all game changing behavior should have a poll topic

[chron]

would be nice if the current developers would discuss the changes more before they run off and "fix" what they perceive is broken.
I don't know why they are adding new features or changing things when the game still crashes constantly so they should get it back to a 1.10 state of stableness.

a developer wrote

There was one thing we removed, which lead to more crashes: the memory pool system of the original. With that, the game wouldn't crash as often when accessing wrong memory locations, but it might use bogus data later. So that was removed to be able to actually fix those bugs instead of plastering over them.

seems they should fix this first.

[Per]

Since you already got up on your high horse, perhaps you'd like to tell us what "this" is that we should fix first?

And before you answer, please re-read what you quoted a few more times.

[lav_coyote25]

perhaps reading the entire forum would help... all topics.

[Zarel]

I don't think the memory pool system was all that big of an issue - I don't remember any corruption issues in singleplayer, anyway. I guess it might just be that you don't notice that kind of thing.

As for the game crashing constantly, I haven't seen the game crash in ages. If it crashes so much, why don't you make a crash report? I haven't seen a single one from you.

[chron]

I don't think the memory pool system was all that big of an issue - I don't remember any corruption issues in singleplayer, anyway. I guess it might just be that you don't notice that kind of thing.

As for the game crashing constantly, I haven't seen the game crash in ages. If it crashes so much, why don't you make a crash report? I haven't seen a single one from you.

again you have no clue what your talking about.
I have submitted at least 13 bug reports under anonymous before you guys made the asinine changes to ban anonymous bug tickets. :rolleyes:
you guys ever thought of people don't want to bother with forum registration just to submit bug tickets?

Since you already got up on your high horse, perhaps you'd like to tell us what "this" is that we should fix first?

what high horse?
you guys get offended since I voiced my observation?
is it a fact that 1.10 was more stable than any versions that you guys have put out or not?
if yes then you look at the core changes you guys did and by deduction you try to figure out what went wrong.
I don't deny memory pools hid lots of the original bugs but at least the game was still very much playable and still is today.
the same can't be said about any of the versions you guys put out.
look at your own bug tracker for proof.
with 1.10 you can play through campaign all the way through with no crashes.
any version you guys have and you will be lucky to get past 4 or 5 missions without a crash.

I am just trying to say that you guys need to concentrate on fixing bugs and not adding new features.
if you are offended by that then sorry but someone had to say it.

[Mysteryem]

I actually find the game in its current state to be equal if not better than the original in terms of bug crashes. I haven't had the game (in an unmodded state) crash on me in quite a while. And at least multiplayer axtually works now. Everytime I've tried playing with my brother in the past in the original version, it replaced us with ai.

I'll admit that there are bugs, but all of the fixes and new features completely overthrow the bugs in my opinion. Just the basic things that make a game look and react better. (all of these are comparing 2.x with the original) The scroll speed was greatly increased, the game became less grainy, the depth of field was increased, massive amounts of rebalancing has been done, it's all these little things that say to me that the developers have done a good job.

Aside from that, a large number of reported crashes in the bugtracker and forum have actually been driver crashes.

[Zarel]

I have submitted at least 13 bug reports under anonymous before you guys made the asinine changes to ban anonymous bug tickets. :rolleyes:
you guys ever thought of people don't want to bother with forum registration just to submit bug tickets?

That still hasn't changed - all you need is an e-mail address to submit a bug ticket. This is because anonymous bug reports are completely useless, because then when we ask "Okay, what's the problem?" no one replies.

Which bug reports have you submitted? How were they handled?

what high horse?
you guys get offended since I voiced my observation?
is it a fact that 1.10 was more stable than any versions that you guys have put out or not?
if yes then you look at the core changes you guys did and by deduction you try to figure out what went wrong.
I don't deny memory pools hid lots of the original bugs but at least the game was still very much playable and still is today.
the same can't be said about any of the versions you guys put out.
look at your own bug tracker for proof.
with 1.10 you can play through campaign all the way through with no crashes.
any version you guys have and you will be lucky to get past 4 or 5 missions without a crash.

Just last week, I played from Alpha 1 to Alpha 10. Still no crashes.

I'm sure there are changes that have made the game less stable, but they're far rarer than you make it seem. Besides, as far as I know, none of the known unfixed crashes were caused by any of my code, so there's really nothing I can do personally except fix what bugs and crashes people report to me, which is pretty much what I'm currently doing. Would you like me to do something else?

[Per]

I have submitted at least 13 bug reports under anonymous before you guys made the asinine changes to ban anonymous bug tickets.

Oh, so that was you. Most of those bug reports had to be closed simply because you never answered a single follow-up question about them, which is usually necessary for them to have any value. That barrage of useless bug reports proved to us finally that anonymous bug reports are more of a waste of time than anything. Besides, what was up with all the cursing?

Our focus has always been on skirmish games, not campaign. For Pumpkin it was the other way around. For that reason, those who mainly play campaign 1.10 will most likely have less bugs. I do not see that changing soon, either.

Finally, I bet you never saw Pumpkin's bug database. Comparing our bug database (containing everything anyone ever reported) to whatever you remember from 1.10 is simply not a valid comparison.

you guys get offended

Wishful thinking on your part.

[cybersphinx]

Our focus has always been on skirmish games, not campaign. For Pumpkin it was the other way around. For that reason, those who mainly play campaign 1.10 will most likely have less bugs. I do not see that changing soon, either.

And that is one of the fundamental differences between commercial and open source game development. A company spends money to make testers play through the game again and again. Open source games don't have people doing that, since once you completed the game and got the story it gets much less interesting. So for games like Nexuiz or Warzone skirmish/multiplayer, this development model works ok, but for story-driven games like the campaign, not so much. But if you want to help us keep the campaign working, you're very welcome.

[chron]

I have submitted at least 13 bug reports under anonymous before you guys made the asinine changes to ban anonymous bug tickets.

Oh, so that was you. Most of those bug reports had to be closed simply because you never answered a single follow-up question about them, which is usually necessary for them to have any value. That barrage of useless bug reports proved to us finally that anonymous bug reports are more of a waste of time than anything. Besides, what was up with all the cursing?

:rolleyes:
I rarely curse.
must be another anonymous user.
if I don't know what the cause was then I didn't bother with comments.
if I did know then I did reply.
having a crash report is better than nothing.
3 bugs were fixed and the rest are still there or someone closed them saying to try newer versions of the game.

if you keep breaking campaign then why don't you split the game up?
have a campaign only version and a multiplayer version.

[Assault Gunner]

if you keep breaking campaign then why don't you split the game up?
have a campaign only version and a multiplayer version.

That sounds like an awful lot of work just to satisfy the minority of people who prefer campaign. I am not slamming those people. I am simply saying that the majority of people play a skirmish- or multiplayer-based game, as the primary purpose of campaign is to teach you the controls. The prime concern for the developers is the majority, as they have the same number of hours in a day as we do. Twenty-four. If you wish split the game up, feel free to do the work. Personally, I like being able to play campaign for a while then switch to skirmish or the other way around without loading another version of the game.

[Zarel]

You know, Per advocates splitting out the campaign, too, for similar reasons.

I don't think it should be done, though. It's just going to mean that the problems the campaign exposes would go unfixed.

[Assault Gunner]

Same thing with original, I ran into a bug only in campaign. Of course, it's fixed by now, but still, you get the point.

If campaign gets split, a "complete" version should probably be provided as well.