1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post bug reports and ask for game support here.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

Post Reply
joshuamnave
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:51 am
Contact:

1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by joshuamnave »

Germany declared war on the Dutch, and the CW took control of the Dutch units. After the conquest, the Dutch ships sailed for British ports. Because the CW is a major power with whom the Dutch cooperate, they should be able to trace a primary supply path to any city in the UK. However, in the latest beta patch, they are sitting in port in the UK and are out of supply. Please don't ask for a saved game - this is easier and faster to replicate (and it baffles me how this could have escaped unnoticed) than it is for me to provide a save.

That's the new bug.

The old bug - This one was fixed at one point but has made a comeback... picking up an HQ unit puts every unit that was tracing to that HQ out of supply until the unit is set back down again. Once again, easier and faster to replicate than to post a save.
Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky
User avatar
AxelNL
Posts: 2389
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Location: The Netherlands

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by AxelNL »

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

Germany declared war on the Dutch, and the CW took control of the Dutch units. After the conquest, the Dutch ships sailed for British ports. Because the CW is a major power with whom the Dutch cooperate, they should be able to trace a primary supply path to any city in the UK. However, in the latest beta patch, they are sitting in port in the UK and are out of supply. Please don't ask for a saved game - this is easier and faster to replicate (and it baffles me how this could have escaped unnoticed) than it is for me to provide a save.
It escaped unnoticed because we do not have the time to test complete scenario's. In this case I disagree that a saved game is not appropriate. If a save of this case is available in one of our libraries then no problem. Otherwise we need to open a scenario and get to this phase ourselves. Posting that save is much, much faster.

That's the new bug.

The old bug - This one was fixed at one point but has made a comeback... picking up an HQ unit puts every unit that was tracing to that HQ out of supply until the unit is set back down again. Once again, easier and faster to replicate than to post a save.

I saw that myself - I agree that it will save calculation time. Up to Steve to judge in this case. Savegame is not needed.
User avatar
Centuur
Posts: 9012
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2011 12:03 pm
Location: Hoorn (NED).

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by Centuur »

They are bugs, however, should they be fixed or not?

On the first one, I have a question:
Are the Dutch vessels still Out of Supply at the start of the first action segment of the new turn? If at that moment, supply is correct, than it is only a cosmetic issue (since supply isn't important between the conquest phase and the start of the first action segment of the next turn). So can you please check this? If they are in supply later, it is only a cosmetic issue (and I don't think Steve wants to spend time on this at the moment. Time is precious).

On the second one: we did have problems during the fixing of supply with units incorrectly being shown as supplied, if this "double" calculation didn't happen. It is cosmetic only, so I don't think we need to fix it. Again, time is precious...
Peter
joshuamnave
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:51 am
Contact:

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by joshuamnave »

I don't understand how you don't have time to test scenarios, or how it can be properly tested without testing scenarios. That sounds like a large structural issue with the testing process itself. Put another way - in nearly every patch, I find a new bug within the first hour of playing with the new patch, and I'm not looking for them. If the process used by the beta testers is missing bugs that are that easy to stumble on, then the process itself is flawed.

As for Centuur's question - At first I thought that might be the case, because after moving a convoy point and some escorts into the North Sea, the Dutch units were suddenly in supply. Then I realized that the CP actually was the only missing link in an overseas supply route from the ships in the UK to Batavia, so their supply status change was not merely cosmetic. To verify this, I reloaded and moved units in a different order, and their supply status did not change until the overseas supply route was established.

Also, it appears to only apply to cooperating minor units whose country has been incompletely conquered. Polish naval units in the UK prior to the conquest of Poland had no trouble tracing supply to British cities (and after Poland was conquered, they became British units).

As for the HQ issue - if it's merely cosmetic, then it's only a minor problem. The issue before was that if the HQ was part of a stack executing an overrun, it would fail due to lack of supply.
Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8355
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by paulderynck »

This is the process. A bug is reported and a save game is available. Steve works on the bug and tells us it is fixed. We use the new WiF exe and test that saved game and verify if the bug is gone.

You're suggesting that every bug fix be tested against every scenario until we "stumble across" the fact it is fixed or some previously unknown bug appears instead. That's ridiculous.
Paul
joshuamnave
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:51 am
Contact:

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by joshuamnave »

No, what's ridiculous is that a) every new patch is released with obvious bugs and b) that 6 months after release there are still this many bugs in the game. You think it's ridiculous that I want the game I paid full retail for to work and that I don't want to be part of an unpaid QA staff, working in the blind without a list of open bugs, save files that are requested then never downloaded, bugs that are ignored for months, then berated for not being more helpful.

