View Full Version : Worried about SH4(dev-team)
Hello,
I just read the thread concerning the SH4 patch 1.3 and there is a quote in there talking about the future of SH4 being up to US(dev-team) and YOU(subsim community).
I just wanted to let you guys know that I completely support silent hunter 4. I've been waiting for years, well, since silent hunter commander edition, for a new subsim in the pacific. This is exactly what I am wanting.
Dont worry, I havent abandoned ship and will not do so. I'm sure there are plenty of people here that arent going to jump ship either. I will continue to support you guys even when silent hunter 5 comes out. ;)
I guess what I am really trying to say is that there is no "us against you" here at subsim.com.
peace-out!:sunny:
MaxT.dk
05-30-07, 02:04 PM
Sounds promising :)
SteamWake
05-30-07, 02:06 PM
I find this post highly confusing.
I find this post highly confusing.
Agree
I find this post highly confusing.
Agree. Is the original poster a member of the dev team? :hmm:
TDK1044
05-30-07, 02:10 PM
I think the thread was simply making the point that Ubisoft needed to hear rational, reasoned arguments for 1.3 from outside the company, and not just the Devs asking them to allocate internal resources for 1.3.
rdhiggins
05-30-07, 02:11 PM
ditto :o
Uber Gruber
05-31-07, 04:23 AM
UBI need to hear arguments for 1.3 ?!!!! No they dont, they need to stop releasing games in early alpha state just for profit and instead shift their efforts to releasing products which reach a minimum level of quality. The notion that they need to hear arguments to fix their product is absurd, the mentality of a corporate monster.
Sigh.....what is this world coming to, and to think are fore fathers died so we could have this crap ?!!! They must be turning in their graves.
UBI need to hear arguments for 1.3 ?!!!! No they dont, they need to stop releasing games in early alpha state just for profit and instead shift their efforts to releasing products which reach a minimum level of quality. The notion that they need to hear arguments to fix their product is absurd, the mentality of a corporate monster.
Sigh.....what is this world coming to, and to think are fore fathers died so we could have this crap ?!!! They must be turning in their graves.
Christ, calm down already. Yes, SH4 has its issues, but calling it an early alpha is just plain wrong.
UBI need to hear arguments for 1.3 ?!!!! No they don't, they need to stop releasing games in early alpha state just for profit and instead shift their efforts to releasing products which reach a minimum level of quality. The notion that they need to hear arguments to fix their product is absurd, the mentality of a corporate monster.
Sigh.....what is this world coming to, and to think are fore fathers died so we could have this crap ?!!! They must be turning in their graves.
Christ, calm down already. Yes, SH4 has its issues, but calling it an early alpha is just plain wrong. daft,you are correct. It an unfinished Beta, and everyone
on this earth, has a right to their opinion with out having "Christ" ! Thrown Vainly in their face. daft:doh:
AkbarGulag
05-31-07, 05:05 AM
Forefathers? wtf!
Umm, what is this thread about exactly, I thought 1.3 had already been announced?
*Is confuzzled* :doh:
daft,you are correct. It an unfinished Beta, and everyone
on this earth, has a right to their opinion with out having "Christ" ! Vainly in there face. daft:doh:
Of course they do, and I expressed mine. If the use of the word Christ in any way offended you (or anyone else), I appologize profusely. I'm just getting a bit fed up with the constant complaining. I think most people got the point about a month ago. Oh, and an unfinished beta would probably make it an alpha release. Just so you know. ;)
Uber Gruber
05-31-07, 05:39 AM
Well....I certainly didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition!
<cue>
TDK1044
05-31-07, 05:57 AM
The game was certainly unfinished at release. That much is not in doubt as two significant patches were issued soon after the release of the game. Ubisoft just needed convincing by a preponderance of the evidence that a third patch was required rather than wanted.
Once the case was made convincingly to them, they reacted by authorizing the third patch. Drama Queens were never needed in the equation, and they always hinder rather than help.
