Community driven Bug&Issue Tracker (CIT) for ARMA 2: Operation Arrowhead and ARMA 2

[roberthammer 582]

Myke;1991334']Aye' date=' i do remember that. That's why i fully understand that BIS will not give the MLOD's out to public.[/quote']

Its been confirmed , those will be released ,but noone knows when :(

Edited July 27, 2011 by RobertHammer

[Big Dawg KS 6]

You know it is ironic though:

Suma on CIT

Note: the repro would behave even better if some vehicles config bugs were fixed, eg. MLRS correctly marked as not presenting any significant threat to aircraft. Currently the Su34 will use R73 once other missiles are depleted, as it feels "desperate" (considers MLRS threatening it significantly).

Devs complaining about content bugs. :D

[killswitch 19]

You know it is ironic though

...

Funny thing ... did you know that a M1030 motorcycle is more threatening to aircraft than a T-72 tank?

• M1030 : threat[] = {0.5,0.5,0.5};
  
• T72: threat[] = {0.9,0.8,0.2};
  

(Of course, the bike could be driven by a very angry player with a Stinger) :D

EDIT: ticketed, see 22873

EDIT 2: apparently, threat values are not absolute. See Suma's comment in that ticket.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Killswitch
Added CIT ticket

[suma 8]

You know it is ironic though:

Devs complaining about content bugs. :D

I have to admit I do not find it that ironic. I have analysed the cause, fixed what I could and recorded other observations in case they may become usefull later for anyone, esp. for content creators in general. I do not assume it is worth fixing at this point, and I find it understandable with the huge amounts of content there are various values which are not tuned as good as they could be.

[OMAC 254]

I have to admit I do not find it that ironic. I have analysed the cause, fixed what I could and recorded other observations in case they may become usefull later for anyone, esp. for content creators in general. I do not assume it is worth fixing at this point, and I find it understandable with the huge amounts of content there are various values which are not tuned as good as they could be.

I find this conversation about content bugs vs. "engine" bugs very interesting, and Suma's quote is quite illuminating in this regard. His quote tells me that "other" devs are responsible for bugs in content, which consists of thousands of tunable values, and of course lots of mission scripts. Anyone who reads the beta forums knows that Suma is constantly developing new things and fixing old things having to do with the engine, and engaging the community wonderfully while doing so.

I started with A2 late in 2010, and have played through everything in SP. About halfway through the A2 campaign, I thought to myself about how awesome the engine, modelling, and graphics were for the most part, and how so many (but not all) of the maddening bugs had to do with content and mission design, which I thought would be relatively easy to fix, and have greater immediate impact on players than esoteric engine issues.

So, IMHO, the good news is that the engine tech is more than 90% there, but the "content" lags behind, at least in A2, PMC, and BAF. I think that BIS should allocate more resources to mission design/fixing, content development, and playtesting in general. Just my two cents.

Edited July 28, 2011 by OMAC

[nettrucker 142]

I find this conversation about content bugs vs. "engine" bugs very interesting, and Suma's quote is quite illuminating in this regard. His quote tells me that "other" devs are responsible for content bugs, which consist of thousands of tunable values, and of course lots of mission scripts. Anyone who reads the beta forums knows that Suma is constantly developing new things and fixing old things having to do with the engine, and engaging the community wonderfully while doing so.

So, IMHO, the good news is that the engine tech is more than 90% there, but the "content" lags behind, at least in A2, PMC, and BAF. I think that BIS should allocate more resources to mission design/fixing, content development, and playtesting in general. Just my two cents.

I agree with OMAC. More ressources in mission design and playtesting (quality control). BIS is lacking under that point of view which is bad for business. If the campaign of ArmA II wasn't broken on release it would've been a bigger success. IMO.

Edited July 27, 2011 by nettrucker

[twisted 127]

BIS provides support like no other game. That, and the amazing vision of their games, is why i will gladly spend money on their sim games without a second thought.

but no matter how amazing their support they do not have unlimited time. not making excuses for them just setting up a line of thinking.

