-
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.
It is still listed on the bug list as wontfix however.
But I assume Johan knows better than anyone else what he is going to fix.
But I assume Johan knows better than anyone else what he is going to fix.
This comes from a pretty knowledgable source.
And this comes from the man himself. Together these statements infer a definite conclusion.
This is the million dollar resulting question.
And this is not yet the answer. (Sorry Trip).
I know there is an NDA and I definitely support it. But this might be one area where some expectation management is in order because a lot of conclusions can be drawn from this thread.
Well I just went through the bug list, again, and couldnt find anything on all units detecting all units(Nothing with detection). I dont think the interception bug represents this. Neither do i think this is covered in the electronic& industrial is lost on reload. So should 100% detection be reported to the bug forum as a new bug? If this known and being worked on, that is great. But it wasnt in the bug list(If it is I didnt find it).
What is exactly wrong with this thread? We have discussed some things that concerned us. I hope this isnt a bad a thing. I did not bash or rant. I have been exploring things that it seems, according to the bug list, wont be fixed or isnt even mentioned. Is this not the purpose of the forum? I have attempted to keep my posts civil.
People believing this was a 'wontfix' bug and becoming quite upset about this issue, when it really wasn't a wontfix. Whereever this problem stemmed, problems like this are avoided by the terms of the NDA.
Well we can only go by the iformation made available. And i have been told the bug list is all the information we will get as far as what is being worked on. This attitude that we as customers should not discuss our concerns upsets me a bit. THis thread didnt break any rules did it? So you just dont want people to talk about this paticular issue? Im sorry this thread did not rip anyone, we merely were concerned.
Well, as I said earlier, as of today it was listed as wont fix on the bug list. So unless someone broke their NDA, the NDA didn't help too much here.
But is sounds like this was just a miscommunication, since Johan appears to be planning on looking in to it.
But is sounds like this was just a miscommunication, since Johan appears to be planning on looking in to it.
Fine, I can understand that some ideas didn't make the final cut. This is true with every product. Do you know how much film is shot for a 90-minute movie??
What, however, I would like to see with the next patch is a readme file that does two things:
1) Point out errors in the manual...this is standard with most games.
2) Point out what techs are useless.
It's getting a bit tiring to have to dig through this forum looking for something like that...or worse, coming across something that you thought was working fine, until you see someone mention that it isn't.
Not too much to ask for, I don't think.
What, however, I would like to see with the next patch is a readme file that does two things:
1) Point out errors in the manual...this is standard with most games.
2) Point out what techs are useless.
It's getting a bit tiring to have to dig through this forum looking for something like that...or worse, coming across something that you thought was working fine, until you see someone mention that it isn't.
Not too much to ask for, I don't think.
Nope. Problems like this are avoided by not classifying it as "won't fix". I certainly don't want such information to be withheld. That's even worse. Then we end up sitting here thinking it might get fixed when those in charge have no intention of doing anything about it. I think having forked my money out I'm entitled to know what the developers plan to look into and what they plan to leave be. Isn't that fair?
We don't come here and "complain" because it gives us a power trip. We do it because we like what we see and wish for it to improve. If I really don't care I'd put the game on the shelf and never touch it again.
The NDA prevents discussion of issues which are currently being resolved. If a problem is correctly identified as wontfix, then Paradox has a reason for it. The betas are judged by Paradox and are also bound by the NDA, so presentation of sensitive issues is accepted. The betas are very close to the process of the development of the game, and therefore can judge the game better and provide more informed and reasonable suggestions more of the time than the general public. Am I saying that the general public wanting techs to work is unreasonable because they're 'uninformed'? Of course not, I'm not implying that. Johan and Patric cannot cover this forum 100% of the time. If a 'rumor' about something being worked on emerges with no NDA, then you end up with threads like this, which get 40 replies in 2 days. Patric, and especially Johan have better things to do than explain what's being worked on so that the public doesn't get the wrong impression. The only reason Johan saw this thread at all was because it was pointed out to him.