Uber Gruber
05-31-07, 06:36 AM
Although I hope I'm not a drama queen (please do call me Loretta), I do understand your stance on this TDK. However, I've worked in software development for the last 20 oddd years and i've never heard of a company who was not aware their product was duff and need of a patch. A simple chat with the QA dept is all that is necessary. I'm sure Ubi have a QA department, thus i'm sure they were well aware of the game bugs even before we were - i.e prior to release.
Therefore, there is no argument, in my oppinion, that they needed convincing of the need for a patch....in fact they would have been aware of the need prior to us even being aware.
I was insenced to have Pd.$50 for SHIV Unfinished,Because,SHCE was nearly as good/rewarding game play 10 years ago. Sorry to have reacted to 1.30 patch tension,on your acct. I guess we need to go sink somtin:-? peace mate:sunny:
I was insenced to have Pd.$50 for SHIV Unfinished,Because,SHCE was nearly as good/rewarding game play 10 years ago. Sorry to have reacted to 1.30 patch tension,on your acct. I guess we need to go sink somtin:-? peace mate:sunny:
No worries mate, I sounded off a bit louder than I should have. Sorry about that. :) I still love the original SH unconditionally even though I haven't played it in a while.
John Channing
05-31-07, 09:19 AM
Although I hope I'm not a drama queen (please do call me Loretta), I do understand your stance on this TDK. However, I've worked in software development for the last 20 oddd years and i've never heard of a company who was not aware their product was duff and need of a patch. A simple chat with the QA dept is all that is necessary. I'm sure Ubi have a QA department, thus i'm sure they were well aware of the game bugs even before we were - i.e prior to release.
Therefore, there is no argument, in my oppinion, that they needed convincing of the need for a patch....in fact they would have been aware of the need prior to us even being aware.
They were very aware they were there before release. That's why the first patch was there on release day. Then over the next several weeks a lot of work went into sorting out which of the myriad of new complaints were actual bugs and which were not (ie "BUG BUG BUG The periscope does not go all the way up... BUG BUG BUG!!!) and, at a point, a list was compiled, sorted and sent to the devs who proceeded to fix almost every item on that list.
Then, when UbiSoft again comes back to the community to ask if a further patch is necessary, or if the noise is just another bunch of people who don't understand how the game works, they get tagged with the idea that they are making the community "beg" for a patch.
JCC
Uber Gruber
05-31-07, 10:14 AM
Thats not how I see it John and here's a very simple example.
If Ubi's QA was aware of the obvious and fundamental flaws in SH4 convoy AI, which was not addressed in Patch 1.1 or 1.2, then why would they need to ascertain from the community whether a further patch was needed ? One would imagine it would be pretty obvious.
If Ubi's QA was not aware of the fundamenal flaws in convoy AI then that would be very detrimental to their internal product development process.
Simple as that.
John Channing
05-31-07, 11:06 AM
Thats not how I see it John and here's a very simple example.
If Ubi's QA was aware of the obvious and fundamental flaws in SH4 convoy AI, which was not addressed in Patch 1.1 or 1.2, then why would they need to ascertain from the community whether a further patch was needed ? One would imagine it would be pretty obvious.
If Ubi's QA was not aware of the fundamenal flaws in convoy AI then that would be very detrimental to their internal product development process.
Simple as that.
You are making the assumption that UbiSoft's QA department ( who must be, by definition, generalists) would be aware that a convoy milling about in a confused fashion is inappropriate behavior. Unlike Enterprise software where it is mostly "Click this to trigger that event and “does the event do what it is supposed to”", the behavior of the AI in any simulation requires a specialized knowledge of how real world events should happen in that particular circumstance. Add to that that the QA people would need to have a specialized historical background as well and I think your assumption is on pretty thin ice.
Then the question becomes why wasn’t this addressed earlier.
If you refer to the first list of problems that was complied out of literally thousands of posts here and elsewhere you will see that convoy behavior was only noticed by 3 people and ranked 21st on the list of problems... and at least two of the people who reported it were beta testers who had had the product a lot longer than most.
It is a subtle problem and, from posts I have read, I believe that even the development team was not aware of until the community brought it to their attention. And that only happened after the first list of problems had been fixed (FSAA, the monolith of death, etc).
