|
Skipper daft
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:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 |
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. |
Quote:
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 |
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 ;) |
Quote:
JCC |
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". |
Quote:
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 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. |
What year?
JCC |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Runs away, giggling like a schoolgirl... JCC |
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. |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.