OOTP 6 / ITP development update

[andjbock]

Originally Posted by FamundaCheese

Please, please, please, list all of the "glaring" bugs that are in OOTP6. Im just curious as to what everyone here classifies as "bugs". It seems that alot of people have very very strong feelings towards the "problems" within OOTP6 and im just curious as to everyones opinion are what exactly the "bugs" are.

IMO:

Something that needs to be fixed since it currently impairs the game. Could be anything from an error message causing the game to shut down to the PR after a fight error to a feature not being utilized properly like the SP coming out of the pen thing.

[Go Tribe]

Originally Posted by FamundaCheese

Please, please, please, list all of the "glaring" bugs that are in OOTP6. Im just curious as to what everyone here classifies as "bugs". It seems that alot of people have very very strong feelings towards the "problems" within OOTP6 and im just curious as to everyones opinion are what exactly the "bugs" are.

please please please use the search function instead of having this rehashed

[Go Tribe]

Originally Posted by phenom

maybe OOTP7 should carry the slogan "It's not perfect, but it's as close as you'll get."

OOTP7: Now with Head to Head! (seriously, it's in there....well it will be, soon)

[FamundaCheese]

Originally Posted by Go Tribe

please please please use the search function instead of having this rehashed

Rehashed? Noone seems to have a problem bitching about some bug or glitch in what seems like every single post, so i dont see how im rehashing an old subject.

[Go Tribe]

Originally Posted by FamundaCheese

Rehashed? Noone seems to have a problem bitching about some bug or glitch in what seems like every single post, so i dont see how im rehashing an old subject.

exactly - if you read the posts you should get a feel for what people consider a bug.

[FamundaCheese]

bah

[billethius]

im just curious as to everyones opinion are what exactly the "bugs" are.

Actually, this is an interesting question. There is a very distint difference between a 'bug' and a design decision. Markus may have intended some things that are referred to on these boards as 'bugs' to be the way they are. I suppose in some people's minds, that doesn't change the fact that those things need to be changed. However, design changes usually occur in interations of development, not bug patches.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Henry

By the way, I'm glad you didn't turn this into a pissing match. You certainly could have done that had you chosen to. I believe we want the same thing, I just think were getting hung up on expectations.

Why would I ever do that to you? There's no evil or stupidity in you, Henry, and there never has been. I think your expectations are way, way, way too low here, and you think mine are too high, but this, too, shall pass...one way or the other.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by matskralc

So you're telling us to stop complaining when the rocket's hitting our house instead of Saddam's? Or when the rocket is missing the capability to react to what other rockets are doing, even though we were told it would have that?

We're saying we want the rocket to work the way we were told it would, and the fact that it's "hard" is no excuse. Is that so hard to accept?

mats,

LOL It seems your really out to undermine my statements, or show me up, or something like that. The above is nothing more than a twist to make my statements sound as if I'm satisfied if a rocket blasts off and then falls on my house. Get real, will ya ? That's not what I said, I replied to Mal that fixing the bugs in OOTP was a lot like rocket science since rockets, too, fly to their destinations using program coding.

And I'm not putting words into anyone's mouths. Mal is stating that ALL bugs MUST be fixed, and you've stated "you will continue to demand perfection". That wasn't me saying those things.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by treedom

Sorry, I feel like a nitpicker today, but actually the key thing to quashing bugs is not identifying them, but being able to reliably reproduce them.

Tree, I had lunch with eleven programmers today (it was a birthday lunch for one of them) and I asked that question and all of them agreed on identifying the bug as the toughest part of squashing it. Not one of them mentioned reproducing it, and these were mostly people who run mission-critical apps where there is a standing Zero Defects policy. Maybe they count reproducability as part of the identfication process, but still...

[Henry]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Why would I ever do that to you? There's no evil or stupidity in you, Henry, and there never has been. I think your expectations are way, way, way too low here, and you think mine are too high, but this, too, shall pass...one way or the other.