QA can pick up game crashes (most), graphic problems, broken features and top line stuff... but the really subtle ones may not show up for months. And to the casual games... and even more casual sub-simmer (read: their first one) they may never notice or care.
That Ubisoft is prepared to invest tens of thousands of dollars in fixing this problem for a community that accounts for between 3-5% of the total market is, in my opinion, commendable.
JCC
SteamWake
05-31-07, 11:11 AM
JC
Your going to make me change my forum "scheme" just so I can read your post ?
Black on dark grey very hard to read. Sorry.
That being said ... Yea the QA team dident even notice the screws are turning backwards ;)
John Channing
05-31-07, 11:37 AM
JC
Your going to make me change my forum "scheme" just so I can read your post ?
Black on dark grey very hard to read. Sorry.
That being said ... Yea the QA team dident even notice the screws are turning backwards ;)
Neither did any of the several thousands of bug posts by the so called "experts" here and other forums for the 1.2 patch (myself included).
JCC
Uber Gruber
05-31-07, 11:38 AM
I agree a lot of the issues are subtle and one could excuse a QA team of not noticing some of these. However, I personally can't excuse a QA team not noticing the convoy AI behaviour, neither the escort AI behaviour when your sub is detected.
Devs normally have an input into QA via QA project lead, this is normal as QA always needs help to define test cases - which is understandable.
Your assumption seems to be that QA were unaware of these issues and hence Ubi were unaware of these issues and thats effectively why they decided to guage users oppinion by posting a topic in the Ubi forum asking us to justify a patch.
Personally, if this was the case, I would consider Ubi's business processes as being laughable and would certainly not outsource any work to them.
The whole notion flys in the face of "Quality Assurance".
John Channing
05-31-07, 11:42 AM
I agree a lot of the issues are subtle and one could excuse a QA team of not noticing some of these. However, I personally can't excuse a QA team not noticing the convoy AI behaviour, neither the escort AI behaviour when your sub is detected.
Devs normally have an input into QA via QA project lead, this is normal as QA always needs help to define test cases - which is understandable.
Your assumption seems to be that QA were unaware of these issues and hence Ubi were unaware of these issues and thats effectively why they decided to guage users oppinion by posting a topic in the Ubi forum asking us to justify a patch.
Personally, if this was the case, I would consider Ubi's business processes as being laughable and would certainly not outsource any work to them.
The whole notion flys in the face of "Quality Assurance".
As I am at work and don't have a lot of time to devote to this, I will focus on one point. What exactly about the AI behaviour troubles you?
Some folks complain they are too passive, some complain that they are too accurate and aggressive.
I get my a** handed to me on a regular basis by them. I can also run circles around some of them.
Read "Silent Victory" by Clay Blair. You will find some striking similarities to SH4.
JCC
Uber Gruber
05-31-07, 12:04 PM
I suppose the most troubling aspect of escort AI is their apparent disregard for my presence. Its a bit of a turkey shoot to be honest, even with a boat full of T14s. You would expect that on sighting a surfaced enemy sub they would at least do something to drive me away from the convoy. I know they weren't as effective as Atlantic escorts but i'm sure they weren't totaly inept either. Sometimes they do fire their guns, so I submerge and thats the end of it. I think two of them have tried to locate me to date but they were largely ineffective.
That said, i'm holding out hope that Patch 1.3 will resolve these issues.
John Channing
05-31-07, 12:06 PM
What year?
JCC
AVGWarhawk
05-31-07, 12:15 PM
I agree a lot of the issues are subtle and one could excuse a QA team of not noticing some of these. However, I personally can't excuse a QA team not noticing the convoy AI behaviour, neither the escort AI behaviour when your sub is detected.
Devs normally have an input into QA via QA project lead, this is normal as QA always needs help to define test cases - which is understandable.
Your assumption seems to be that QA were unaware of these issues and hence Ubi were unaware of these issues and thats effectively why they decided to guage users oppinion by posting a topic in the Ubi forum asking us to justify a patch.
Personally, if this was the case, I would consider Ubi's business processes as being laughable and would certainly not outsource any work to them.
The whole notion flys in the face of "Quality Assurance".