Overall the NDA helps prevent confusion, and makes things less time-consuming for Paradox. Contrary to popular belief, the betas do not know everything, and their ability to answer questions about issues is limited. Without an NDA you'd get a bunch of questions about certain things being worked on, and Paradox wouldn't have time, and the betas wouldn't be able to answer everything (accurately). As I said, it prevents confusion and overall makes things simpler and easier.
This is the last explanation of the NDA and its purpose that you'll find.
Overall the NDA helps prevent confusion, and makes things less time-consuming for Paradox. Contrary to popular belief, the betas do not know everything, and their ability to answer questions about issues is limited. Without an NDA you'd get a bunch of questions about certain things being worked on, and Paradox wouldn't have time, and the betas wouldn't be able to answer everything (accurately). As I said, it prevents confusion and overall makes things simpler and easier.
This is the last explanation of the NDA and its purpose that you'll find.
Another 2 cents worth...
Well, here it is...
My credentials... I was a beta on EU2. I'm not on HOI, but I do know what the inside of this process looks like.
No, I'm not going to spill the beans, to whatever extent I still possess any beans that are still covered by the NDA.
What I'm going to say is that, in my experience, the Paradox guys are stand-up guys. They are not going to leave the game hanging with any significant portion lame. Do I ***know*** that? No, but believe me it would be very out of character. These guys are not the corporate suits at Megalame-Maxprofit Software. They take pride in their work, and are men of honor in an age when few even understand the concept.
So, based on what I do know, I believe that Johan will give us effective solutions to all the major issues.
Another thing - have you guys noticed that the top "product improved" modders (i.e. freelance gameplay fixers, not "convert the system to do the Punic Wars") have been assimilated? That is classic Paradox behavior. The top "product improved" modder of EU1 actually got hired to work EU2. Why - because they care about delivering the best product they can, and will take good help where they find it.
OK, so the reality of the software industry is stuff comes out before it's fully baked. Paradox hasn't left one that way yet, though. Have a little faith, Moriarity!
Well, here it is...
My credentials... I was a beta on EU2. I'm not on HOI, but I do know what the inside of this process looks like.
No, I'm not going to spill the beans, to whatever extent I still possess any beans that are still covered by the NDA.
What I'm going to say is that, in my experience, the Paradox guys are stand-up guys. They are not going to leave the game hanging with any significant portion lame. Do I ***know*** that? No, but believe me it would be very out of character. These guys are not the corporate suits at Megalame-Maxprofit Software. They take pride in their work, and are men of honor in an age when few even understand the concept.
So, based on what I do know, I believe that Johan will give us effective solutions to all the major issues.
Another thing - have you guys noticed that the top "product improved" modders (i.e. freelance gameplay fixers, not "convert the system to do the Punic Wars") have been assimilated? That is classic Paradox behavior. The top "product improved" modder of EU1 actually got hired to work EU2. Why - because they care about delivering the best product they can, and will take good help where they find it.
OK, so the reality of the software industry is stuff comes out before it's fully baked. Paradox hasn't left one that way yet, though. Have a little faith, Moriarity!
Originally posted by Trip
This is the last explanation of the NDA and its purpose that you'll find.
I was arguing that we're entitled to such information. I want to know if a developer is planning to look at something or not. If I have a game, for example, that doesn't work with my graphics card, I want to know if the developers plan to do something about it or not. In the same way I want to know if Paradox plans to look at issues or not. This does not mean I expect them to fix it now, or even promise they'll even fix it. I just want to know if they'll look at it. It thus allows me to decide now whether I'll keep working with the game, developing mods, enhancements of my own, or screw it.
Now when I saw this bug in the list I was shocked that it had "won't fix" next to it. That tells me that that is the end of it, no more on the subject and the issue will not be looked at. Since I find this particular feature so important I decided to question the matter.
If there was a mix up, then it isn't my fault. I certainly was not confused with what I saw. The mix up then ends up on the other end between those who do the list and those actually programming. Not a problem what-so-ever, it happens.
Barnacle Bill, I'm not saying Paradox don't care. I know they do. Why else would they even develop this game? I know that sometimes it is out of their hands as to what happens, but I also believe that without us, the community, this game would not progress either. Without us to "complain" and point out problems we have then the game would simply rot due to lack of support.