The poster who suggested getting a trusted group of modders to 'fix' the problems that are fixable by configs is making a very smart suggestion.

Look at how skilled the modders in Arma2 are. And the offer is free and high quality labour from people who know the game almost as well as the devs. Only payment would be the honour of having their credits in next bis game that incorporates such patch/changes.

the thing is to aim big and remove as much workload on the issues that are important to community and then make it easy for BIS to review and accept them. The less work BIS has to do on such a lot of problems the more value they can get out of the situation.

how many issues should be aimed for - as many as possible. couple hundred if that many are important. and then these get properly documented and ticked off as they are done and incorporated in beta patches for community testing.

i hope BIS does see the sense in this if it can be made to mean minimal extra work for them for quite a good return. But if they choose not to then that is their business decision to stand by.

[OMAC 254]

If the campaign of ArmA II wasn't broken on release it would've been a bigger success. IMO.

I agree 100%. See GameSpot A2 review. More polish/less bugs = happy players = good reviews = more sales = more beer for Suma and Dwarden.

I should add that AI behavior is included in "engine" development, is integral to gameplay, and is still being improved, but still I think that BIS will get the biggest bang for the buck by concentrating on fixing content issues, given the already incredibly high quality of engine/environments/modelling.

Some of the best things about the A2 campaign are the plot, characters, and mission design. It is these which moved A2 from "game" to "triumph" category. All the best games have well-developed, intricate plots and gameplay, including non-linear play, sandbox environment, and choices with consequences. Unfortunately, many of the campaign missions have flawed objective triggers and other little bugs that deleteriously effect gameplay. All of those problems could have been removed with better play testing from smart, dedicated players - like those in these forums. I hope A3 has equally complex plot and gameplay. Note how OA is a world ahead of A2 in terms of bugs.

The way ToH is being developed with community previews is unparalleled in the history of gaming, AFAIK. Community feedback will guarantee a better game and more sales. I really, really hope that A3 goes the same route.

Edited July 28, 2011 by OMAC

[Innomadic 10]

I agree 100%. See GameSpot A2 review. More polish/less bugs = happy players = good reviews = more sales = more beer for Suma and Dwarden.

Actually if they had more time with the game, waited for everything to be patched, then we'd see better reviews, however reviewers simply don't stay around for long, which is exactly NOT what Arma is about really.

Reviewers these days need everything delivered on a silver platter...

[OMAC 254]

Actually if they had more time with the game, waited for everything to be patched, then we'd see better reviews, however reviewers simply don't stay around for long, which is exactly NOT what Arma is about really.

Reviewers these days need everything delivered on a silver platter...

Well said. But at least sites like GameSpot include player reviews, and averaged overall game scores including those of players, which I usually find to be quite accurate overall (exception - see BAF score below).

GameSpot scores (PC versions only):

A2 - 8.0 ("great")

OA - 8.5

-----------------

Crysis - 9.5

Crysis Warhead - 9.0

F.E.A.R - 9.1

Far Cry 2 - 8.5

Doom 3 - 8.5

Operation Flashpoint: Red River - 6.5 ("fair" = crap)

Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising - N/A (total extreme crap)

User Scores (GameSpot scores not available):

PMC - 8.5 (loser boy critic score - 6.9, silver platter delivery needed)

BAF - 7.1 (inaccurate; critic score - 8.5, my score - 8.5, would have been 9.0 if it was longer)

Edit:

Compare scores of OA and Far Cry 2. Given engine/graphics/modelling, OA should be a 9.5 compared to FC 2. The only reason it isn't is short length and lagging content. I personally think that if the scenarios are included for evaluation, OA should get a 9.0 score.

Edited July 28, 2011 by OMAC

[no use for a name 0]

I say let BIS decide since they're the ones that made the damned thing lol...