I tend to agree Mal. But I also think your "understanding" of what my expectations are is incorrect as well. I don't really think your asking for perfection although it sounds like it, and I'm not asking for total acceptance of imperfection either. I think (hope) we're both overstating our expectaions in response to each other. the real solution is somewhere in the middle - we just haven't found a way to express it to both of our satisfaction.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Henry

Mal is stating that ALL bugs MUST be fixed

Mal thinks all bugs SHOULD be fixed, and that all bugs CAN be fixed (leaving out those that are the result of design limitations - the 255 bug and such). I wish that I had the clout to insist that they MUST be fixed - because if I had it, then they WOULD all get fixed.

I fear we will see another under-documented adequacy patch and that legacy bugs will continue to pop up and bite us on our collective butt in the future.

[Henry]

I'm tired LOL... if we were all in the same area, would you all be for a night out, sharing rounds? I'll buy the first and the last in addition to my turn - how's that for a deal?

[Henry]

Originally Posted by Malleus Dei

Mal thinks all bugs SHOULD be fixed, and that all bugs CAN be fixed (leaving out those that are the result of design limitations - the 255 bug and such). I wish that I had the clout to insist that they MUST be fixed - because if I had it, then they WOULD all get fixed.

I fear we will see another under-documented adequacy patch and that legacy bugs will continue to pop up and bite us on our collective butt in the future.

I do think that may be a possible result - but not because Markus won't try, but because he 1. (has a limited amount of time to address V6 before he goes on to ITP and V7) and 2. (knows that the rewrite of V7 will better address some of these legacy bugs that will find resolution much easier in a new code base than continuing to patch the old one which could raise even more issues).

Some will see that as a "cop out" when in reality it's a good technical decision as well as a good business decision for the long term.

One other thing here.... every application has a "shelf life". Most major corporations replace the entire code base of an application every 5 to 10 years. The core OOTP V6 code base is six years old, and it's very likely due to be replaced. I think this was in part the reason to access the SI code - to give Markus a chance to build V7 on a clean slate. That too, is why spending too much time on V6 may not be in everyone's best interest.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Henry

the real solution is somewhere in the middle - we just haven't found a way to express it to both of our satisfaction.

Oh, no - IMO the only real solution is to fix every single one of them that can be fixed, and that anything else is some form or another of shabby compromise.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Henry

I'm tired LOL... if we were all in the same area, would you all be for a night out, sharing rounds? I'll buy the first and the last in addition to my turn - how's that for a deal?

For what you've done for OOTP and the OOTP community, I'll buy all your drinks.

[Malleus Dei]

Originally Posted by Henry

Some will see that as a "cop out" when in reality it's a good technical decision as well as a good business decision for the long term.

I've seen a lot of "good business decisions" that were terrible decisions when looked at from any perspective but that of the bottom line. "Good business decisions" are usually decisions that have bad, and sometimes terrible, human consequences.

"People are more important than things." - my late father

[matskralc]

Originally Posted by Henry

The above is nothing more than a twist to make my statements sound as if I'm satisfied if a rocket blasts off and then falls on my house. Get real, will ya ? That's not what I said, I replied to Mal that fixing the bugs in OOTP was a lot like rocket science since rockets, too, fly to their destinations using program coding.

Hey, and all I was doing was saying that OOTP is like rocket science since rockets, too, have to do what they've been advertised as doing. If you don't want your ridiculous anaolgy to look ridiculous, then don't make it.

Originally Posted by Henry

LOL It seems your really out to undermine my statements, or show me up, or something like that.

Once again, Henry, you are the ONLY person here reading anything personal into anything anyone is saying. And it's certainly not helping.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by matskralc

Hey, and all I was doing was saying that OOTP is like rocket science since rockets, too, have to do what they've been advertised as doing. If you don't want your ridiculous anaolgy to look ridiculous, then don't make it.

Once again, Henry, you are the ONLY person here reading anything personal into anything anyone is saying. And it's certainly not helping.

Sigh... sorry I look ridiculous in your eyes mats. Some folks just can't find common ground no matter how hard they try. I'll retire from the attempt in this case. I respect your opinion, and will try my best to see that OOTP meets your expectations, but I will also continue to enjoy the game personally as best I can, faults and all.

[Dargone]

Guuuhhh...