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

[jedra 11]

Myke;1990312']IMHO voting should be disabled completely as it turns the Bugtracker into a popularity contest. The only instance i would accept to judge about importance are the developers themselves.

Just to make it clear: even if it would be handled this way i wouldn't see the "features" i've reported any higher than they are right now. So don't jump on the "myke is frustrated that his reported bugs are rated rather low" train.

I was always slightly puzzled about what the users of systems I have supported in the past wanted fixing as apposed to the things that I thought they would have wanted fixing!

Someone has to decide what the priority is, and its arguable that the users of the system are best placed to decide. The developers will also have their 'secret list' of stuff they know needs fixing that the users either don't know about or don't understand the impact of. The developers will also have their 'pet bugs', i.e bugs they know are there and have always wanted to fix.

Then there are the bugs the developers know are there that they hope no-one will find ;-)

[.kju 3240]

A few more points to consider here:

# The fixes of this list should be seen an investment in the future.

The reason is as almost all of them will most likely apply also for TakOH and ArmA III.

# Of course only limited resources are available to address issues.

The approach Jedra suggests sounds like a sensible solution.

# If you see a bug report as not good enough, tell us Suma so that it can be improved.

# If you think the effort for a bug is not feasible after reading it, set it to target "future".

The people will prefer clarify and openness rather the non-true-impression of being ignored.

# While it is understandable the issues introduced by recent versions or are easy to fix get priority.

# At the same time it seems only fair that the effort of people put into the CIT is valued.

So bugs with high votes and good repros should get priority over badly reported ones

(no matter in the CIT or in the forum here). This list is the combination of the two.

# Number of votes and the quality of a report are obviously a good element to indicate priority.

Of course they are not the only ones already explained above.

# As Sickboy notes the reason to build the CIT and having spent hundreds of hours

of our free time on the project was and still is the request of Suma for both voting

and a system to increase the quality of the reports.

All in all it seems only fair to me to act along this way rather to give priority to people

here in the forum that rage and spam most.

Edited July 26, 2011 by .kju [PvPscene]

[[frl]myke 14]

# At the same time it seems only fair that the effort of people put into the CIT is valued.

So bugs with high votes and good repros should get priority over badly reported ones

(no matter in the CIT or in the forum here).

Fixed that for you. ;)

[.kju 3240]

Can you please stop being ignorant.

As explained by Sickboy it is a key element desired by Suma.

If you don't like it, fine keep that to you.

[gossamersolid 155]

I am sorry to disappoint you, but the list is already way too long. We may be able to fix approximately 10-20 bugs for Arma 2 OA, depending on a fix complexity. If you will choose about 5 bugs from the list above, it may help me prioritizing, but in current form I am unsure how do you expect this list to be helpful.

Then I feel no need to report any more bugs, because I know they won't get voted up in time.

[[frl]myke 14]

Can you please stop being ignorant.

As explained by Sickboy it is a key element desired by Suma.

If you don't like it, fine keep that to you.

Please accept my apologies, i thought the smiley would be clue enough that is meant more like a joke than being serious.

Also i wasn't aware that i'm definately not entitled to have an opinion, as far as i remember i just stated a opinion and didn't asked that voting have to be disabled or something similar.

Again, please accept my apologies.

Sincerly

Your Slave.

[jedra 11]

lol - this is starting to give me flashbacks of the 'priorities' meetings I used to run!

Managing resources, bug fixes and ongoing development is not an easy task. Votes shouldn't be the only indicator. The impact of a bug has always got to be the highest consideration, but when you have hundreds of bugs you have to choose some method of prioritising them and voting is as good a method as any. Otherwise you just stare at the long list, take another gulp of coffee, grab your coat and go home muttering 'oh god, oh god'...

[nyles 11]

Hey Suma,

I think it is really unfortunate that there are so many remaining issues in CIT still that could be fixed by a dedicated designer in 2-3 days of work without any code or art support.

Many of those really shouldn't be hard to deal with, but could greatly enhance the gameplay and actually make certain game components usable again, which are broken or buggy for ages.

It would be really awesome, if you could go through the items below and perhaps talk to some of the designers about the impact of investigating them. I can assure you that there are gems on that list, a large part of mp community has been hoping would get fixed for a long time.