During this entire thread I have not once been pissed or produced anything in an angry manner directed at anyone, I've simply been trying to make a point regarding the importance of a feature that was clealry labelled as not having plans for being improved. I've kept everything in one thread and if you got fed up with it you can make the choice not to click on it.
Glad to see that Johan did drop by. Cheers.
Agreed Barnicle Bill
"OK, so the reality of the software industry is stuff comes out before it's fully baked. Paradox hasn't left one that way yet, though. Have a little faith, Moriarity!"
Okay I and I think everyone can live with this reality, what choice do we have.
The other reality of the software industry is, you dont get that info upfront in the marketing campaign, you dont get the bug list, or the honorable intention of what is desired to be fixed in subsequent patches.
The reality of that is you get people who fork over money based on the assumption that a game comes as advertised.
HOI isnt a WWII simulation with out a developed naval feature and naval battle model seperate from the land model, its pretty clear that the battle model is a blanket system at current patch 1.02, land, air and naval battles are fought with identically.
Understood and accepted, but that is inconsistent with the original pitch, if it was sold as "when patched will be a grand strategic WWII game but right now plays a primarlily a european theater of operation less the north atlantic naval battles" then you wouldnt have so many bitches. The battle model is straight forward and direct and applied universally to land, naval, and air.
As to Paradox being stand up guys, yeah I would have to agree. Johan came and addressed it, hell a lot of games you dont get but one patch and then the programers are off to the next title. For me I am willing to wait and see what 1.03 brings there are A LOT of issues with this game as advertised, I think they can be fixed at the very least vamped up to the point of adverstised, and satisfying most of us here, remember we arent posting because we dont want it fixed we are posting because everyone is jacked at the possibilities this game presents.
There will always be unhappy people, its the nature of a game like this everything is subject to scruitny I think everyone here would agree to that and cant expect the game to be perfection. If so then send me a ticket to your fantasy world, I havent bought a game that wasnt bug free and perfect in a long time, its to lucrative of a business now to keep programmers on one project and keep working it, and thats because you and I keep buying the games.
Odin
"OK, so the reality of the software industry is stuff comes out before it's fully baked. Paradox hasn't left one that way yet, though. Have a little faith, Moriarity!"
Okay I and I think everyone can live with this reality, what choice do we have.
The other reality of the software industry is, you dont get that info upfront in the marketing campaign, you dont get the bug list, or the honorable intention of what is desired to be fixed in subsequent patches.
The reality of that is you get people who fork over money based on the assumption that a game comes as advertised.
HOI isnt a WWII simulation with out a developed naval feature and naval battle model seperate from the land model, its pretty clear that the battle model is a blanket system at current patch 1.02, land, air and naval battles are fought with identically.
Understood and accepted, but that is inconsistent with the original pitch, if it was sold as "when patched will be a grand strategic WWII game but right now plays a primarlily a european theater of operation less the north atlantic naval battles" then you wouldnt have so many bitches. The battle model is straight forward and direct and applied universally to land, naval, and air.
As to Paradox being stand up guys, yeah I would have to agree. Johan came and addressed it, hell a lot of games you dont get but one patch and then the programers are off to the next title. For me I am willing to wait and see what 1.03 brings there are A LOT of issues with this game as advertised, I think they can be fixed at the very least vamped up to the point of adverstised, and satisfying most of us here, remember we arent posting because we dont want it fixed we are posting because everyone is jacked at the possibilities this game presents.
There will always be unhappy people, its the nature of a game like this everything is subject to scruitny I think everyone here would agree to that and cant expect the game to be perfection. If so then send me a ticket to your fantasy world, I havent bought a game that wasnt bug free and perfect in a long time, its to lucrative of a business now to keep programmers on one project and keep working it, and thats because you and I keep buying the games.
Odin
Re: Agreed Barnicle Bill
You're right - you don't. The hype is written by marketing weinies, based on the design goals. Unless it is a really limited game to start with, odds are several things won't work as advertised yet when the publisher pushes it out the door. Then one of two things happen. First, and pretty common, is there is no real attempt to fix it. Maybe a token patch to get the low-hanging fruit, but that's it. The second is you get a stream of patches, some even well after the programmers are onto new assignments. For example, Johan is still (in his no doubt abundent free time) working on yet another EU2 patch.