Remind me never to buy another Matrix product, ever.
Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky
User avatar
AxelNL
Posts: 2389
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Location: The Netherlands

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by AxelNL »

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

No, what's ridiculous is that a) every new patch is released with obvious bugs and b) that 6 months after release there are still this many bugs in the game. You think it's ridiculous that I want the game I paid full retail for to work and that I don't want to be part of an unpaid QA staff, working in the blind without a list of open bugs, save files that are requested then never downloaded, bugs that are ignored for months, then berated for not being more helpful.

Remind me never to buy another Matrix product, ever.

Zartacla, as I did a significant effort in getting rid of the supply bugs I want to answer this.
1.) I am an unpaid volunteer who paid the full price in Essen. I have been following the work of Steve over the years and am helping him fully aware of the situtation. I don't like aspects of the situation either, the choice is to stop or support. I want this piece of art to function so I endure the emotions slushing around and I hope that Steve is able to do that also. I knew already years ago that this should not be judged by normal commercial laws. The problem here is that for folks not following the work before the launch there is an expectation management problem. Matrix is responsible for that, and I think it is probably a combination of actions from their legal and text writing folks who were not aware themselves in combination with too hopefull marketeers being pressed by others to release. I understand your emotions in this point fully, and have been helping you the most I could.
2.) I have a full-time job. My testing exists of checking fixes against my own library of savegames and trying to enjoy my own campaign. I have done multiple cycles of regression testing against my own list of supply bugs for this supply release. I have found regression bugs you are not aware of, although you have experienced the delays in releases because of that. The point you make is that we are not good enough to find every "obvious" bug.
I'm afraid that even a professionally paid staff of 20+ testers is not able to find every "obvious" bug. The amount of permutations given the amount of optionals in combination with the amount of scenario's in combination with the amount of choices one can make in a scenario in combination with sheer volume of rules trying to deal with lots of exceptional situations is mind boggling. In this case there is probably a regression in the last fix, which can only be found in the circumstances you describe. In my own list there is not a save to test against, and in my own campaign I have progressed far behind that point. If there was a problem in conquering China I would have found it however. I and my fellow beta's do not have the time to start and complete one campaign between every beta release.
3.) I do think you are helpfull (more than average), but understandably influenced by heavy frustration. Can I remind you not to buy Matrix products before researching the status on the forum, and advise you the following?: Either give the game a rest for the coming 6 months, or do a reset on your expectation level. The latter is more healthy for heart and mind if you continue to get lured by the game itself. Not only your own, but also other reader's like Paul, who has a comparable set of frustration to manage.
joshuamnave
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:51 am
Contact:

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by joshuamnave »

Here is the save.

Just so you know, I *have* worked as paid QA for a computer game company before. It was many years ago, but not so long ago that I've forgotten how an effective QA structure works. It's not the fault of the beta testers, who as you said are unpaid hobbyists with full time jobs elsewhere. It's not Steve's fault - he's a coder, not a QA engineer and there are very different sets of skills and experiences for those two jobs. But most importantly, it's not not not the customers fault, and the implication so often is that we have unrealistic or unreasonable expectations (we don't) or that we are responsible for QA (we're not) or that we should have known it was not ready for release and should shut up and be happy we have the game at all. I reject that implication.

Attachments
howdidyo..issthis.zip
(1.57 MiB) Downloaded 3 times
Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8355
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: Zartacla
You think it's ridiculous that I want the game I paid full retail for to work and that I don't want to be part of an unpaid QA staff, working in the blind without a list of open bugs, save files that are requested then never downloaded, bugs that are ignored for months, then berated for not being more helpful.
That was never stated and is patently false. What is true is we both want the bugs to be found and removed and that the chances for any particular bug to be eliminated are much greater when there's a save game available.
Paul
User avatar
AxelNL
Posts: 2389
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Location: The Netherlands

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by AxelNL »

Zaracla - thanks for your support and the save. I apologize for the implicitative message. I also have emotions which sometimes spill over my channeling.
Paul - your second sentence is the best. Let's stop this discussion at this point.

This is a small hobby, we will never be able to get the resources which would normally be applicable for a complex product like this. Steve himself is the reason we got this far.

I have been rereading the monthly's around 2010-2011. Two other programmers were added around that time. They dropped of with problems of their own just about the time Steve got eye-cancer, his heart attack and his lesser attacks on his health. It is a wonder we are as far as we are. I think the best approach to have a fully functioning piece of art is setting the right level of expectations, and support this community effort.
User avatar
AxelNL
Posts: 2389
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Location: The Netherlands

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by AxelNL »

and I will download your game tomorrow morning to have a look at it [;)]


oh.......and lest we forget: the bugs we are now talking about are still in the public beta. I was hoping this could become the final supply release, but obviously it isn't. It is not the first time that (one of the) last fix(es) generates a regression bug which is first found by the public. Very frustating for the beta team.