1. make weapons lose less power over distance (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11479)
   
2. increase range for all manually guided missiles beyond 1500m (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/18656)
   
3. AT weapons in T90 and BTR90 not working (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14436)
   
4. Reduce off-road speed for vehicles on Takistan to match experience on Chernarus (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13834)
   
5. Reduce bouncyness of handgrenades (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/3513)
   
6. Tweak down countermeasures (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/12692)
   
7. Add important soldier classes to factions missing them, like engineer (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16577)
   
8. Balance pass on AA-12 to tone down range (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/16538)
   
9. Set up backup ironsights for those weapons clearly featuring them on them models already (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13857)
   
10. Fix Mi24 Falanga missiles almost always missing locked targets (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11850)
    
11. Increase Little Bird airspeed (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/11767)
    
12. Don't allow carrying AS50 and AT weapons at same time (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15969)
    
13. BAF medic cannot equip handguns (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15666)
    
14. Fix double the amount of flares in 120rnd flare mag (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13914)
    
15. Change standalone grenade launchers to be sidearms (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/13216)
    
16. Balance all TI-equiped weapons by treating them as machineguns in the inventory (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15970)
    
17. AS50 damage not matching damage from M107 sniper (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/14888)
    
18. Add range-adjustments to grenade launchers (http://dev-heaven.net/issues/15184)
    

I am sure others could expand that list with a large number of other minor issues that should be easy to fix, but could have a very positive impact on playability, like for example stronger ballistic curve and reduced range on infantry AT weapons, allow using the FAL's nightsight during daylight, etc.

Also, it would be really sweet, if you guys would consider making some units available to other factions as well. For example, the PMC-introduced Ka-60 would be perfect as an EAST unit as well without the need to do any texture adjustments.

Thanks!

Edited July 26, 2011 by Nyles

[.kju 3240]

Nyles please create a new thread.

These are not only bugs and mostly content issues.

Ty.

[nyles 11]

Sorry, but that is arguable, seeing that there are plenty duplicates on this list that match items on the original list (i.e. damage drop over distance too aggressive, missiles not guidable beyond 1500m, etc).

To be honest, I think what's really important here is that we do not forget about maintaining playability. I dare to say that game balance adjustments (many of which are in fact due to bugs) should be more important than let's say fixing the SetMimic, just because it has 78 votes. From a gameplay perspective I personally couldn't care less about that. Sorry.

Another point is that ideally many of those gameplay related issues come down to faulty parameters rather than code bugs, and might hopefully be fixable without having to bother any coder, who could then focus on proper code issues instead.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Nyles

[gossamersolid 155]

Sorry, but that is arguable, seeing that there plenty duplicates on this list and the original one (i.e. damage drop over distance too aggressive, missiles not guidable beyond 1500m, etc).

To be honest, I think what's really important here is that we do not forget about maintaining playability. I dare to say that game balance adjustments (many of which are in fact due to bugs) should be more important than let's say fixing the SetMimic, just because it has 78 votes. From a gameplay perspective I personally couldn't care less about that. Sorry.

Pretty sure they aren't going to fix content errors... we've had the BTR-90 with it's white windows since release.

Missiles not guidable beyond 1500m isn't an error in my opinion, it's more scaling to the size of arma 2 worlds.

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Pretty sure they aren't going to fix content errors... we've had the BTR-90 with it's white windows since release.

I could live with these model related errors if only the MLODs were available for the community to fix them, but sadly you're more or less right. I doubt we will see any of these fixed by the devs.

Also, I kind of agree with Myke. The voting just seems to drown out a lot of the more feasibly fixed issues and more often than not the most popular ones are the most vague (setMimic definately not one of them). Unfortunately though I can't think of a better way to involve the community in prioritizing bugs.

Edited July 26, 2011 by Big Dawg KS

[nyles 11]

Thing is, I am not even talking about changing anything on the model geometry. This would be a different topic, yes.

I am talking merely about fixes/tweaks on the config layer, which should not have any impact on art or programming resources and could be dealt with by a dedicated designer.

[.kju 3240]

Do you understand the difference between content and engine fixes?

If so, what area is Suma as lead developer responsible for and what area not?

So again please don't derail this thread any further.

No one stops you make your own thread about content fixes, right?

[dm 9]

Do you understand the difference between content and engine fixes?

No one stops you make your own thread about content fixes, right?

Protip: configs == content ;)

[nyles 11]

My point is, that if only a limited amount of issues can be fixed, let's rather focus on those that make sense and help the GAME, than fixing those with the most votes.

