially as a hobby by a very busy person who has a day job to keep up and a family to feed. It is just coincidence that he cares enough to make sure his actions result in an overall better game and honestly he is a saint for that.
Also, no one said that these things are on a schedule and if anything we all lucked out with this patch being released (I didn't even expect a patch this soon). They will be released when they are ready, although that doesn't necessarily mean they are perfect.
The reason I say we don't test gameplay is that we only check for bugs that would hinder the existing notion of what you can and cannot do in normal play. It would be pointless for us to test if you could recycler rush if nothing was changed to hinder/empower that to a greater degree. The recent patches are meant to ensure networking works and that is what the testing is being directed at.
If anything what is needed is 8 people who can be on at the same time to do 4v4s every day with maybe a 1 hour game and then sending in the log files, mentioning bugs highlighted by the log files and if necessary writing down what they did in-game that didn't do what it was supposed to (I ordered unit A to pos (x,y) and instead unit B self-destructed, here is how to replicate issue and the logs of the game)
Lastly (too much of an essay for you?), these words are lengthy because this is not texting, its a forum where ideas are posted and discussions are fleshed out (or in some cases rants).
-
MrTwosheds
- Recycler
- Posts: 3059
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:37 am
- Location: Outer Space
- Contact:
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
So anyway, now the opportunity for those who wish to test is here! At the moment pb 1.3.6.1 is the latest version.
It has problems, some of the time, it is an intermittent lagout bug. We need logs from both client and servers, it would also be good to find out what triggers it.
It seems to occur with 4 or more players. It may be linked to team changing in shell (just a theory) or late joiners or leavers, or something else entirely. If you guys can make it happen AND make it not happen. then we are most of the way there.
We would also like you to look out for occurrences of Bad Assets on joining.
One word of advice, If you are using a BZ2 that has been altered (downloaded by torrent or modified by yourself) in any way, please do NOT, bother to test, try to enter tests, post logs or come here whining about issues that none of the other testers have seen. Only patched installations of the original BZ2 should be tested.
This is just to avoid confusing the testing results and introducing unknown variables.
If in doubt make a clean install from your BZ2 CD, and patch with pb1.3.6.1 only.
It has problems, some of the time, it is an intermittent lagout bug. We need logs from both client and servers, it would also be good to find out what triggers it.
It seems to occur with 4 or more players. It may be linked to team changing in shell (just a theory) or late joiners or leavers, or something else entirely. If you guys can make it happen AND make it not happen. then we are most of the way there.
We would also like you to look out for occurrences of Bad Assets on joining.
One word of advice, If you are using a BZ2 that has been altered (downloaded by torrent or modified by yourself) in any way, please do NOT, bother to test, try to enter tests, post logs or come here whining about issues that none of the other testers have seen. Only patched installations of the original BZ2 should be tested.
This is just to avoid confusing the testing results and introducing unknown variables.
If in doubt make a clean install from your BZ2 CD, and patch with pb1.3.6.1 only.
-
Baconboy
- Attila
- Posts: 1063
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:49 pm
- Location: On this forum, aren't I?
- Contact:
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
Not to be rude, but why even have a PB6.1 in the first place?
-
General BlackDragon
- Flying Mauler
- Posts: 2408
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:37 am
- Contact:
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
Because we didn't want to name the patch "Larry's McFun Farm" ?Baconboy wrote:Not to be rude, but why even have a PB6.1 in the first place?
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
I actually was wondering this my self as well. I mean it's great that the game is being patched but I'm not completely sure what the patch really has done.Baconboy wrote:Not to be rude, but why even have a PB6.1 in the first place?
It seems actually that the patch has made the game a lot laggier or more warpy. This might be my computer having some issues accepting it maybe? I've also heard a lot of other people talking about it too so I'm not completely sure but its making the game pretty unplayable which sucks because I'm a huge bz2 fan.
Anyway if anyone could offer any help to possibly fixing this lag I would really appreciate it.
Thanks,
Tyler
-
Baconboy
- Attila
- Posts: 1063
- Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 11:49 pm
- Location: On this forum, aren't I?
- Contact:
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
Can't we recycle a patch?
Like degrade from 6.1 to 6?
There's no need for 6.1!!!!
Like degrade from 6.1 to 6?
There's no need for 6.1!!!!
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
Ingrate. I was writing a C++ program that would compile a list from 1 to 161 but Cygwin wouldn't install fast enough and it was late, so here is the condensed version:Baconboy wrote:Can't we recycle a patch?
Like degrade from 6.1 to 6?
There's no need for 6.1!!!!
1. Unable to disseminate due to NDA
2. Unable to disseminate due to NDA
3. Unable to disseminate due to NDA
...
159. Unable to disseminate due to NDA
160. Unable to disseminate due to NDA
161. Unable to disseminate due to NDA
Re: Battlezone II v1.3.6.1 Public Beta released
Baconboy wrote:Not to be rude, but why even have a PB6.1 in the first place?
Because there were bugs? It is like you WANT to be ostracized.Sly wrote:Exactly
Oh god am I going to be bitched at now because someone doesn't understand what I said?
If I write a little I am misunderstood.
If I write a lot people bitching I wrote to o much or don't read it and misunderstand anyway. Then they call me names.
F*cking morons the lot of ya.