The workmen in Steve's flat are still there next week - I do not envy him trying to concentrate on one of the most complex pieces of code he wrote.
User avatar
AxelNL
Posts: 2389
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Location: The Netherlands

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by AxelNL »

Zartacla - I looked at your save. There is something wrong with the routing algorithm. After placing the CONV in the North Sea my avatar gets supply from Glasgow.
I moved the Batavia Mil in Conventry, and instead of enjoying the local ale it gets supply via a long route including the Faeroes Gap from Glasgow as well. It looks like the engine is only routing to primary city/port hexes from a sea area instead of directly to primary cities for aligned, incomplete conquered units - when the option 'supply via CONV' is on. CW units have no routing problem. As if the supply chain for those units need to pass through at least one CONV.

I am pretty sure this regression bug was created fixing a last problem involving a CW Territorial in British Somaliland which was OOS while it could reach a UK City overseas. I reported a routing problem using 1.1.8.5 (which is the debug version of 1.1.8.6), which had a different outcome than yours. Steve acknowledged that one, and I think he is still working on it. As soon as he fixes that one, I will recheck your save to see if it solved this routing problem as well. I think this piece of code is incredibly difficult to get right with all the rules on cooperating, aligned, Territorials and other options, not more than one overseas route, primary vs secondary vs tertiary sources, etc.

See screenshot I just made.


Image
Attachments
2014_05_18..ltic_Sea.jpg
2014_05_18..ltic_Sea.jpg (400.94 KiB) Viewed 54 times
User avatar
AxelNL
Posts: 2389
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Location: The Netherlands

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by AxelNL »

ps - Zartacla: I would not have discovered this until my next campaign. Until now I have not been using the option the need CONVs for supply. Would have not known you were playing with it so would have had problems reconstructing this.
joshuamnave
Posts: 967
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 3:51 am
Contact:

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by joshuamnave »

I don't blame you or think it's your fault - it's the system that is broken. The purpose of a beta test, the purpose of a QA team, is to discover bugs before software is released. If all of the beta testers are doing what they are told to do and bugs are still not being discovered, then the process is almost by definition broken. Matrix has attempted to fix this by making all revision releases "public betas", thereby increasing the number of beta testers and diversifying the methods used by testers. The problem with that approach is that 6 months after release, calling their paying customers beta testers doesn't make it so. I get that from a financial standpoint it doesn't make any short term sense to hire a professional QA team and additional coders to fix this mess, but there will be a long term cost in terms of customer loyalty and company reputation. They've made the decision that the long term cost is cheaper than the cost to fix the short term problems, and I have no way of knowing whether that's a good choice or not. I only know how it impacts my own personal game buying decisions now and in the future.
Head Geek in Charge at politigeek.net - the intersection of politics and all things geeky
User avatar
AxelNL
Posts: 2389
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Location: The Netherlands

RE: 1 new and 1 old supply bug

Post by AxelNL »

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

I don't blame you or think it's your fault - it's the system that is broken. The purpose of a beta test, the purpose of a QA team, is to discover bugs before software is released. If all of the beta testers are doing what they are told to do and bugs are still not being discovered, then the process is almost by definition broken. Matrix has attempted to fix this by making all revision releases "public betas", thereby increasing the number of beta testers and diversifying the methods used by testers. The problem with that approach is that 6 months after release, calling their paying customers beta testers doesn't make it so. I get that from a financial standpoint it doesn't make any short term sense to hire a professional QA team and additional coders to fix this mess, but there will be a long term cost in terms of customer loyalty and company reputation. They've made the decision that the long term cost is cheaper than the cost to fix the short term problems, and I have no way of knowing whether that's a good choice or not. I only know how it impacts my own personal game buying decisions now and in the future.

Well, I think there were some more complexities in that decision, but bottom line the result is the same. Although I think MWIF is a "special" in this proces. In many respects. It all comes down on expectation management, as there are enough folks who would have accepted the deal as it is, I think. Just to support this effort.

BTW - we have another save now where the same problem is visible. Mongolian CAV only being in supply in Russia when it can access a sea path (this is without the CONV supply option). It is definitly the last fix which caused this problem of aligned Minors needing a sea area in their supply route.
Post Reply

Return to “Tech Support”