Ancient and deadly bug still in 6.03

[Malleus Dei]

Batter charges mound after being hit by ball, batter and pitcher are ejected, I put in a pinch-runner and lo and behold, it's not him on first but the new pitcher, who is shown both on the mound and on first base. I tell the pitcher on first base, who isn't even on my team, to steal second base; he succeeds and that pitcher and team get the credit for the stolen base.

This bug goes back to what, Version 2? I think I have reported it four or five times myself...and it's still there in 6.03???

PLEASE FIX THIS ANCIENT LEGACY BUG!!!!

Thank you.

[UngratefulDead]

Agreed a hundred times over.

[Matter2003]

Yes I have seen this also a few times myself...

Matter2003

[Goodsox]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Batter charges mound after being hit by ball, batter and pitcher are ejected, I put in a pinch-runner and lo and behold, it's not him on first but the new pitcher, who is shown both on the mound and on first base. I tell the pitcher on first base, who isn't even on my team, to steal second base; he succeeds and that pitcher and team get the credit for the stolen base.

This bug goes back to what, Version 2? I think I have reported it four or five times myself...and it's still there in 6.03???

PLEASE FIX THIS ANCIENT LEGACY BUG!!!!

Thank you.

Let me field this one. Known issue. Nothing is being done because OOTP7 is being worked on instead of fixing the current product. That should answer it for you.

[jnshmoo]

Originally Posted by Goodsox

Let me field this one. Known issue. Nothing is being done because OOTP7 is being worked on instead of fixing the current product. That should answer it for you.

That's not what I've heard being said.

This bug must be a cockroach, it seems to outlive standard bugs.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Goodsox

Nothing is being done because OOTP7 is being worked on instead of fixing the current product.

That is exactly what I do NOT want to hear.

[Henry]

Well, I'm one of the few (it seems) that is more of a realist. I accept that all the problem will likely not be fixed in V6. I wish it were otherwise, but the reality is V7 is being worked on, and to delay it to insure ALL the V6 issues were fixed would not be a good business decision. The funny thing is, even those that don't like that understand that Markus would be out of business if he did that.

I would guess that V7, since it's being totally rewritten, will fix most of the issues with V6 - but - will, of course, expose a whole new set of issues that will have to be addressed in V7 patches. That is reality.

[adamj]

But of course those new V7 issues will be ignored, so that more time can be spent rushing V8 out for us to buy!

[Henry]

Originally Posted by adamj

But of course those new V7 issues will be ignored, so that more time can be spent rushing V8 out for us to buy!

Not quite true. The patches released for V7 will rpoabbly take care of 80% of the issues - just as previous patches have done for past versions. Be thankful you have a developer willing to patch his mistakes. Most commercial concerns can care less.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally Posted by Henry

Not quite true. The patches released for V7 will rpoabbly take care of 80% of the issues - just as previous patches have done for past versions. Be thankful you have a developer willing to patch his mistakes. Most commercial concerns can care less.

This is true - Markus is generally good about this. I think the problem that most vets of the series have is that the 20% that don't get fixed in one version never get fixed - not even in subsequent versions. For a game as great as OOTP, that's just not acceptable.

Markus is becoming a victim of his own success - if OOTP wasn't such an excellent game, he wouldn't have statheadzz complaining about the aspects of the game that don't work. Nonetheless, he's going to have to focus on fixing these details for the game to make it to the next level - not necessarily in a patch, but at some point.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Henry

Be thankful you have a developer willing to patch his mistakes. Most commercial concerns can care less.

Henry, my wife writes commerical software, and she fixes EVERY SINGLE bug ASAP.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez

This is true - Markus is generally good about this. I think the problem that most vets of the series have is that the 20% that don't get fixed in one version never get fixed - not even in subsequent versions. For a game as great as OOTP, that's just not acceptable.

Exactly. This bug should have been taken care of a long time ago. The priorities of OOTP programming are simply just not what they should be. Exterminate all known bugs, THEN write new versions - not leave known old legacy bugs in place while writing new versions that will add even more bugs.