Let me tell you a little story. Long ago, in a galaxy not so far away, there was a really cool strategy game called "Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space", or BARIS for short. You managed the space program for either the USA or USSR, trying to get to the moon first. Only game I ever saw that ever made EFFECTIVE use of FMV (in this case, historical space program film footage). It was HARD, even against the AI. CGW loved it. Buzz didn't have squat to do with it. Like EU it was based on a board game - in this case Task Force Games' "Liffoff". Unlike EU, the lead designer was the board game designer - dude by the name of Fritz Bronner (great guy, was all the time on the old Genie BBS for the game). This being in the stone age, the first edition of the game was on floppies and single-player only. The enhanced CD edition was to feature PBEM. Normally I don't give a rat's hindquarter for MP, but I was psyched for the tourney we BBS regulars had cooked up. Well, when it comes out, PBEM is broken because of a bug that insured a USSR defeat (the game controlled your budget according to prestige points - gained for successes, especially "firsts", lost for failures, especially getting your astronauts/cosmonauts planted in Arlington/the Kremlin Wall - but in PBEM mode the bug made the USSR get no points for "firsts"). Well, Fritz is a game designer, TV actor, WWI reinactor and all around great guy, but not a programmer. The programmer was on the staff of the publisher, Interplay (spit!). Despite the pleas of both Fritz and the programmer, and the howls of the fans, Interplay (spit!) would not let them fix it. It stands broken to this day.
That's how bad it can get. That ain't the Paradox way. Be glad
You're right - you don't. The hype is written by marketing weinies, based on the design goals. Unless it is a really limited game to start with, odds are several things won't work as advertised yet when the publisher pushes it out the door. Then one of two things happen. First, and pretty common, is there is no real attempt to fix it. Maybe a token patch to get the low-hanging fruit, but that's it. The second is you get a stream of patches, some even well after the programmers are onto new assignments. For example, Johan is still (in his no doubt abundent free time) working on yet another EU2 patch.
Let me tell you a little story. Long ago, in a galaxy not so far away, there was a really cool strategy game called "Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space", or BARIS for short. You managed the space program for either the USA or USSR, trying to get to the moon first. Only game I ever saw that ever made EFFECTIVE use of FMV (in this case, historical space program film footage). It was HARD, even against the AI. CGW loved it. Buzz didn't have squat to do with it. Like EU it was based on a board game - in this case Task Force Games' "Liffoff". Unlike EU, the lead designer was the board game designer - dude by the name of Fritz Bronner (great guy, was all the time on the old Genie BBS for the game). This being in the stone age, the first edition of the game was on floppies and single-player only. The enhanced CD edition was to feature PBEM. Normally I don't give a rat's hindquarter for MP, but I was psyched for the tourney we BBS regulars had cooked up. Well, when it comes out, PBEM is broken because of a bug that insured a USSR defeat (the game controlled your budget according to prestige points - gained for successes, especially "firsts", lost for failures, especially getting your astronauts/cosmonauts planted in Arlington/the Kremlin Wall - but in PBEM mode the bug made the USSR get no points for "firsts"). Well, Fritz is a game designer, TV actor, WWI reinactor and all around great guy, but not a programmer. The programmer was on the staff of the publisher, Interplay (spit!). Despite the pleas of both Fritz and the programmer, and the howls of the fans, Interplay (spit!) would not let them fix it. It stands broken to this day.
That's how bad it can get. That ain't the Paradox way. Be glad
Re: Agreed Barnicle Bill
You're right - you don't. The hype is written by marketing weinies, based on the design goals. Unless it is a really limited game to start with, odds are several things won't work as advertised yet when the publisher pushes it out the door. Then one of two things happen. First, and pretty common, is there is no real attempt to fix it. Maybe a token patch to get the low-hanging fruit, but that's it. The second is you get a stream of patches, some even well after the programmers are onto new assignments. For example, Johan is still (in his no doubt abundent free time) working on yet another EU2 patch.