Something that sounds as easy as "changing a little bit of code" or whatever can have drastic results in the end-product, and BIS devs are the only ones that see/know that.

Let them do their work in peace

Personally I'm happy that they're still supporting a 2+ year old game with constant patches/updates, whilst most companies MAYBE patch their games once or twice and then move on

Edited July 28, 2011 by No Use For A Name

[OMAC 254]

I say let BIS decide since they're the ones that made the damned thing lol...

Something that sounds as easy as "changing a little bit of code" or whatever can have drastic results in the end-product, and BIS devs are the only ones that see/know that.

Let them do their work in peace

Personally I'm happy that they're still supporting a 2+ year old game with constant patches/updates, whilst most companies MAYBE patch their games once or twice and then move on

I agree. BIS rules. Best support in gaming history. But Freedom Fighters MUST BE FIXED. :eek:

[nobrainer 0]

It's great to see the dev's explain things here!

I like the support that BIS provides. It's unique.

I also think that content fixes should have a higherpriority, since I belive you actually get rid of "that" bug once and for all.

Then BIS could consentrate on engine fixes en development afterwards.

Get rid of the obvious things.

BIS missions that is reported in the servers RPT log, that says "missing ;", things like that should be gone a long time ago.

Vehicles missing texture or other things. Just so BIS could consetrate on developing the game further.

But I may be wrong. I don't work as developer so...

[nettrucker 142]

I love BIS games but it's a fact that still a lot of things needs fixing. have a look at the CIT tracker. BIS has my full support because they support me their customer.

Just looking from the business point of view. The quality control is their weakest spot. If there would be an aproppriate quality control ArmA II would have blown and gone really big. The first days after release, the forum was one single rant. Todays customers are more and more demanding and today you can't allow yourself to release a faulty or malfunctioning product. BIS keeps up with it by supporting their games on a longterm run. They have lost a lot of sales due to the initial buggy or sometimes broken SP campaign. People couldn't play or finish the missions in the campaign and that has caused some heavy casualties in sales IMO.

Some of the best things about the A2 campaign are the plot, characters, and mission design. It is these which moved A2 from "game" to "triumph" category. All the best games have well-developed, intricate plots and gameplay, including non-linear play, sandbox environment, and choices with consequences. Unfortunately, many of the campaign missions have flawed objective triggers and other little bugs that deleteriously effect gameplay. All of those problems could have been removed with better play testing from smart, dedicated players - like those in these forums. I hope A3 has equally complex plot and gameplay. Note how OA is a world ahead of A2 in terms of bugs.

@ OMAC

They have never reached the strenght of CWC or Resistance IMO. I was able to identify myself with Armstrong and Troska the 2 main characters in the OFP campaigns. I couldn't in ARMA II nor in Armed Assault I also believe that people would be a lot more satisfied if the campaigns would have the epic lenght of the OFP campaigns. I hope in ArmA III they are going back to the roots when it comes to campaigns.:)

[Sniperwolf572 758]

The quality control is their weakest spot. If there would be an aproppriate quality control ArmA II would have blown and gone really big. The first days after release, the forum was one single rant. Todays customers are more and more demanding and today you can't allow yourself to release a faulty or malfunctioning product. BIS keeps up with it by supporting their games on a longterm run. They have lost a lot of sales due to the initial buggy or sometimes broken SP campaign. People couldn't play or finish the missions in the campaign and that has caused some heavy casualties in sales IMO.

While I do agree with you on the campaign/mission/showstopper bugs (I find those a bit more relevant since they're the first impression on people), you also have to realize how many things the engine exposes to the players/modders. A 100% bug free product is unreachable goal for any developer with that in mind.

With most games a bug-free story mode and missions is enough, while with ArmA there's the editor and the entire modding capability. If you look at the (abridged) list PvPScene made, you'll see that great many bugs listed there are not huge deals when you just look at the core campaign/missions, but are very important to the contributing community at large.