But while fixing exisiting bugs wil increase customer satisfaction, it won't generate new cash flow. Writing new versions generates new cash flow...but it results in customers who are dissatisfied with existing buggy software.

It's all about priorites...

[Anachronism]

Originally Posted by Henry

Well, I'm one of the few (it seems) that is more of a realist. I accept that all the problem will likely not be fixed in V6. I wish it were otherwise, but the reality is V7 is being worked on, and to delay it to insure ALL the V6 issues were fixed would not be a good business decision. The funny thing is, even those that don't like that understand that Markus would be out of business if he did that.

I would guess that V7, since it's being totally rewritten, will fix most of the issues with V6 - but - will, of course, expose a whole new set of issues that will have to be addressed in V7 patches. That is reality.

You know... I, for one, would be more than happy to forgo a version for a year if it meant fixing long outstanding bugs for good. Why would I want version 7 with a version 2 bug in it and when version 6 still doesn't have all the functionality once promised?

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Anachronism

You know... I, for one, would be more than happy to forgo a version for a year if it meant fixing long outstanding bugs for good. Why would I want version 7 with a version 2 bug in it and when version 6 still doesn't have all the functionality once promised?

Heck of a point there.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Exactly. This bug should have been taken care of a long time ago.

Perhaps so.

But as you said it's all about priorities, and given your description of the bug, if that is indeed the only way it gets triggered then it can't be something that comes up often.

And if it truly is a rarely occurring bug, then is it worth the time to track down and fix with the finite amount of coding time available? Or should more important items get consideration first?

Personally, if I had to choose between this bug getting fixed and seeing, say, improvements in the roster/line-up/GM AI, I'm going to chose the latter, because the latter has much more impact on how the game plays.

Now, if only there was a way to make coding time infinite, then we could all get what we want in the game...

[jazzrack]

If the bug has been around for this long then it is probably not easy to find and fix & who knows how many new problems the "fix" would cause.

If the bug was an easy fix i bet it would have been fixed by now.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Personally, if I had to choose between this bug getting fixed and seeing, say, improvements in the roster/line-up/GM AI, I'm going to chose the latter, because the latter has much more impact on how the game plays.

If it was just this one bug I'd be inclined to agree with you, but this is symptomatic of a larger issue - the fact that once 80% of the bugs are fixed in a patch, the game is pronounced "good enough," and the new version, complete with the 20% of the bugs that survive from the previous version, is worked on exclusively.

This just won't do - particularly when the 20% has become cumulative over several versions.

[phenom]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Henry, my wife writes commerical software, and she fixes EVERY SINGLE bug ASAP.

must not be for any software company whose products I've purchased.

[Anachronism]

Speaking personally, for me what I don't like about the way "bug fixes" are handled here is in regard to the "It will be fixed in the next version" response.

That, is a great response for the developers maybe, but not for consumers.

When you purchase a product you expect it to function

a) as advertised
b) with a moderate amount of smoothness

When there are glaring errors (such as the substitution bug mentioned in this thread) or when there are omissions in promised features, I would expect them to be resolved in the current version. After all - what if I don't want to buy the next version?

To me, it feels very much like once I've purchased the game that I have no other option to resolve some bugs other than to be forced to buy the next version

Now... I know I don't have to buy the next version... and there is no one forcing me to do so... but in this case Markus is like the crack dealer on the street. He's given me a taste of a baseball sim that is unmatched on the market - and he knows that I am totally helpess and have no self control when it comes to buying the next version because I want things to run smoother, have bugs fixed, and to be more like the "real" thing.

As for commercial software - I am a HUGE gamer... XBox, GCN, PS2, PC, etc.. etc.. and you know... I cannot remember a single console game crashing or having major flaws... PC games often have patches to resolve issues with hardware incompatibilities - or to tweak game balance (RT-RPGs) but otherwise they are pretty much bug free

Granted - Markus doesn't have the resources of the gaming company giants - but isn't the methodology the same? Idea - plan - code - debug/test - fix - test - release?

[dougaiton]

My favourite bug that has never been fixed:

Bottom of the 9th, score tied, bases loaded. Single to the outfield, OF makes error trying to pick it up. 2 runs score. Final score - 2-0. What?