Let me tell you a little story. Long ago, in a galaxy not so far away, there was a really cool strategy game called "Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space", or BARIS for short. You managed the space program for either the USA or USSR, trying to get to the moon first. Only game I ever saw that ever made EFFECTIVE use of FMV (in this case, historical space program film footage). It was HARD, even against the AI. CGW loved it. Buzz didn't have squat to do with it. Like EU it was based on a board game - in this case Task Force Games' "Liffoff". Unlike EU, the lead designer was the board game designer - dude by the name of Fritz Bronner (great guy, was all the time on the old Genie BBS for the game). This being in the stone age, the first edition of the game was on floppies and single-player only. The enhanced CD edition was to feature PBEM. Normally I don't give a rat's hindquarter for MP, but I was psyched for the tourney we BBS regulars had cooked up. Well, when it comes out, PBEM is broken because of a bug that insured a USSR defeat (the game controlled your budget according to prestige points - gained for successes, especially "firsts", lost for failures, especially getting your astronauts/cosmonauts planted in Arlington/the Kremlin Wall - but in PBEM mode the bug made the USSR get no points for "firsts"). Well, Fritz is a game designer, TV actor, WWI reinactor and all around great guy, but not a programmer. The programmer was on the staff of the publisher, Interplay (spit!). Despite the pleas of both Fritz and the programmer, and the howls of the fans, Interplay (spit!) would not let them fix it. It stands broken to this day.
That's how bad it can get. That ain't the Paradox way. Be glad
You're right - you don't. The hype is written by marketing weinies, based on the design goals. Unless it is a really limited game to start with, odds are several things won't work as advertised yet when the publisher pushes it out the door. Then one of two things happen. First, and pretty common, is there is no real attempt to fix it. Maybe a token patch to get the low-hanging fruit, but that's it. The second is you get a stream of patches, some even well after the programmers are onto new assignments. For example, Johan is still (in his no doubt abundent free time) working on yet another EU2 patch.
Let me tell you a little story. Long ago, in a galaxy not so far away, there was a really cool strategy game called "Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space", or BARIS for short. You managed the space program for either the USA or USSR, trying to get to the moon first. Only game I ever saw that ever made EFFECTIVE use of FMV (in this case, historical space program film footage). It was HARD, even against the AI. CGW loved it. Buzz didn't have squat to do with it. Like EU it was based on a board game - in this case Task Force Games' "Liffoff". Unlike EU, the lead designer was the board game designer - dude by the name of Fritz Bronner (great guy, was all the time on the old Genie BBS for the game). This being in the stone age, the first edition of the game was on floppies and single-player only. The enhanced CD edition was to feature PBEM. Normally I don't give a rat's hindquarter for MP, but I was psyched for the tourney we BBS regulars had cooked up. Well, when it comes out, PBEM is broken because of a bug that insured a USSR defeat (the game controlled your budget according to prestige points - gained for successes, especially "firsts", lost for failures, especially getting your astronauts/cosmonauts planted in Arlington/the Kremlin Wall - but in PBEM mode the bug made the USSR get no points for "firsts"). Well, Fritz is a game designer, TV actor, WWI reinactor and all around great guy, but not a programmer. The programmer was on the staff of the publisher, Interplay (spit!). Despite the pleas of both Fritz and the programmer, and the howls of the fans, Interplay (spit!) would not let them fix it. It stands broken to this day.
That's how bad it can get. That ain't the Paradox way. Be glad
First of all, if this is a mistake, then the guys running the bug forum should not feel bad about it. That forum looks absolutely swamped, and the fact that those guys keep up, and organize a list in their own free time should commend them to everyone here.
Secondly, Trip, you're position on the NDA is very grand now that you privy to the betas. However, is a thread such as this one damaging? Has anyone ranted about Paradox? Is there anything other than the bug in question which has been discussed? Any further avenues of communication which brought some ideas together?
Secondly, Trip, you're position on the NDA is very grand now that you privy to the betas. However, is a thread such as this one damaging? Has anyone ranted about Paradox? Is there anything other than the bug in question which has been discussed? Any further avenues of communication which brought some ideas together?
