Ya know, prior to all the complaining about the Mission Objectives not beeping anymore, I didn't even realise that they DID beep, as I've had the sound turned low on the game cuz of all the humming SS and whistling forcefields.
Personally, I don't have any problems with I3 the way it was released, as it has not hampered my playing of the game. Some things are different, yes, but I guess that adapting to changes that may be detrimental will just keep me on my toes.
Heck, just consider it a plot complication, similar to a enemy discovering a weakness of yours and exploting it. Even Superman had his kryptonite.
[ QUOTE ]
To the people who think this is such a huge problem I have to ask for I believe the 4th time in the last 3 days posting on different threads Exactly how many computer games or programs have any of you written before??
[/ QUOTE ]
Following your own logic, no one should complain about their car unless they've engineered and built one from scratch.
You can't complain about your government unless you designed one and built it from scratch.
And don't even think about crabbing when you get food you don't like at a restaurant.
Since I doubt you've programmed a web forum for an MMO, stop using the forums, too.
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, the shock displayed over the glowie bug going live is laughable. It is not that big of a deal.
[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]
It's a big deal, yes. And my display of shock isn't so much over the magnitude of the bug, but the very fact that it got into Live. As someone who makes a living as a software developer, regression testing is very important. And when you have a "certification/user-acceptance-testing environment", as they do in the form of the Test Server, they're supposed to be fixing the bugs the users find before the application goes Live.
[/ QUOTE ]
Good crap, who gives a flying rat's [censored]? The game is designed to constantly update. If a minor bug slipped through, the devs will fix it and send a patch through.
I mean, seriously. Boo freakin' HOO.
QA is full of tough decisions, really. What constitutes a blocker? It seems like the blockers are considered to be almost purely limited to stability issues, whereas users might assert that major quality of life issues ought to also constitute blockers. I'm guessing that the problem isn't just the choice to release; it probably has something to do with the way Cryptic maintains revision control and release packaging. If they had a flexible system, I'd guess that things that must have been just a line of code here and there -- stuff like the glowie noises, the P#### for Tough Hide, and the like -- would have gotten corrected and made it into the release. But I'm guessing that the system is sufficiently rigid that releases are very all-or-nothing -- you snapshot and that's it, no further options.
Ideally, when you release, you are releasing something that only has obscure bugs (things that are not going to be routinely noticed), or where your timeline for being able to create a fix is sufficiently far out that it harms your business objectives. It could be strongly argued that there was no need to push I3 out when it went out, since the Christmas season had already been missed, for instance.
You can get away with releasing obviously buggy code, but that it's not necessarily a good thing for you -- and in fact, the degree to which it is bad for you can be neatly quantified for management's perusal. Every bug report that QA has to look at, every petition the GMs have to deal with, all cost you money, and they potentially cost you customer satisfaction and renewals.
Anyway, it's entirely possible that Cryptic's internal development tools are sufficiently crude that they only had a choice between taking the 12/23 release live, or waiting until some future release with both the bugfixes and likely other changes was done. Presumably they didn't have the option of a release that had just the bugfixes -- we know that quite a few of the bugs have already been fixed, since devs have posted saying that they were in the pipeline and had gotten done -- and so perceived quality ends up suffering.
[ QUOTE ]
As yours is the only post I've seen in this thread disputing my claim that the vast majority would have preferred another week or two of delay while they fixed the most egregious bugs, you're very clearly not part of that vast majority.
[/ QUOTE ]
Fact: The unhappy people are always the loudest. Why? Because they are unhappy. You should also climb out of your little message board limbo for a moment and realize that the posters here are a miniscule portion of the players of City of Heroes. Some casual players don't even realize there were any changes made.
And as for the "reading comprehension" comment, if you need to attempt to insult the people you refute, then you obviously don't have much confidence in the gravity of your opinion.
[ QUOTE ]
The free respec was never part of the Issue 3 plan and was just put in as a holiday bonus so stop acting like they owe it to you. The other issues will get addressed when the cause of the bug is located. Computer languages are exact and if one little thing is put in wrong you can get something completely different from what you were after and the programs are written by humans who are not perfect ( as none of us are ) they make mistakes while writing the update or when they add it to the rest of the program and of course there is no spellchecker for computer language so the only way to find out the bugs exist is to test the program and the ones that seriously affect performance of the program get addressed before release and the ones that are just nuisances get worked on last and patched after release.
[/ QUOTE ]
You are incorrect about this.
<3