This thread was automatically marked as Locked.

So.. is there any release date of this "extremely long hot fix"?.

  • #41
    Quote from troqu

    As someone who does QA for a living it's always hillarious to me how little people appreciate how much even the smallest change can screw up everything. Even well written code can sometimes break completely when a valid change is made.
    The joke around here is that the big changes never seem to be a problem, but the little ones will take weeks to fix all the issues found.


    +1

    How hard would it be to edit the code that I can give this post +1000, because this post hits the nail on the head.
  • #42
    Quote from Tralfamadore

    Quote from Indimix

    Quote from Jamoose

    Quote from Zero(pS)

    Quote from Indimix

    It's not a trolling title, I can't understand how these minors (yes, minors) changes are taking so damn long.

    Are you (or do you know) a professional programmer? If yes, do you (does he) know the Diablo 3 coding inside out to be able to understand how much work it takes to "tweak" those minor changes? Are you (or do you know) a professional game developer in a huge company with high quality standards? If yes, how many meetings does it take to make decisions on skill balance changes? And how many people have to be working on that? What's the ideal development time for these changes?

    How many people do you think are working on patch 1.0.8? Everyone from the D3 developer team? How many are working on an expansion already (and trying to solve some of the big "problems" that people have with the game as well as coming up with new, interesting content)? How many are instead working on the itemization patch, or legendaries?

    Not a trolling reply - legit questions.


    Yes, I'm actually a software engineer, and if they did their work properly, they should have a nicely done map/mob editor showing every single piece of data they could ever need to make their balances now and in 10 years from now.

    My guess is, they rushed the game in a way that not only the game was flawed, but the codebase too, and now they need to refactor a lot and build tools that don't even exist, like a map & mob editor.


    This is one of the most ignorant statements I've heard about software development. I'd love to follow you around your job and when someone asks you for an update that is perceived to be "easy" and you say it's not that easy I'm going to tell you that you suck at your job.


    Oh, good sir, explain me why is my opinion about the subject ignorant, enlight me with all your knowledge about AAA games.
  • #43
    Why should anyone bother "discussing" anything with you ever?

    At least a dozen people have told you exactly why your opinion is 100% wrong on this particular subject and you've, very carefully, dodged their very precise remarks only to spend your time guessing as to whether or not Blizzard has a "monster editor" for D3.

    You've been warned by Daemaro in the past that these are DISCUSSION FORUMS and that they're not here for people who aren't interested in DISCUSSION. Sticking your fingers in your ears and casually ignoring all the points people bring up which shoot holes through your arguments is not DISCUSSION and it's fucking trollish of you to demand that people "enlighten you" because when they do (as happened several times on the very first page of this thread) you just ignore them anyway.

    You wonder why people call you a troll? It has everything to do with how you REPEATEDLY dodge any/all discussion that destroys your arguments as if it never even happened.

    So, if you're not going to address the posts that people have taken time to make which go into detail as to precisely how ignorant you are... why should anyone continue to attempt to discuss things with you? We could much more easily waste our time jerking off with handfuls of glass. It would be much more fruitful and, at least we wouldn't have to listen to your grandiose and pompous chest-thumping.

    Please, since YOU are such a knowledgable person, how about you give us your CV so we can see how many games you've worked on that have millions of players and we can see exactly what their patch cycles were like. Show us exactly how pros do it.

    You know, instead of being an anonymous troll.... man up and put your money where your mouth is instead of blowing hot air around.
    p450 :: 92.2k EK :: 2.54m TK
    Planet Express <PlanEx>
    (V) (°,,°) (V)
  • #44
    Actually, the only qualified people to tell me that my guess was *wrong are software engineers at Blizzard.

    I will be completely honest with you, I'm performing an experiment, I just add a tiny amount of arrogance to my posts, that will produce the following:

    - I'm automatically wrong no matter how right or wrong I am.

    It's kind of amusing to be honest. How, without any real proof, you call me ignorant, when if you quote me, I never said I was sure of anything I only guessed and commented about it.

    But it's ok, it happens also the other way around, people who use a pleasant tone and are very polite and humble, are a lot less questioned by the rest, even if their message is the same.

    *actually, can a guess be wrong?
  • #45
    Quote from lalaurentide

    Still, they could release the mob density as it stands now by itself, and then release 1.0.8 later on with the tweaks and other patches. For having played the public test, it is clear the mob density change does not break or crash the game, and even if it did in maybe two or three rare circumstances, it would be better customer support and better for the game in the long run to release as is. People are right to criticized Blizzard for their long and slow iteration and patching process, but my guess is there are probably 2 or 3 people, 5 at most, working on patching and improving D3, so much for the hundred of millions of dollars they made, they would rather cash that out than investing a big effing 2 million dollars on 20 people to work full time on D3. But I guess that's just me, I would care if I made a game and be grateful to those who bought it.

