• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Showing developer posts only. Show all posts in this thread.

Wizzington

Game Director (Victoria 3)
Paradox Staff
41 Badges
Nov 15, 2007
12.596
142.651
  • Hearts of Iron II: Armageddon
  • Rome: Vae Victis
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Sengoku
  • Europa Universalis: Rome
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • March of the Eagles
  • Majesty 2
  • Magicka
  • Heir to the Throne
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Darkest Hour
  • Europa Universalis III Complete
  • Deus Vult
  • East India Company
  • Europa Universalis III
  • Divine Wind
  • For The Glory
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Prison Architect
  • Shadowrun: Hong Kong
  • Shadowrun: Dragonfall
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris Sign-up
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Mount & Blade: Warband
  • Magicka: Wizard Wars Founder Wizard
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • 500k Club
  • Victoria 2
Hello everyone! Common Sense and 1.12 have been released, and our expansion sales continue to shatter previous records! With the expansion and patch now out, we're going to shift into a different gear with our dev diaries for a while, talking about other things than upcoming features. Some ideas we've had is to discuss our design process, how we handle feedback from fans, and reflections on different parts of the game and where we want to see them go in the future.

Today, however, we're busy working on a hotfix for 1.12, so I thought I'd tell you about that, and also a bit about why there will always be bugs on release of a new expansion.

Let's deal with the hotfix first. From what we've seen, 1.12 has been a smooth launch for the majority of users, with a low bug count in new features, but there were some serious technical issues on certain hardware setups.

The hotfix is expected to be released today or tomorrow, and at present contains fixes for the following issues:

Hotfix 1.12.1 (AS OF WRITING OF THIS POST, THIS IS NOT YET OUT)
- Fixed a bug where the AI would declare suicidal wars due to incorrectly calculating defensive call acceptance
- Spain can no longer form Andalusia and vice versa (preventing endless nation forming loop for prestige)
- Forts can no longer take control of other provinces with forts (capital, mothballed or otherwise)
- Fixed a bug where the AI would accept concede defeat as the only concession even when they had 100% warscore.
- Fixed a bug where single player games started with the 'Only host can save' setting would be unable to be loaded.
- Fixed a bug where some AIs would constantly mothball and unmothball forts (this could cause serious performance hit on lower end machines as well)
- Fixed a bug where the AI would continously march back and forth between two provinces in a fort's ZoC
- Fixed exploit where you could give away ally's provinces even if not occupied in coalition war.
- Fixed a bug where rebels would spawn at very low morale when there were hostile units in their spawn province.
- Fixed an issue with steam workshop removing supported_version from .mod files
- Fixed an issue where .mod files would be printed with garbled data, resulting in CTD on launch
- Fixed an exploit where you could give away the provinces of your war allies even if they were not occupied (you should only be able to give away your own unoccupied provinces)
- Unit movement lock can no longer be bypassed by issuing another move order.
- Fixed artillery models for several different unit packs to have the correct infantry model accompanying it.
- Lowered cost of diplomatic annexation from 10 to 8 dip points per development (since there's more ways to decrease adm cost)
- Autonomy from diploannexation is now 60 (down from 75)
- Fixes issues using the MacBook trackpad when interacting with the map on OSX.
- Fixed a CTD in AI province conquest weight calculation
- Fixed a CTD related to rebels in uncolonized provinces
- Game no longer crashes when forcing nations with subjects to revoke claims.
- Save games saved in 1.12 no longer cause CTDs in 1.11 (only applies to saves made after this hotfix is applied)
- The '+' key should now increase game speed correctly on US/UK keyboards.
- Fixed issue where foreign Separatists defecting to your country caused your country to act as if it was just released.

Note that we are only considering important fixes and tweaks for hotfixes, so if you have a bug you think should be hotfixed, take a moment and ask yourself whether or not it can wait until the larger bugfixing patch that we'll be releasing later in June.


Why do patches always have bugs?
This is a question we get a lot, along with 'Do you even test your games?', and 'Do you even play your own games?'. The answer is, yes, we play our own games, and yes, we test our games. Loosely calculated, about 2400 man-hours of QA has gone into Common Sense, and before a launch every feature is tested thoroughly. Over the course of the development of 1.12 and Common Sense, approximately 1200 bugs have been fixed by the team.