[nettrucker 142]

While I do agree with you on the campaign/mission/showstopper bugs (I find those a bit more relevant since they're the first impression on people), you also have to realize how many things the engine exposes to the players/modders. A 100% bug free product is unreachable goal for any developer with that in mind.

With most games a bug-free story mode and missions is enough, while with ArmA there's the editor and the entire modding capability. If you look at the (abridged) list PvPScene made, you'll see that great many bugs listed there are not huge deals when you just look at the core campaign/missions, but are very important to the contributing community at large.

I'm fully aware that a bugfree ArmA is an unreachable undertaking given to it's nature. It doesn't have to be bugfree but at least the SP campaign must be extensively tested in order to avoid the show stoppers. This can be only reached by quality control in this case. It's the first thing someone new to the game tries out. The missions or the campaign. If the campaign would have fully worked from the beginning and without gamebreaking issues the sales would have been much higher. Unfortunatly BIS already got labeled as a developer with a bugy release history, and believe me it's really hard to get rid of such a label.

OFP and the ArmA series are the best game investment I've ever made in my life. I love this game and I'm playing for 10 years now without ever getting tired.

But there are things which haven't been really resolved since OFP. For example AI can't drive for shit. Also the variety of "bugs" is astounding.

AI behaviour needs still to be improved IMO. It is already good but there's still room for improvement.:)

[OMAC 254]

I'm fully aware that a bugfree ArmA is an unreachable undertaking given to it's nature. It doesn't have to be bugfree but at least the SP campaign must be extensively tested in order to avoid the show stoppers. This can be only reached by quality control in this case. It's the first thing someone new to the game tries out. The missions or the campaign. If the campaign would have fully worked from the beginning and without gamebreaking issues the sales would have been much higher. Unfortunatly BIS already got labeled as a developer with a bugy release history, and believe me it's really hard to get rid of such a label.

The above quote should be carved on stone tablets and hung in the BIS CEO's office. Well said.

I have just played through the awesome CWR2 demo. Highly recommended for OFP lovers. I have never played any OFP game or Arma 1. Maybe I should!?

I also strongly agree with the last paragraph of nettrucker's post. AI driving is not good - not good at all (see GameSpot official review of A2). It massively effects game play and MUST be fixed.

My earlier posts here, and several of those by others since, are focusing solely on the showstopper/gamebreaker bugs, especially those in the SP campaigns and scenarios. Nobody here is whining about fixing every little bug. Forums are inevitably mainly about complaints - few write in to say how awesome the games are - they are too busy playing and having fun. All of us here wouldn't even bother writing if the A2 series wasn't a work of genius, something that we now find difficult to live without. We are all armaholics here. The BEST thing about BIS forums is the beta forums, where our voices are heard, problems solved, and the game is improved for everyone's benefit, including BIS.

[Tankbuster 1733]

I am sorry to disappoint you, but the list is already way too long.

Forgive me for speaking plainly but you're simply going to have to do better.

There's 977 open tickets on the CIT at the time of writing. To say you can actively address 5 or 10 of those (between 0.5 and 1%) is just not acceptable.

[.kju 3240]

Tankbuster .. did you check how many he fixed in this week?

[fabrizio_t 58]

Suma is doing a massive work here. I wonder how meany developers are actively helping him in fixing engine bugs, it would be interesting to know.

I think BIS as a company would make a clever choice by investing resources to fix by now as many major bugs as possible. That will make actual customers more than happy to buy next BIS product and new customers will finally get (with ArmA3) a more polished product straight out-of-the box. Hence better reviews and less users ranting.

I know money is a key factor here, but what about partially financing more bugfixing/optimization through selling a new DLC? ArmA3 is still far enough.

Edited July 29, 2011 by fabrizioT

[Tankbuster 1733]

Tankbuster .. did you check how many he fixed in this week?

No, but I expect it was a tiny proportion. Are they being fixed quicker than they are being created?

The setMimic thing is just comical. If I'm honest, it's that that has led me to such overt criticism.