As I am at work and don't have a lot of time to devote to this, I will focus on one point. What exactly about the AI behaviour troubles you?
Some folks complain they are too passive, some complain that they are too accurate and aggressive.
I get my a** handed to me on a regular basis by them. I can also run circles around some of them.
Read "Silent Victory" by Clay Blair. You will find some striking similarities to SH4.
JCC
Same as JCC. I always stated a mixed back of DD. Sometimes just stupid other times sink you in 5 minutes. Great mix as you do not know what you are going to get. All that needs to be done is make the convoy merchants zig zag and go to flank speed. Yes, read also unrestricted warfare, notable O'kane submerged with impunity off the Japanese coast, 100 feet of water below or less. Undetected for days or lost DD very easily. I good with DD reaction. Sub hunter needs work!
John Channing
05-31-07, 12:46 PM
I agree a lot of the issues are subtle and one could excuse a QA team of not noticing some of these. However, I personally can't excuse a QA team not noticing the convoy AI behaviour, neither the escort AI behaviour when your sub is detected.
Devs normally have an input into QA via QA project lead, this is normal as QA always needs help to define test cases - which is understandable.
Your assumption seems to be that QA were unaware of these issues and hence Ubi were unaware of these issues and thats effectively why they decided to guage users oppinion by posting a topic in the Ubi forum asking us to justify a patch.
Personally, if this was the case, I would consider Ubi's business processes as being laughable and would certainly not outsource any work to them.
The whole notion flys in the face of "Quality Assurance".
As I am at work and don't have a lot of time to devote to this, I will focus on one point. What exactly about the AI behaviour troubles you?
Some folks complain they are too passive, some complain that they are too accurate and aggressive.
I get my a** handed to me on a regular basis by them. I can also run circles around some of them.
Read "Silent Victory" by Clay Blair. You will find some striking similarities to SH4.
JCC
I good with DD reaction.
I good too. Jane! Bring Tarzan more coconuts!
Runs away, giggling like a schoolgirl...
JCC
TriskettheKid
05-31-07, 01:02 PM
I've never encountered a problem with convoy AI....except for those few times in the South Pacific, Northwest of Australia, where I'll run into convoys during TC who are at a dead standstill. But that bugs me more because it's a problem with their route and not the AI (it always happens near a coast).
Of all the things that bug me about SH4, convoy AI, like with JC, does not rank all that high. I'd much rather see descriptions on the Torpedoes than them mess with the AI (and that can be fixed with a mod). In fact, my biggest priority is the fact that taking out a ship's rudder doesn't seem to do much at all. I can't tell you how many times I've killed the engines of a BB, or a cargo vessel, only to have it steam along at 3-4 knots....even when the screws stop turning.
mookiemookie
05-31-07, 01:19 PM
Of all the things that bug me about SH4, convoy AI, like with JC, does not rank all that high.
Without AI there is no "game".
TDK1044
05-31-07, 01:25 PM
I'm running the latest TM mod, and the AI is very attentive to my sub.
TriskettheKid
05-31-07, 01:41 PM
Of all the things that bug me about SH4, convoy AI, like with JC, does not rank all that high.
Without AI there is no "game".
I understand that. But I see nothing wrong with the Convoy AI, or even the Taskforce AI.
As such, the very minor problems I've had with it (like the one I mentioned) relegate it to a point where it is just not that big a deal. I'd much rather see other things fixed, first.
mookiemookie
05-31-07, 01:49 PM
Of all the things that bug me about SH4, convoy AI, like with JC, does not rank all that high.
Without AI there is no "game".
I understand that. But I see nothing wrong with the Convoy AI, or even the Taskforce AI.
As such, the very minor problems I've had with it (like the one I mentioned) relegate it to a point where it is just not that big a deal. I'd much rather see other things fixed, first.
Convoy problems stem from the convoy not choosing a new leader when the current one is sunk or incapacitated. They all stop. That's not something a modder can fix. That is a gameplay issue and one I'd rather see fixed a heck of a lot more than having torpedo descriptions added to the game. You can always crack a book or visit valoratsea.com for those sort of things.