So why, then, do bugs still get into the release? There are two sides to this, and the first one is math.

As of Tuesday night, we had around 20000 concurrent players. If we assume that those 20000 people each play 2 hours that night, that is 40000 hours of play. In order to have equivalent QA test hours to only 2 hours of play on a release night, we would need a team of 30 full-time QA. Scenarios that only happen once every 10000 games will realistically never happen for our QA, and when you factor in that those 20000 players have 20000 different hardware setups... you can begin to see why things like the game not launching on a single core computer (we do not have a single core computer in QA because they haven't been making them for over half a decade) or the engine upgrade breaking mac trackpads (we did not have a mac trackpad in QA, we now do and will use to test future versions) happen.

That's one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is priority.

It's always our ambition to release new expansions without bugs in the new features, and for this reason we consider newly introduced bugs higher priority than older ones. We haven't always done a great job of this in the past, but 1.12/Common Sense had a much lower bug count in new features than previous expansions. There were however, a couple immediately apparent issues, particularly the fact that movement locking did not work at all. You might reasonably ask yourself how such a thing slipped through QA. The answer: It didn't.

The movement locking bug was introduced in the very last build we made for release, as a result of fixing another bug where ZoCs would create weird movement paths. It was only found after the build was done and smoke tested (smoke testing is basically a thorough 'does the game actually run' test that we do on anything we release to the public). Given that we had no other serious known issues at the time, I made the call that the issue was not serious enough to warrant spending another half a day making a new build and testing that build. QA found the issue, I chose not to fix it because the time spent making a new build could be better spent working on our back log of older bugs, and I figured that we'd have to make a hotfix anyway due to the risk for technical issues appearing with the engine upgrade.

The simple fact of it is that we are probably never going to have a launch that doesn't introduce at least one or two serious technical issues, because we do not, and cannot test the game on the thousands and thousands of different hardware configurations that will be playing the game the moment we set the patch live. The measure of a successful launch, in my book, is not that there are no bugs, but rather that there are no serious bugs which could reasonably have been caught by our internal testing.

Do I expect this explanation to change much? Not really, because I think people like easy explanations, and 'Paradox does not even test their expansions' is a much easier explanation than 'In a complex piece of software you will always have some bugs no matter how much QA you do', 'Fixing bugs can introduce new bugs' and 'Not all bugs are worth grinding development to a halt in order to fix'.

Nonetheless, for those who wish to know, there it is.
 
Last edited:
  • 349
  • 266
  • 1
Reactions:
- Fixed a bug where the AI would declare suicidal wars due to incorrectly calculating defensive call acceptance

This will be nice, it's been a little crazy. Shame the exploits are going away before I can take advantage of them though :)
 
  • 4
Reactions:
And there are also the additional hours played by beta testers. :p

For sure! Our betas are very important for the more 'regular' play they do compared to QA's more focused testing, and some important issues before launch might not have been caught without them.
 
  • 13
  • 1
Reactions:
I've been holding off on playing 1.12 until now, since I was waiting for the inevitable hotfix, but now that the suicidal AI and the bug with rebels resetting your country have been fixed, I'm looking forward to playing it!

The hotfix isn't out yet as it needs to be tested. We expect to have it out today or tomorrow.
 
  • 14
Reactions:
I had hoped for an additional diplomat in the hotfix, but the dip-cost lowering is well appreciated as well!

Not in hotfix, but we're releasing a larger patch later in June that will have +1 diplomat for all rank 2+ countries and +1 free leader for all rank 3+ countries (keep in mind you don't have to have Common Sense to be rank 2).
 
  • 32
  • 7
Reactions:
Speaking about fans feedback. I've noticed that the devs regularly comment suggestions from the fans in the main forum. However there is not a single dev comment in the suggestion sub-forum (which is created for such things) since many weeks. So, is the quality of the suggestions so different or is the suggestion sub-forum just not observed closely by the devs recently?

I read most threads there but rarely comment. Same with other devs.
 
  • 21
  • 4
Reactions:
Thanks. What would you prefer personally? If we have a suggestion, should we post it in the sub-forum or in the main one? Asking because first is probably the way it was designed for but for the second the chances to get a remark/comment from the devs (even if it's a disagreement) are much higher.