[dmarkwick 261]

I hope you'll forgive me for similarly speaking plainly TB.

Forgive me for speaking plainly but you're simply going to have to do better.

I'm pretty sure he's not slacking. I don't know what you expect to happen for saying such a thing.

There's 977 open tickets on the CIT at the time of writing. To say you can actively address 5 or 10 of those (between 0.5 and 1%) is just not acceptable.

Acceptable is a term bosses & shareholders use, I don't believe you have any levarage to use that term in a meaningful way. 977 tickets created by users, and most of what I see in those tickets, I never notice or don't use. I expect others have the same experience, albeit a different subset per person. I've worked in software development, and there are ALWAYS hundreds of issues needing looking at, most of which do not get fixed. That's a simple reality, not everything gets fixed.

Now, you might say that Suma's estimate of 5 or 10 sounds low, but from reading the various fixes that make recent betas, it seems a very low estimate for him. I doubt his natural modesty has benefited from your post.

---------- Post added at 10:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 AM ----------

No, but I expect it was a tiny proportion. Are they being fixed quicker than they are being created?

The more people play, the more issues get raised. It's a double edged sword :)

The setMimic thing is just comical. If I'm honest, it's that that has led me to such overt criticism.

It's sometimes possible to look at an issue and see that it's a relatively minor or easy fix. If that's the case, and the CIT reveals it to be important to more people than other tickets raised, why not fix it? I, like you, couldn't care less about setMimic. But, if voting is all Suma has to go on RE popularity of fixes, then that's what he goes by.

[Tankbuster 1733]

I don't think he's slacking DM. Perhaps I should clarify. I do think, with no real evidence other than being a customer for 6 years, that BI need to prioritise bug squashing higher than they do now.

I have no leverage, other than my credit card. :) And Suma, you and I all know I'm going to snap up the next title voraciously, but nevertheless, I think the word 'unacceptable' is fairly well chosen.

Those 977 tickets, that's just open tickets, so there's plenty more that aren't even actively being considered right now. You're right of course, many of both the former and latter are pretty minor, but I still maintain to be looking at 5 to 10 out of nearly a thousand is quite a low strike rate.

I don't want to offend Suma. As you say, he's a modest chap and I like that in him, but he's also the top of the tree at the company. That position, has it's challenges and reading stuff like this is just one of them

[NoRailgunner 0]

Maybe somekind of advanced tools could help to reduce testing certain things and features. But developing such tools takes away devtime on (next) game.

Guess BIS already know that there is no point in reinventing wheel. Imho they need to have a very close look at their A2OA content and make those things right. Otherwise A3 is going to be just "the old sandbox again - with X new features minus Z broken things or old issues/bugs." But there is hope that BIS devs will spend some time playing with A2OA and using the content from a customers view. Something that can be very effective in development. :)

[jedra 11]

I worked in supporting systems all of my corporate career - there was always a desire to fix all of the open issues on every system. Fixing bugs takes resources and resources have to be paid for. This makes resources finite and requires that open issues need to be prioritised somehow as it is simply not cost effective to add more resource to fix them all. Also, in every organisation I have worked in, rightly or wrongly, support resources are always seen as a 'loss' as they do not appear (to shareholders etc) to be activiley contributing to revenue. Also often support resources were also required to take on new development duties as well, further limiting their ability to 'go at' open issues.

I am sure that BI have a similar approach where resources are tightly controlled with regard to fixing open issues, especially those considered to be not cost effective (either minor bugs, or large bugs that will take an unnacceptable amount of resource).

Taking all this into account, the amount of bug fixing that does actually happen on this game is far in excess of what I have seen for any other game. BI also actively involve the user base in deciding which bugs may be a priority - this is extremely rare. The developer/user relationship for Arma far surpasses any other mainstream game that I know of.

Bottom line is that BI will have to prioritise the issues as they will not be able to fix all the open bugs.