    It's like WoW, when you weight the money invested against the money they make, you can ask yourself if Blizzard is planning on buying its own country.


    Finally i can quote this (stupid net being stupid!!).

    Why would they release a patch early that is just buggy and glitchy? As if there aren't enough problems associated with releasing a patch then doing it without it being properly tested. I'm for one, glad they take their time and so i dont randomly DC or Crash because they release it early. Ever played HC? Doubt it, because if you did you would know a crash or a DC has a 90% chance of you ending up in the graveyard.

    Also, to further extend. People at the moment are already "pissed" with the game because they have some PMS issues with "itemization" or "PvP". Ever thought of what would happen if every major patch they released they released early and then people chain DC or drop from the game?

    Think about it :)
  • #46
    Another thing that I think is extremely negative in the way they deliver new fixes/content, is for example in this case, the fact that they didn't hotfix the id-all feature, why wait so long when in a few days a dev could take care of everything involved with that change, art + test provided.

    I actually don't have a lot of interest in that feature in particular, but, I know a lot of people do, and if it was up to me, I would deliver that first, quickly, and then proceed to implement the bigger changes.
  • #47
    Quote from Indimix

    *actually, can a guess be wrong?

    Yeah. Why shouldn't it be able to?

    The reason for adding many changes together in a patch instead of hotfixing it all, is to make it much easier to test the changes.
    Like spending 3 weeks to test a hundred changes, instead of spending 3/100 weeks testing one thing.

    Blizzard surely could throw more changes in each patch though. That is just a decision not to change the game as fast as they could.

    Funny thing is, a lot of players actually get annoyed when a game changes too much, "too fast", even if the changes are for the better. Humans are weird like that I guess. Blizzard has seen that over and over when they have changed things in WoW.
  • #48
    Alright, then explain me how is the id-all feature related to the mob density change or the skill rune balances.
  • #49
    Quote from shaggy

    Quote from lalaurentide

    Actually Blizzard's employees answer to Morhaime, Pearce and Adham, maybe Pardo and Metzen. All programmers, not suits. They don't even answer to Activision or shareholders. It's part of the deal they signed.


    They don't answer to Activision, but they sure as fuck answer to Vivendi.


    Actually, they don't, they had complete freedom and full control with Davidson & Associates back in the days and always managed to keep that moving forward. Every deal they agreed on kept their complete control, even the business decisions. Vivendi cannot fire one soul or force them to keep the RMAH in D3. They might have agreeed to keep WoW subscription based, or to put monetization in all future games, sure, that may be part of the deal Morhaime and his friends have signed to cash in a couple of tens of millions, but nobody at Blizzard answers to anyone else outside Blizzard.
  • #50
    Of course Vivendi could force Blizzard to do just about anything.
    Most likely Vivendi wouldnt force Blizzard in such a way though, as they would greatly risk that Morhaime and friends simply said fuck you and left. Infinity Ward-style. But they could.

    Quote from Indimix

    Alright, then explain me how is the id-all feature related to the mob density change or the skill rune balances.

    It is not? Not sure why it matters.
  • #51
    It matters because you implied that testing changes altogether was somehow easier, and that only makes sense if they changes are related. Let say, changing a skill rune without taking into considerations the items and effects available.
  • #52
    Quote from lalaurentide

    Actually, they don't, they had complete freedom and full control with Davidson & Associates back in the days and always managed to keep that moving forward. Every deal they agreed on kept their complete control, even the business decisions. Vivendi cannot fire one soul or force them to keep the RMAH in D3. They might have agreeed to keep WoW subscription based, or to put monetization in all future games, sure, that may be part of the deal Morhaime and his friends have signed to cash in a couple of tens of millions, but nobody at Blizzard answers to anyone else outside Blizzard.


    You're arguing a tangential point.

    Given that Vivendi is a conglomerate it's likely that they don't meddle too much in ANY of their subsidaries so long as they're making them lots of money. So... as long as Blizzard is making lots of money it's safe to say Vivendi is probably busy worrying about other things. But that's still an obligation Blizzard has to answer to. Vivendi is a MAJOR investor in Blizzard and there's simply no way to get around that no matter how much dancing you do.

    I'm not saying Vivendi is calling up Blizzard and saying "put a RMAH in this game" or "don't put an AH in that game." That level of meddling is almost entirely unlikely. But that doesn't mean Blizzard doesn't have some kind of responsibility (financial) to Vivendi and that Blizzard isn't well aware of that responsibility. They do have a financial responsibility to Vivendy and they are patently aware of it. There's just no way around that.