Sub-forum. The reason I don't reply is because it simply takes too much time, not because I prefer such threads to clutter up main forum.

Most suggestion threads in main forum don't get commented on either, the exception being the ones that generate a lot of replies. Same with ones that generate a lot of replies in sub-forum.
 
  • 8
  • 3
Reactions:
Yeah, the AI not knowing that it needs to siege the forts first is a pretty big flaw in the new fort system, hopefully that's high on the devs' list.

It *should* be fixed because I believe it was the same bug as wandering back and forth between two provinces, but I can't be 100% sure. Haven't been able to repro it internally since, at any rate.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
It is clear things, as a QA manager, I can only advice you some practices, which you already know, may be :)
May be it is good idea to make preorder available for EU DLC (and others) and give beta-test acces for people who bought preorder? (thats give you prerelease user testing whith loyal players, who will be sure that game is not finish and bugs - normal thigs)
You have a huge people resource who want to get quality product, and want to help, but I think you didn't use it at all.

Sorry for bad english.

If we're going to pre-release it to such a large amount of people that we will find all technical issues, then there is no actual difference from a real release.
 
Last edited:
  • 26
  • 3
Reactions:
but why not just delay the release then? 1-2 week of wait couldnt hurt?

Delaying the expansion would not have mattered for the technical problems, and we probably wouldn't have found any of the rare 1-in-1000 games (like rebels defecting) issues in such a span of time either... and if we'd spent that time fixing lower priority bugs we'd run the risk of introducing new, more serious problems. You only delay a release if you have known issues that are serious enough to warrant a delay. We didn't.
 
  • 16
  • 2
Reactions:
Will uploading to the Workshop work again after this patch, or is that something you're hitting later this month? What I am referring to is the workshop removing the "supported_version" tags from .mod files, last seen widely in... 1.10?

Please read the OP before replying.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
  • 3
Reactions:
  • 8
  • 3
Reactions:
Also, just because it wouldn't be a DD if I didn't tantalize you guys a little bit.

qf8vWEj.png


(We decided to use one of our unused tags for it, since removing tags can't really be done without busting save games anyway.)
 
  • 61
  • 6
Reactions:
@Wiz ; is there any plan to change the Italians leaving the Empire event so that Savoy, vassals of Savoy, and the land held by Savoy or vassals of Savoy can remain a part of the Empire, or at least have a very high chance to do so? Savoy wasn't "Italian" in the same way the other states were - the primary language of the aristocracy were French, and Savoyard foreign policy until at least the late 1600s was more heavily orientated towards France, the other Rhineland states, and the Holy Roman Empire than it was towards Italian adventures.

Savoyard relations with Austria was more an alliance of convenience than anything. They still weren't integrated into the HRE in terms of administration and legal code.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
So you saw enough warrant in Florence, then! Which tag was removed/replaced to make way for it, though?

Lancaster.

Honestly I'm still not convinced about its utility, but since so many people seem to want it, and we couldn't delete the Lancaster tag... I figured why not.
 
  • 12
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Appreciate the willingness to accomodate mine and many others request. It is still worth pointing out though that coring with claims is still on average 68% more, while diplomatic annexation will be 124% more than what it was.

Yes, this is WAD. We wanted diploannexation costs to be about on par with coring costs in terms of points, it was lowered because they were on average higher.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Savoy, differently from all other Italian states, was part of the Imperial Circle system and a member of the Upper Rhenish Circle (Wikipedia is not an ideal source, but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Rhenish_Circle). Differently from all Italian states, they provided troops for their circle's Imperial troop contingent, paid the Kammerzieler (the Imperial tax), they (as only Italian state) had a seat and vote in the Imperial Diet. Their status and relationship with the HRE was not the same as that of, say, Tuscany or Lombardia.

Fair enough. I guess we could have the Savoy AI have a chance to remain in the Empire to represent this, but we still want them out in most cases simply because otherwise they block France from going into Italy.
 
  • 15
  • 2
Reactions:
On that note, will Austria become kingdom ranked/will you allow the Emperor to upgrade their rank?

No, Austria was not a Kingdom.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Wait do you not get Empire rank when you become Emperor? I mean... it's kind of in the name.

You're an Emperor, but your country is not an Empire because you are Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, not Emperor of Austria etc
 
  • 15
  • 1
Reactions: