CrashOverride Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 from experience, there seems to be some unwillingness to release patches than the bare minimum needed, probably due to some backward thinking at SI towers that "more patches = you make bad game!" The reason that more patches havent been released has been covered before and its quite simple really. The amount of time taken to build test and release short term patches would have a effect on build, test, debug, build, test, debug... cycle for the patches and we might have to wait longer for the main patch that fixes the majority of bugs. Its probably difficult for SI to quantify what would define an "emergency patch". What one person considers important may not have any efffect on another persons game play. Personally I didnt suffer from the spanish B team bug as I dont manage in spain. Not a game breaker for me but for others it is. If they came and out said yes a particular bug has been fixed in the new patch and here it is there would be uproar from some users who had another bug they deemed equally important but hadnt been fixed in an emergency patch. SI have a huge market to cater for and have to try and please everyone not just those people who use these forums as a sounding board for there displeasure. I didnt even know patches were released before this year and suffered FM08 in its orginal unpatched state. Had I not discovered the wonder of patches I certainly wouldnt have brought 09. I have and I am really enjoying it now. You cant please everyone all of the time and a balance has to be maintained. Well done SI for this patch which is generally being accepted as a huge improvement on 9.2. Now im off to start a new game with the 9.2 database because mascio was a beast:p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Has the Bojan bug been fixed? It was mentioned in the other thread that it wasn't listed in the fixes because it wasn't guaranteed through the QA process by the coder, but it hadn't been seen in any of the testing for 9.3.0. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomis07 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 It was mentioned in the other thread that it wasn't listed in the fixes because it wasn't guaranteed through the QA process by the coder, but it hadn't been seen in any of the testing for 9.3.0. What's the problem then? Is it just me, or are retrospective complaints about fixed issues, absolutely pointless? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Also please remember that even though beta testers test over a period of time, bugs come up after new changes. Alot of bugs might not even be in the game before the latest version that the testers get. So it's not like all bugs are there to be seen when the testers start testing the game Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uppercut Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Its probably difficult for SI to quantify what would define an "emergency patch". What one person considers important may not have any efffect on another persons game play. Personally I didnt suffer from the spanish B team bug as I dont manage in spain. Not a game breaker for me but for others it is. at what point during testing when £40k+ players randomly appearing is not deemed as bad enough to require an emergency patch? even if you personally dont play in spain, others might and may well be a bit peeved at it. i define needing an emergency patch as something that affects the "gameworld" as a whole whether it effects you directly or not, as its not how the game is programmed to act. if it was *just* bojan that got affected or *just* barca B that signed top wages youngsters due to the bug then yes i can appreciate that and it can be lowered in priority but it wasnt, it was lots of top prospects and all B teams. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roykela Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 But with a game as complex as this its almost impossible to cover every single base before it hits mass market Don't bite off more than you can chew Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
homerjnick Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 With all respect to the OP and those who are moaning you have no idea the testing involved in this game and how well SI have responded. In my opinion the game was playable on release with very few "major" bugs in it. 9.3 has completed this game and SI will look to build on FM10. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper99 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 For anyone who wonders how things get missed in testing let me point something out: To test the game fully would take a reasonable sized testing team at least 10 years. Let me clarify: Even playing for a full 8 hour day a tester would get through one season at most with one team in one league. That's without stopping to actually enter bugs or any of the other tasks that are involved in testing. There are over 100 different teams just in the English leagues so to thoroughly test just the English leagues with all clubs would take one tester a bare minimum of 800 hours, or 100 working days. So if the testing team consisted of 10 people it would take them an absolute minimum of 10 days JUST to play one season with each team from JUST the English leagues. In reality there are over 5,000 playable teams in the game. So, with 10 people, that's a bare minimum of 500 days just to play 1 season with every team. And this does not include the fact that every time the code changes you need to re-test everything you tested before to make sure any bugs found have been fixed and any fixes have not had any adverse effects on other parts of the game. Add to that the need to play many seasons to test the game properly and the need to spend a lot of time looking at every little aspect of the game, meaning what might take us a few minutes to do will take a tester a few hours, and you're probably going to treble the time it would take a tester to complete a season. So to go somewhere towards completely testing the game the minimum you would need to do would be to play many seasons, say at least 10, with every team. So taking everything we've just mentioned into account it will probably take a tester more like 3 days to complete a season, so 30 days to do 10 seasons. Do that with all 5000+ teams and you're looking at 150,000 days, or 410 years. So even 10 testers will need 40 years to do this. And you need to do this every time the code changes to achieve full test coverage. Of course it's not practicle to test every team. If instead you just use 1 team from each league that's still over 100 leagues and therefore at least 100 teams that you need to play with for at least one season. To just play one season with a team from each league would take a 10 man test team (which is quite large for a games testing team) 30 days, using the assumptions made above. Again that's without entering bugs, re-testing bugs, re-testing new code, regression testing and testing anything outside of normal gameplay. All testing is risk based, it's a known fact (and this goes for things like government IT systems as well as games) that exhaustive testing is impossible. And the less linear the software, the greater the number of different possibilities that can occur and the harder it is to test thoroughly, making testing a game like FM a massive task. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
uppercut Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Even playing for a full 8 hour day a tester would get through one season at most with one team in one league. That's without stopping to actually enter bugs or any of the other tasks that are involved in testing. There are over 100 different teams just in the English leagues so to thoroughly test just the English leagues with all clubs would take one tester a bare minimum of 800 hours, or 100 working days. So if the testing team consisted of 10 people it would take them an absolute minimum of 10 days JUST to play one season with each team from JUST the English leagues. i dont get it, it takes a single player to play a single season with a single team to replicate the bojan bug. the bug occurs with every team you start with so its not linked to something thats happening with a certain team, anyone in testing who finished a season with 920 would have seen the bug. its an issue which affects the entire FM gameworld and easy to spot. hell, if you start on 920, bojan is actually on a youth contract worth about £55 and in the youth team, that right there tells you something isnt right.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 What's the problem then? Is it just me, or are retrospective complaints about fixed issues, absolutely pointless? Well, to be honest, he seems to be an angry young(?) man... could use with a night out on the town, or some time with recreational substances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chopper99 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 i dont get it, it takes a single player to play a single season with a single team to replicate the bojan bug. the bug occurs with every team you start with so its not linked to something thats happening with a certain team, anyone in testing who finished a season with 920 would have seen the bug. its an issue which affects the entire FM gameworld and easy to spot.hell, if you start on 920, bojan is actually on a youth contract worth about £55 and in the youth team, that right there tells you something isnt right.. I disagree. I hadn't noticed the Bojan bug until it was raised on this Forum. Only by either playing as Barcelona, specifically trying to sign Bojan, or having him on your shortlist at the end of a season would you notice this issue. Admittedly it's one of the more obvious ones to slip through, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that simply playing one season would definitely allow you to notice it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigwig Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 It’s pointless to complain that testers haven’t seen issues because you don’t know if they have or not. There are plenty of occasions where bugs are noticed and pointed out but aren’t necessarily fixed due to numerous reasons (prioritising, knock-on effects etc.). You can’t expect every single bug that gets pointed out to be fixed, at least in this version of FM. Some will have to be put on the back burner while more pressing issues are dealt with. The Bojan bug wasn’t missed at all and as soon as people noticed it, it was reported to SI and they looked into it. It’s then up to SI to decide whether it warrants an emergency patch and in this case they decided it wasn’t worthwhile. You might not like their decision, but that’s nothing to do with the testing team Of course there’s still the issue about how long bugs can remain on the back burner until they’re dealt with, but again that’s not down to testers missing them, it’s SI’s prioritisation policy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricki.bertolino Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 i dont get it, it takes a single player to play a single season with a single team to replicate the bojan bug. the bug occurs with every team you start with so its not linked to something thats happening with a certain team, anyone in testing who finished a season with 920 would have seen the bug. its an issue which affects the entire FM gameworld and easy to spot.hell, if you start on 920, bojan is actually on a youth contract worth about £55 and in the youth team, that right there tells you something isnt right.. I've played 4 games starting at different leagues in Italy. I've never noticed the Bojan bug. So I believe it is possible to miss it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the toon Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 How many of said bugs on the list would you have noticed if you hadn't read about them on here? hmm, from the top of my head, i did notice that: -the match engine was crap, and that the players were doing the most random things during matches! you might as well should had made it visible to see players standing around picking they're arses and eating what they can find, because frankly many a times that looked like the only realistic thing they were up to! -i noticed that a whole continental championship was mysteriously ''cancelled'' (stopped playing the afc championship after first season) - a 16 year old striker for sparta prague, vaclav kadlec, transfer listed for 0£, before the first january transfer window, for no absolute reason, despite having cracking stats for his age, in both of 2 games i played. I bought him in both games, seconth time with notts county for christ's sake! anyway, it doesn't matter how you encounter these bugs, it doesn't excuse anything, they are still there, and maby didn't affect you but it did someone yes. And it's not just the bugs people are ticked off about, it's other half-heartedly created features also that makes many of us unsatisfied, like press conferences, player-interaction... And don't try saying that it's impossible to create a flawless game. A few words: cm01/02, 0 patches, 5 years of playing, hunky dory. and that was 7 years ago... And for those who are irritated about people complaining about SI/game: they are entitled to they're opinion, being paying customers. and anyway, you could see from the title that it's not going to be thread full of praises to SI, so if for some strange reason you're deeply sickened by this criticism then no need to open the thread, just consentrate on those 'oh i love SI and everythings happy as harry and rainbows and flowers and were dancing around the fire roasting marshmallows' threads. You know, i believe that they should be acknowledged for the good things they've done, but also shouldn't be exused of the mistakes they've made, especially when it's in this cuantity. is this, or is this not, more flawed then previous version?? Patch 9.3 was a rescue-operation more then anything. Yes now it is closer to an acceptable level (in fm terms, it has a 6.5 rating now), but boy have we been waiting for it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Wakeford Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 on;2788584]And don't try saying that it's impossible to create a flawless game. A few words: cm01/02, 0 patches, 5 years of playing, hunky dory. and that was 7 years ago... CM01/02 had its fair share of bugs. What makes you think it didn't? There is no such thing as a game/software without bugs. Especially one as vast and with as many different variables as ours. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crpls Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Where are you getting the idea that CM 01/02 had 0 patches??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the toon Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 i don't know, was rather stating that I played the game for 5 years, with the original version (without new patches), and didn't encounter anything that would had made the gameplay unpleasent. But when an entire continental championship disappears (especially a continent where i intend to play in) then honestly it can feel a tiny bit uncomfortable... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Just a thought. Can somebody please explain why we have to have a small number of large patches as opposed to a larger number of smaller patches? Online games have weekly downtime, for example, where issues are fixed during maintenance. A smallish patch will kick in when you log in next. Wouldn't this sort of 'trickle effect' help to stop people getting fed up because an issue has been identified but it keeps on cropping up because you have to wait ages for a lot of other things to be sorted out as well, as the next patch isn't due for months? Do bug fixes have to be done at the same time as changes in data? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nomis07 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Just a thought. Can somebody please explain why we have to have a small number of large patches as opposed to a larger number of smaller patches? Online games have weekly downtime, for example, where issues are fixed during maintenance. A smallish patch will kick in when you log in next.Wouldn't this sort of 'trickle effect' help to stop people getting fed up because an issue has been identified but it keeps on cropping up because you have to wait ages for a lot of other things to be sorted out as well, as the next patch isn't due for months? Do bug fixes have to be done at the same time as changes in data? I'd rather they spent a long time testing, than short periods testing small patches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the toon Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 good thought Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Wakeford Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Just a thought. Can somebody please explain why we have to have a small number of large patches as opposed to a larger number of smaller patches? Online games have weekly downtime, for example, where issues are fixed during maintenance. A smallish patch will kick in when you log in next. More patches mean less bug fixes, as there is a cycle that needs to be completed in getting a patch out. We'd be spending more time checking the patches themselves as opposed to checking the real bugs/issues. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff Miles Jacobson Posted February 27, 2009 SI Staff Share Posted February 27, 2009 And don't try saying that it's impossible to create a flawless game. A few words: cm01/02, 0 patches, 5 years of playing, hunky dory. and that was 7 years ago... To be fair, there were 4 patches for CM01/02. More if you include the different GDI & Direct X versions of one of them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the toon Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 see my explanation above... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupal Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 More patches mean less bug fixes, as there is a cycle that needs to be completed in getting a patch out. We'd be spending more time checking the patches themselves as opposed to checking the real bugs/issues. Hmmm thanks. Other games seem to do it the other way though. Swings and roundabouts I suppose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Wakeford Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Hmmm thanks.Other games seem to do it the other way though. Swings and roundabouts I suppose. It's also for the benefit of the users. Lots of patches causes confusion, and expects the users to be able to keep themselves alert of all the goings-on. We'd prefer it to be a fairly simple thing that doesn't expect our users to be online, checking all the time to see if another new update is out. We now operate pretty much the same way year on year, so people know what to expect from us post-release. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathxxx Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 How many of said bugs on the list would you have noticed if you hadn't read about them on here? 99.9% of the population wouldn't that's for sure.. I think it's fair to assume that most people would not in fact notice 99.9% of the bugs had they not been highlighted in the patch release notes. Although I have noticed a few bugs whilst playing versions 9.0 through 9.3, when I've read through the release notes, the vast majority I have neither noticed or would not perhaps ever be likely to notice. It's a HUGE game when all is said and done with millions of variable's at play. Something is always bound to slip through the net. I agree that the games (and software) industry as a whole should try harder to release more "polished" products, but it's unlikely to change much without a mass "wallet voting" exercise on behalf of the "punters". Another factor to consider these days is that there aren't many independant software houses left. Most, including SI it's fair to say, have been "absorbed" by the larger corporations and publishers. I think it's also fair to say that it's these larger corporations that control the annual budgets and also set the deadlines that the developers need to meet for release dates. I have to applaud SI's efforts though because they accept the situation, are prepared to hold their hands up when required, and make the effort to rectify things with considerable interaction in these forums. I find these forums to be one of very few indeed, where actual employees and developers of a games producer will interact with their customers and face any flak. If people spent more time posting bugs or data issues in the correct forum threads than continually complaining, they would not only be freeing the forums of clutter and repeated drivel, but PARTICIPATING in the betterment of the game's production, both during release with patches and prior to upcoming releases. If people feel so irate that they need to complain abusively and not constructively, then the simple solution to their problem is never to buy the game again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campbell1892 Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 i paid £20 was going for £15 in some places, keep it and price and i'll be happy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SI Staff Miles Jacobson Posted February 27, 2009 SI Staff Share Posted February 27, 2009 see my explanation above... Yup - I'd seen that. The point that many here are trying to make though is that some people will see bugs, and others will not. Much in the same way as you didn't see any that you believed were showstoppers in CM01/02, whereas others users did. There are hundreds of thousands of people out there who are unaware of any of the bugs that were fixed in the new patch, and are happily playing the game. That doesn't mean that we don't fix them, and don't release patches, and those people are still happy. With the popularity of the internet, and our website, compared to CM01/02, any bug now is going to be higher profile and known about by more people than back in the "old days". Personally speaking, apart from some match engine glitches, I've seen very few bugs in my own saved game of FM2009, likely due to the league combination I've been running. I've been lucky. Others have had issues, and we fix those issues. Things get missed in testing. Things get found in testing, and missed by the coders. It is, unfortunately, the nature of the beast. We would like nothing more than to have a game release that requires no technical support, and no patches at all, but we have to live in the real world and therefore build in technical support and patches into our schedules to ensure that the person who buys the game gets the best experience possible. As for releasing incremental patches, this is something we've discussed loads in the past internally, but even taking aside the issues of cost and QA on smaller patches, unless all users are on STEAM (including Mac users, for whom there is no STEAM client), it would cause huge problems for customer service with loads of different versions of the game out there. Anyway, I'm sorry that people don't feel that our patching policy is correct, but it's taken years for us to get to the conclusions that we have and, as always, we constantly review it. We are pretty happy with the policies and procedures at the moment, although not happy with the amount of people who have had issues with the game, even though the figures are very small compared to the sales of the game. But then, for us, 1 person having a problem is too many, and we strive to have no issues at all, however unreal that likelyhood is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
heathxxx Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Paid €17 at MediaMarkt here in Spain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke.smith Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 At the end of the day guys not everyone is going to be happy with any product no matter what it is, everyone is different and people are more patient then others. So i say let them complain thats what the fourms are for so people can compare their views on the game to help improve it... As long as its constuctive Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
backpackant Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 anyway, it doesn't matter how you encounter these bugs, it doesn't excuse anything, ............ just consentrate on those 'oh i love SI and everythings happy as harry and rainbows and flowers and were dancing around the fire roasting marshmallows' threads. You know, i believe that they should be acknowledged for the good things they've done, but also shouldn't be exused of the mistakes they've made, especially when it's in this cuantity. NB, this isn't a direct response to Toon here, just using the comments of examples in the thread and elsewhere on the forums. "Bugs" are often subjective and you can't spot everything. I am still yet to hear a reasonable case to say why the 'Bojan bug' or 9.2 match engine makes the game unplayable. The bug can be ignored and the ME can be mastered with a bit of time and patience. Toon (or someone else) might encounter a problem that no one else found. Even if they have 100 testers it is still feasible that they wouldn't look at Kadlec. For minor bugs, there may well be a bug that some tester spots, but if SI cannot recreate it and no one else encounters the issue then it will not be resolved. Multiply that one tester by the hundreds of thousands of FM gamers out there (millions?) and a good chunk of those will probably encounter it too. Statistically speaking, even if SI have 100 testers and only one or two spot a bug that SI cannot solve there and then, thousands of others will probably find it too. In a game this complicated, with so many variables, you will never, ever spot every bug or foible in the game. 9.2 engine wasn't unplayable, but nor was it ideal. It was easily playable given a little thought, but enough people complained that SI fixed not only the major bugs (eg, the bum-pickers, too many one-v-ones) but a whole host of niggly minor ones that I hadn't even noticed. In my opinion, the ME is now the best I've seen on FM. Still not perfect, it never will be, but I think SI deserves a little credit for listening to their customers and doing what many of them demanded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lower League Only Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 thanks for the patch but alot of people will agree that its still think its abit of a disgrace to have paid 30 notes for a game brought in 2008, now 2009 on its third patch and just read the fixes and theres loads of bugs which were fixed, which no one picked up on before release, its feb 2009, only a while to go till october and any news of FM10 being released lol, wonder if there will be so many problems next time.enjoying my time on FM but you dont get a dog and bark yourself, you know what im sayin. AMEN Agree totally Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leighdegree Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 AMENAgree totally ohhh thank you Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leighdegree Posted February 27, 2009 Author Share Posted February 27, 2009 And anyway, i enjoy football manager, what i put were my oppinions, didnt realise it would create all of this, im thankful for a game like this, as i dont bother with my ps3 no more, i get more enjoyment out of this game than any other, so im praising the game, but most of all people that do need praising are the people of SI who actually do listen to people like us to create a game and fix it for us, like i said, i enjoy my game, but what i said here is my oppinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwfan Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 For anyone who wonders how things get missed in testing let me point something out:To test the game fully would take a reasonable sized testing team at least 10 years. Let me clarify: To do a full ME feedback report takes me somewhere between 4-5 hours. At most, that is 3 matches. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.