    Quote from Indimix

    It matters because you implied that testing changes altogether was somehow easier, and that only makes sense if they changes are related. Let say, changing a skill rune without taking into considerations the items and effects available.


    The fact that they publically test things makes them related. It's a lot easier to batch up changes for the PTR.

    D3 is not a game you "finish" therefore people would PREFER to play the live game than the PTR. It stands to reason that their pool of people who will DL the PTR and do any significant amount of testing is limited. Putting up a new PTR on a weekly basis for small features is one way to dillute that pool even more. Very few people are going to download the PTR just to test out ID All or Craft All. But if you lump those in with Monster Density, a bunch of skill changes, and some multiplayer changes, suddenly people will download it to try out a bunch of new features.

    The smaller the pool of players the less-effective the PTR is, so Blizzard naturally wants to do things that will encourage more people to invest some time in playing it to report bugs or even give feedback on where the changes fall short. The more people the less chance that random bugs associated with code changes actually make it live. I think I said it in another thread, but what if implementing ID All, for some reason, introduced a bug where Azmodan became un-killable.

    Their internal testing is very much unlikely to pick up on that because they're probably NOT going to go kill Azmodan. But a PTR will almost certainly pick up on that because, if you get 100,000 people on the PTR, there's a decent chance that one of them eventually goes to kill Azmodan and says "WTF M8 HE DON'T DIE!" and then they fix it before it goes live.

    It's easier for internal testing to make sure each individual feature works but it's more efficient and effective for the PTR to have a lot of changes lumped into one patch. If they had a PTR every week most people would just stop hopping on to test things out. But if they only have a PTR once every 3 months... well... just look at how many people actually use the PTR right now. It makes perfect sense. If they weren't bundling lots of features (big and small) into one patch the effectiveness of the PTR would be drastically reduced and we'd see many more bugs finding their way live and then they'd have to spend more time with hotfixes and such and it just spirals out of control.
    p450 :: 92.2k EK :: 2.54m TK
    Planet Express <PlanEx>
    (V) (°,,°) (V)
  • #53
    Quote from Indimix

    It matters because you implied that testing changes altogether was somehow easier, and that only makes sense if they changes are related. Let say, changing a skill rune without taking into considerations the items and effects available.

    No, it doesn't matter if they are related. Often, things can also affect each other even though they shouldn't be related.

    Having three weeks to test 2 unrelated things is better* than having two times 1½ week to test two things separately.
    Up to some point where you have too many changes tested at once anyway, which can certainly happen too (the reason why in betas for example, nthe stuff the developer wants tested, is usually added in phases).

    *Better for Blizzard that is, it's somewhat more arguable if it is better for us.

    Quote from shaggy

    Very few people are going to download the PTR just to test out ID All or Craft All. But if you lump those in with Monster Density, a bunch of skill changes, and some multiplayer changes, suddenly people will download it to try out a bunch of new features.

    Yeah, very good point.
  • #54
    A similar system is implemented in the game Heroes of Newerth, some ppl has the privilege to test things before the patch hits, there is a secondary server always running that allows selected players to see what's going to be deployed before it's too late.

    A similar system could be implemented here, you introduce minor changes every week, and players are somehow beta-invited to test these changes and provide feedback.

    So, instead of having a "huge" PTR every 3 months, you have running all the time, with a limit of concurrent users, with all of the latests patches and features deployed there.
  • #55
    Quote from shaggy

    The smaller the pool of players the less-effective the PTR is, so Blizzard naturally wants to do things that will encourage more people to invest some time in playing it to report bugs or even give feedback on where the changes fall short. The more people the less chance that random bugs associated with code changes actually make it live. I think I said it in another thread, but what if implementing ID All, for some reason, introduced a bug where Azmodan became un-killable.

    Their internal testing is very much unlikely to pick up on that because they're probably NOT going to go kill Azmodan. But a PTR will almost certainly pick up on that because, if you get 100,000 people on the PTR, there's a decent chance that one of them eventually goes to kill Azmodan and says "WTF M8 HE DON'T DIE!" and then they fix it before it goes live.

    You are right in that it's impossible to test everyting, but I would place bets on Blizzard having a guy do what we call over here a "golden path" playthrough on every build. That's where they just rabbit through the game not doing any side stuff to make sure that the game is still completeable.
  • #56
    You are referring to a smoke test.. And the REAL industry term is HAPPY PATH.