TheSatyr
05-31-07, 02:04 PM
For those who complain about convoys coming to a complete stop once a ship is attacked,well that's just what happened to the USS Barb during an attack on a convoy.
The Barb had torpedoed a few ships,the convoy came to a complete stop,2 escorts went back to stand by one of the torpedoed ships and the rest of the escorts just milled around doing nothing.
Sound familiar?
mookiemookie
05-31-07, 02:16 PM
For those who complain about convoys coming to a complete stop once a ship is attacked,well that's just what happened to the USS Barb during an attack on a convoy.
The Barb had torpedoed a few ships,the convoy came to a complete stop,2 escorts went back to stand by one of the torpedoed ships and the rest of the escorts just milled around doing nothing.
Sound familiar?
How many convoys didn't do this? I'll wager there were plenty more instances where the convoy started making big course changes and put on flank speed.
I find it very hard to believe that Japanese merchant doctrine was to order an all stop when attacked by submarine.
In fact, my biggest priority is the fact that taking out a ship's rudder doesn't seem to do much at all. I can't tell you how many times I've killed the engines of a BB, or a cargo vessel, only to have it steam along at 3-4 knots....even when the screws stop turning.
I attacked a large TF and missed one of the light cruisers due to it zigging away. By unbelievable luck, one of the heavy cruisers ahead of it zagged back and it hit it in the stern. Apparently, I took out it's rudder as it never changed course or speed again. While the rest of the group continued to zig zag on their regular course, this CA cut through the other 2 lines of ships and continued on it's merry way. I should have watched it until it ran aground some where, but I sent it down to the bottom with another couple of fish.
I thought it was pretty interesting, though, none the less.
Chuck
Mookiemookie is totally right.
And the convoy coming to a stop / 1 knots speed doesn't only happen when the "group leader" is taken out, but after *any* ship has been torpedoed. It happens to me every single time, I don't think I every single time happened to take out the "group leader". I torpedoed differently positioned ships in those encounters, too.
This group leader thing comes up from people who do not really understand the convoy bug but make the connection with that dev post where they came up with a list of things to fix. There was something in there with the group not choosing a new leader after the initial one is taken out - but if the devs or anyone thinks that this is indeed the problem with the convoys coming to a stop, then they are wrong, and the bug will still remain in 1.3. Great.
I agree a lot of the issues are subtle and one could excuse a QA team of not noticing some of these. However, I personally can't excuse a QA team not noticing the convoy AI behaviour, neither the escort AI behaviour when your sub is detected.
Devs normally have an input into QA via QA project lead, this is normal as QA always needs help to define test cases - which is understandable.
Your assumption seems to be that QA were unaware of these issues and hence Ubi were unaware of these issues and thats effectively why they decided to guage users oppinion by posting a topic in the Ubi forum asking us to justify a patch.
Personally, if this was the case, I would consider Ubi's business processes as being laughable and would certainly not outsource any work to them.
The whole notion flys in the face of "Quality Assurance".
You asume that the testcases covered the convoy AI aspect - what if a simple mistake was made and it was overlooked? I agree with JCC, that testing a simulation the includes an AI is very complex to say the least. Thats maybe why we have seen erros in them for the past 3 releases of Silent Hunter.
Mookiemookie is totally right.
And the convoy coming to a stop / 1 knots speed doesn't only happen when the "group leader" is taken out, but after *any* ship has been torpedoed. It happens to me every single time, I don't think I every single time happened to take out the "group leader". I torpedoed differently positioned ships in those encounters, too.
This group leader thing comes up from people who do not really understand the convoy bug but make the connection with that dev post where they came up with a list of things to fix. There was something in there with the group not choosing a new leader after the initial one is taken out - but if the devs or anyone thinks that this is indeed the problem with the convoys coming to a stop, then they are wrong, and the bug will still remain in 1.3. Great.
I guess its a complex issue because I have torpedoes several convoys where I choose juicy 2-3 targets, torpedo them to a stop, dive deep and wait for the rest of the convoy to steam ahead. I then surface a use the deckgun to sink the ships that have stopped. When I have done that I attack the convoy again and the scenario will start again.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.