Re: Agreed Barnicle Bill
You're right - you don't. The hype is written by marketing weinies, based on the design goals. Unless it is a really limited game to start with, odds are several things won't work as advertised yet when the publisher pushes it out the door. Then one of two things happen. First, and pretty common, is there is no real attempt to fix it. Maybe a token patch to get the low-hanging fruit, but that's it. The second is you get a stream of patches, some even well after the programmers are onto new assignments. For example, Johan is still (in his no doubt abundent free time) working on yet another EU2 patch.
Let me tell you a little story. Long ago, in a galaxy not so far away, there was a really cool strategy game called "Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space", or BARIS for short. You managed the space program for either the USA or USSR, trying to get to the moon first. Only game I ever saw that ever made EFFECTIVE use of FMV (in this case, historical space program film footage). It was HARD, even against the AI. CGW loved it. Buzz didn't have squat to do with it. Like EU it was based on a board game - in this case Task Force Games' "Liffoff". Unlike EU, the lead designer was the board game designer - dude by the name of Fritz Bronner (great guy, was all the time on the old Genie BBS for the game). This being in the stone age, the first edition of the game was on floppies and single-player only. The enhanced CD edition was to feature PBEM. Normally I don't give a rat's hindquarter for MP, but I was psyched for the tourney we BBS regulars had cooked up. Well, when it comes out, PBEM is broken because of a bug that insured a USSR defeat (the game controlled your budget according to prestige points - gained for successes, especially "firsts", lost for failures, especially getting your astronauts/cosmonauts planted in Arlington/the Kremlin Wall - but in PBEM mode the bug made the USSR get no points for "firsts"). Well, Fritz is a game designer, TV actor, WWI reinactor and all around great guy, but not a programmer. The programmer was on the staff of the publisher, Interplay (spit!). Despite the pleas of both Fritz and the programmer, and the howls of the fans, Interplay (spit!) would not let them fix it. It stands broken to this day.
That's how bad it can get. That ain't the Paradox way. Be glad
You're right - you don't. The hype is written by marketing weinies, based on the design goals. Unless it is a really limited game to start with, odds are several things won't work as advertised yet when the publisher pushes it out the door. Then one of two things happen. First, and pretty common, is there is no real attempt to fix it. Maybe a token patch to get the low-hanging fruit, but that's it. The second is you get a stream of patches, some even well after the programmers are onto new assignments. For example, Johan is still (in his no doubt abundent free time) working on yet another EU2 patch.
Let me tell you a little story. Long ago, in a galaxy not so far away, there was a really cool strategy game called "Buzz Aldrin's Race Into Space", or BARIS for short. You managed the space program for either the USA or USSR, trying to get to the moon first. Only game I ever saw that ever made EFFECTIVE use of FMV (in this case, historical space program film footage). It was HARD, even against the AI. CGW loved it. Buzz didn't have squat to do with it. Like EU it was based on a board game - in this case Task Force Games' "Liffoff". Unlike EU, the lead designer was the board game designer - dude by the name of Fritz Bronner (great guy, was all the time on the old Genie BBS for the game). This being in the stone age, the first edition of the game was on floppies and single-player only. The enhanced CD edition was to feature PBEM. Normally I don't give a rat's hindquarter for MP, but I was psyched for the tourney we BBS regulars had cooked up. Well, when it comes out, PBEM is broken because of a bug that insured a USSR defeat (the game controlled your budget according to prestige points - gained for successes, especially "firsts", lost for failures, especially getting your astronauts/cosmonauts planted in Arlington/the Kremlin Wall - but in PBEM mode the bug made the USSR get no points for "firsts"). Well, Fritz is a game designer, TV actor, WWI reinactor and all around great guy, but not a programmer. The programmer was on the staff of the publisher, Interplay (spit!). Despite the pleas of both Fritz and the programmer, and the howls of the fans, Interplay (spit!) would not let them fix it. It stands broken to this day.
That's how bad it can get. That ain't the Paradox way. Be glad