19 replies to this topic

[Locklyn]

Since I started in the game both I and a lot of other players have been sending in various bug reports to Pete but one has always been wondering why things went poof and what was done to correct it. Many online games run a bug table where they post what bugs have been found and how they were repaired allowing players to check against it in case the GM had actually missed something. Would this be a terrible idea in SNROE? We all know there are bugs and that they still pop up like the guy gaining 250000 fighters because of the LC bug. And Pete works his gremloid free ass off to fix everything and we appreciate it. I just think it would make the progress even more apparent, allow us to check against errors that actually could have been missed and allow us to see what is on the horizon for the game in form of improvements and such.

What do you think?

/Locklyn

[MadMartinB]

I voted no because I am sure the bug page would devolve into pettiness. There are some players who are constantly complaining about the game and posting bugs would give them fuel to ask: "this was posted 3 months ago, why wasn't it fixed".

[Locklyn]

I voted yes because when I hear some of the scarier bugs that pop up and know the amount of empires I wonder how Pete has time to check them all for bugs, especially the more discrete ones as with RC rounding and such...

/Locklyn

[Locklyn]

Also being more open about it would do more to counter "pettiness" than people constantly writing to Pete about this or that perhaps being wrong or being uncertain about if research is calculated correctly because they're getting different results with their old and new empire even though they're basically the same...
Besides, if an important bug wasn't fixed after three months wouldn't that actually be a problem!? I've never known Pete to ignore bugs that long, there are aspects of gameplay that have taken a long time to be switched "On" though.

This ís more to help people not get frustrated like if a player designed a theocracy when the game started and thought his tons of priests would do something other than modify production since the rules vaguely mention "fanatic" and holy units as well as Gods discovered through EXPL. Now after almost thirty turns of play that feature seems to have been activated which is great, but I think a player that starts today, and designs his empire after the rules also deserves to KNOW what features, like special agents and espionage, aren't working or haven't been activated yet so that he doesn't get frustrated and leaves but designs accordingly to what works in the game and has fun untill everything works.

As for "pettiness", alot of this "pettiness" have evolved into new orders like the TAC that in itself showed flaws with troops not having abilities in areas they should have. How would we ever have known this without the TAC order?

I think more openess, less smoke and mirrors in the rules would benefit the players, the game and the business for RTG alot! Everyone can't mail or afford to phone Pete about perceived problems and get straightened out or get clues and a lot of Petes time is surely wasted that public posting of ongoing work would save. But that is my opinon...

/Locklyn

[steve-kort]

MadMartinB, on Nov 22 2003, 06:33 PM, said:

I voted no because I am sure the bug page would devolve into pettiness. There are some players who are constantly complaining about the game and posting bugs would give them fuel to ask: "this was posted 3 months ago, why wasn't it fixed".

I voted yes for the simple reason I do not have the time to talk to RTG or multiple other people to find out something is not working. If something does not work then fine let me know so I do not waste my time spending orders on that particular problem. As for a time table on when they will be done that would be nice, but fairly unimportant and not necessary. The key is everyone has a easy way to know something is not working and when something is fixed.

The last thing I want is to see everyone constantly calling Russ and Pete to see if there is a bug and find out the latest on those issues. They have more important things to spend there time on getting these things fixed. I also do not like the idea that people that can call them regularly are getting more info and a leg up on everyone else. In my opinion that is a unfair advantage for those that can and do call, besides taking time away that could be used by them to repair these problems hurts everyone.

Steve Kort

[DWillard]

I think the benefits from having an official bug thread far outweigh any "harm" that might come from it.

[ShadowKitsune]

Is there anyway to make the "Bug" List a database/spreadsheet kind of thing? The reason that I ask is that I've seen various players actually bring up the same or very similar Features they'd like or Bugs that they've found on assorted threads/topics. I just hoped that we could add things in as a line item, that way there would be less redundancy, plus Pete could mark items on the list like our R&D reports (i.e. No progress, Started, Good Progress, Nearly Done, etc.). After all he does have a life outside of RTG, despite rumors to the contrary.

[hobknob]

The poll results seem to speak for themselves.

[Kurassier]

I voted yes, but would have to add that I believe RTG fixes things as fast as they can. And if posting saves people from calling RTG and 'bugging' Pete I'm all for it. I'd rather have Pete working on code (or watching his son play hockey) then talking to us. I usually just email my concerns and they can get back to me when they have the time.
In fact, I've been playing RTG games for about six or seven years, and don't recall ever having called them (although I'm sure I did back in the BBS days)

But that's just me.

[Locklyn]

*pushing issue once more to top of line for consideration*

I would like to see more players come with their opinions on this. Its usually the same vocal crowd that posts on the board and we know there are more than these players?



/Locklyn

[hobknob]

I would like to at least know which bugs have been fixed. I can see plenty of reasons to not post about bugs being worked on though.

[Locklyn]

Yes, I know that as well, but I wish we could get some warning of changes to the code, or paths we shouldn't waste our time on as it isn't working.

/locklyn

[Vince]

Since I just sent for my first set-up, I don't have any experience as yet with the potential outcome of the "bugs"; however, I think a status list of items that would have a material effect on the game would be beneficial.

[EternusIV]

I voted nope.

Pete and Russ have done a good job working over errors and little bugs.

It seems most of the major ones have been resolved.

If you are a newcomer, it should be much smoother sailing than some of us had from the get go

Welcome aboard!

[WKE235]

I for one would like to see a posting of bugs that folks have discovered, and postings when items are resolved. I am less interested in when it will be done. I want to know the bugs that exist so I can make sure to avoid them in my turns.

Of course this is assuming the bug sticks around for awhile. RTG has done a good job of quashing discovered bugs pretty quickly limiting impact on the game. So likely all you would see are bugs that go up after turns are received, and are corrected by the next cycle. From that perspective, it might not do to much. Still, having it all recorded would put my mind at ease.

ALSO -- there is a benefit. Any fixes will all be in one location. So instead of my remembering what was fixed and what happened, or trying to locate the "fixed it" message on turn "X", I could simply search the web site with all the fix data