That's programming. When you fix a load of bugs you inevitably introduce new ones. I don't know if anyone's ever set a target for this, like say: good practice is keep the number of new bugs to less than one in ten of the old.
-
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.
Actually it happens that i am a programmer , and it also happens that i have serveral years of programming on my back .
It was the first thing i learned , in the first day that i started work :
i started bug fixing on a project and my colleague told me
" The basic thing in bug fixing is to be carefull not to make new bugs ; you should test all features that are touched by your modifications prior to committing sources ".
And that's a damn good practice because otherwise you'll end up running in circles .
So NO , adding new bugs while bug fixing is not common or normal or anything
.
It also sounds bad
- adding new bugs while bug fixing
No issue/version tracking? You made me smile.
I just wanted the description in Birken's own words, a little less technical since you are not all programmers.
The bug list in the bug forum is scrutinized by us and moderators and then bugs that are considered valid are added to our internal bug tracking system. A large amount of the reported bugs are fixed in fact, it is the not reported ones that are tricky.
It is a terrific thing to aim for, but practically impossible when you are dealing with something this complex. We would have to test for days or weeks for every little change, and then we could release a game maybe once every ten years or so. Which would mean not at all, since we would go bankrupt pretty fast.
We test ofc. We test a LOT. But we cannot test every feature, every time. And a lot of bugs are dependant on different hardware configurations, which means we have no chance of catching them unless one of the betas happen to sit on that exact configuration. This will improve once we have that QA outsourcing sorted I hope, they are going to test a lot of different configurations.
Last edited:
No issue/version tracking? You made me smile.
It is a terrific thing to aim for, but practically impossible when you are dealing with something this complex. We would have to test for days or weeks for every little change, and then we could release a game maybe once every ten years or so. Which would mean not at all, since we would go bankrupt pretty fast.
We test ofc. We test a LOT. But we cannot test every feature, every time. And a lot of bugs are dependant on different hardware configurations, which means we have no chance of catching them unless one of the betas happen to sit on that exact configuration. This will improve once we have that QA outsourcing sorted I hope, they are going to test a lot of different configurations.
I'm developing for the medical field and that might explain my phobia for testing everyting
Most problems i see on the game are not however configuration related .
More time was allocated to new features rather then stabilisation&testing .
I need stability more then automated diplomacy.
But i''m not the guy to judge any of this . If game-killing issues are solved i'll be playing this game for a long time .
If there will be also the GUI list of on-going battles ... that will make my day .
They have this in the outliner (top right of screen).
Red colours are defensive battles, green is offensive attacks.
Are you sure? Usually the red battles are where my side is 30% or less on success and green is where I'm winning. Doesn't matter if I attacked or the AI attacked me.
Red is always defensive, green is always offensive. I can attest to this.
It is either:
- you want both to run to 100% which means you won the battle
or
- you want green to go to 100% and red to go to 0% which means you won the battle
I can never keep them straight in my head.
If this is true then why does the same battle change colors? I've seen many battles go from green to red with a loss for me and from red to green as I add more units to the fight and end up winning?
I have never seen that happen for me. Do you use ai control? The idea I have is that as the battle goes south for the attacker, the defender turns around and attacks right back...
More testing to be done on my end.
I never use the AI. I micro manage everything. When I attack I start with one or 2 divisions and look to see if it's red or green. The color tells me how I'm doing. Red means I'm losing and green winning. If red (usually below 30%) I add more divisions to the attack till it's green. Then I move on to the next province.
Battles change color depending on the progress only on the map, in the outliner green is always offensive, red defensive.
And there you have it. I am looking at the outliner whilst you appear to be looking at the map.
If its not to late could I please ask for 2 things... /ui realated/ which should be quite easy to do.
First of all its the deployment list (once a unit is built). I would be usefull if a tooltip could appear to show the units brigades (ie what it consists off) as at times when you have 10 units pop up at the same time - its risky to decide where to deploy them
My second prayer would be for a helpful select button that would select all units below an HQ (maybe includeing that hq) - so you can move the whole bunch together. At times it really hard to sort all the units out after a long war in france - not to mention chaotic russia - this would speed up things a lot..
Pretty please with suger and cherry on top.
And a cold beer for Johan.
First of all its the deployment list (once a unit is built). I would be usefull if a tooltip could appear to show the units brigades (ie what it consists off) as at times when you have 10 units pop up at the same time - its risky to decide where to deploy them
My second prayer would be for a helpful select button that would select all units below an HQ (maybe includeing that hq) - so you can move the whole bunch together. At times it really hard to sort all the units out after a long war in france - not to mention chaotic russia - this would speed up things a lot..
Pretty please with suger and cherry on top.
And a cold beer for Johan
.
Good news Fiend! one of those 2 you can already do .
Choose the HQ you want to select the subordinates of. The attached subordinates will appear below a green line just under the list of brigades in the HQ itself.
While you can choose any of the divisions in this list, another thing you can do is click the green bar ITSELF, auto-selecting the HQ and all subordinates.
YAY!
.Choose the HQ you want to select the subordinates of. The attached subordinates will appear below a green line just under the list of brigades in the HQ itself.
While you can choose any of the divisions in this list, another thing you can do is click the green bar ITSELF, auto-selecting the HQ and all subordinates.
YAY!
ah many thanks - makes the micro management hell a tad lighter .
if i may ask if the green arrow informing when units will arrive in the next province could also show when they will arrive in the last target province.. (unless you can see that somewhere)?
.if i may ask if the green arrow informing when units will arrive in the next province could also show when they will arrive in the last target province.. (unless you can see that somewhere)?
Last edited:
The ETA for the last target province is a secret only educated guessing will reveal.
Is there any chance of an option to stop the AI messing with my air and naval setups or, failing that, configuring the setups it aims for? I want to assign assets to the AI but I hate the way it breaks up the units into tiny little fleets and air wings that I don't want to use. I want the AI to do what its told - not work against me.
btw is it possible to replace the Roman numerals in the tech screen after you start to research a tech (above the cancel tech icon) with the year of the tech? The roman numeral really does indicate anything plus its in the tool tip and usually in the name of the tech. It would be much easier to micromanage the techs esp for people who dont remember when want should be researched...?