    Anyways... a good QA team will do risk based testing, partial regression and full added funtionality testing. Blizz obviously does automated regression for UI elements, and manual testing on anything random.
  • #57
    Quote from Indimix

    Quote from Tralfamadore

    Quote from Indimix

    Quote from Jamoose

    Quote from Zero(pS)

    Quote from Indimix

    It's not a trolling title, I can't understand how these minors (yes, minors) changes are taking so damn long.

    Are you (or do you know) a professional programmer? If yes, do you (does he) know the Diablo 3 coding inside out to be able to understand how much work it takes to "tweak" those minor changes? Are you (or do you know) a professional game developer in a huge company with high quality standards? If yes, how many meetings does it take to make decisions on skill balance changes? And how many people have to be working on that? What's the ideal development time for these changes?

    How many people do you think are working on patch 1.0.8? Everyone from the D3 developer team? How many are working on an expansion already (and trying to solve some of the big "problems" that people have with the game as well as coming up with new, interesting content)? How many are instead working on the itemization patch, or legendaries?

    Not a trolling reply - legit questions.


    Yes, I'm actually a software engineer, and if they did their work properly, they should have a nicely done map/mob editor showing every single piece of data they could ever need to make their balances now and in 10 years from now.

    My guess is, they rushed the game in a way that not only the game was flawed, but the codebase too, and now they need to refactor a lot and build tools that don't even exist, like a map & mob editor.


    This is one of the most ignorant statements I've heard about software development. I'd love to follow you around your job and when someone asks you for an update that is perceived to be "easy" and you say it's not that easy I'm going to tell you that you suck at your job.


    Oh, good sir, explain me why is my opinion about the subject ignorant, enlight me with all your knowledge about AAA games.


    If you really need for me to sit down and explain why saying they should code for aspects of the game now and ten years from now is absolutely ignorant then there is zero hope for you and going into details isn't going to accomplish much.

    *actually, can a guess be wrong?


    My guess is you aren't actually a software developer and you're just trolling on the forums for attention. Am I wrong?
  • #58
    Quote from Sabvre

    You are referring to a smoke test.. And the REAL industry term is HAPPY PATH.

    Anyways... a good QA team will do risk based testing, partial regression and full added funtionality testing. Blizz obviously does automated regression for UI elements, and manual testing on anything random.

    Hmm for us a smoke test is touching everything but not deep whereas a golden (or happy if thats what you want) path is making sure that someone could complete the game but not necissarily do everything.
  • #59
    Quote from Tralfamadore

    Quote from Indimix

    Quote from Tralfamadore

    Quote from Indimix

    Quote from Jamoose

    Quote from Zero(pS)

    Quote from Indimix

    It's not a trolling title, I can't understand how these minors (yes, minors) changes are taking so damn long.

    Are you (or do you know) a professional programmer? If yes, do you (does he) know the Diablo 3 coding inside out to be able to understand how much work it takes to "tweak" those minor changes? Are you (or do you know) a professional game developer in a huge company with high quality standards? If yes, how many meetings does it take to make decisions on skill balance changes? And how many people have to be working on that? What's the ideal development time for these changes?

    How many people do you think are working on patch 1.0.8? Everyone from the D3 developer team? How many are working on an expansion already (and trying to solve some of the big "problems" that people have with the game as well as coming up with new, interesting content)? How many are instead working on the itemization patch, or legendaries?

    Not a trolling reply - legit questions.


    Yes, I'm actually a software engineer, and if they did their work properly, they should have a nicely done map/mob editor showing every single piece of data they could ever need to make their balances now and in 10 years from now.

    My guess is, they rushed the game in a way that not only the game was flawed, but the codebase too, and now they need to refactor a lot and build tools that don't even exist, like a map & mob editor.


    This is one of the most ignorant statements I've heard about software development. I'd love to follow you around your job and when someone asks you for an update that is perceived to be "easy" and you say it's not that easy I'm going to tell you that you suck at your job.


    Oh, good sir, explain me why is my opinion about the subject ignorant, enlight me with all your knowledge about AAA games.


    If you really need for me to sit down and explain why saying they should code for aspects of the game now and ten years from now is absolutely ignorant then there is zero hope for you and going into details isn't going to accomplish much.

    *actually, can a guess be wrong?


    My guess is you aren't actually a software developer and you're just trolling on the forums for attention. Am I wrong?


    Deflect more, it makes you look like what you are.
  • #60
    Quote from Indimix

    Deflect more, it makes you look like what you are.


    At least I got a quote for my signature out of this stupid thread.
    p450 :: 92.2k EK :: 2.54m TK
    Planet Express <PlanEx>
    (V) (°,,°) (V)
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.
Posts Quoted:
Reply
Clear All Quotes