There is thin red line between what you describe as content or code issues. Many issues on your original list can in fact be fixed easily by doing config adjustments, but that doesn't necessarily make them content issues, like for example fixing geometry. The same is true for most items I presented (which at the risk of repeating myself, match many items on your list :) )

We are talking semantics here. I just want to steer this discussion more into a gameplay-focused direction, because ultimately this is where I believe the game needs more attention. Using the example of the top-voted item SetMimic again: just because it got voted high doesn't necessarily mean it should be one of small number of items that we could get fixed.

I think I made my point. Enough from my side. :j:

[gossamersolid 155]

My point is, that if only a limited amount of issues can be fixed, let's rather focus on those that make sense and help the GAME, than fixing those with the most votes.

There is thin red line between what you describe as content or code issues. Many issues on your original list can in fact be fixed easily by doing config adjustments, but that doesn't necessarily make them content issues, like for example fixing geometry. The same is true for most items I presented (which at the risk of repeating myself, match many items on your list :) )

We are talking semantics here. I just want to steer this discussion more into a gameplay-focused direction, because ultimately this is where I believe the game needs more attention. Using the example of the top-voted item SetMimic again: just because it got voted high doesn't necessarily mean it should be one of small number of items that we could get fixed.

I think I made my point. Enough from my side. :j:

As we keep telling you, they AREN'T going to fix config/content issues. They are down to bugs in the engine now.

Accept the answer or don't, but repeating yourself with different words won't change what's happening.

[.kju 3240]

A few more tips:

Content fixes are done by other people.

Content fixes require pbo patching rather than the exe.

Content fixes are not necessarily useful for future products.

I am not against content fixes, yet I have little hope to see more in OA.

A working merge config implementation or addon sync or MLOD of p3ds

would be more meaningful to see though IMO.

In any case make your own thread. It is not that hard, is it?

[Tankbuster 1733]

)rStrangelove;1990311']So something that is only effecting cutscenes depicting soldier's faces is the most important bug to fix?

Oh cmon :)

Agree completely. It's comical that this bug gets so much attention. Vote it down right away!

[-=seany=- 5]

As we keep telling you, they AREN'T going to fix config/content issues. They are down to bugs in the engine now.

Accept the answer or don't, but repeating yourself with different words won't change what's happening.

I will be extremely annoyed if this is the case. In fact, this would make me not want to get arma3. Every time, and I mean EVERY time, I play OA I put up with the same old Content bugs for a year. Some that other developers like EA would fix, beacuse they are so in your face.

The damning thing is, I'm no developer, but I know very well that most of these content bugs are easily fixed by some one in a few minutes.

Content bugs are far more important than engine fixes right now. Not bothering to fix content bugs is a massive insult to the community. I don't want to put up with shitty visual and irritating content errors every time I play. Yes...I PLAY the game...maybe most of you who don't care about content fixes just make mods or missions, or play about in the editor.

Imagine every enemy in BF2 had a white face at over 50m away...hmm I'm pretty sure EA (or any Dev) would fix that.

Edited July 26, 2011 by -=seany=-

[nyles 11]

Exactly my point.

If the policy is not to fix config/content bugs anymore (and I can fully understand this stance with complex issues), then we as a community should try to put this up on the agenda and communicate our misgivings to BIS rather than pick at each other.

[sickboy 13]

Content stuff could be largely remedied with community content (MLODs would help the situation even more),

where-as engine related problems can only be remedied by BIS, plus they are perhaps useful for A3 too :)

Distribution of content fixes is also more involving than engine (exe / dta) changes.

Ref Votes and important fixes - aren't they mostly the same thing?

[dmarkwick 261]

Come on guys. I'm pretty sure there is a filter betwen "most voted for issues" and issues that actually get fixed. It seems there's been an immediate fixation on the notion that the top 5 issues will be fixed, based on a dev's remark about how he tries to work. Therefore threads like this appear that try to muscle their own bugbears to the top, or others down.

I don't believe this is helping :)

[maddogx 13]

Well, it seems this thread has at least served the purpose of getting the setMimic command fixed. See the DevHeaven ticket. :)

[dmarkwick 261]

Well, it seems this thread has at least served the purpose of getting the setMimic command fixed. See the DevHeaven ticket. :)

Thank God for that. Never heard of it 'til 6 hours ago, and now this enormously annoying problem is gone. Whew :)

;)

---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:22 PM ----------

The list contains:

[*]Only bugs

[*]Only engine issues (not content related)

[*]Only tickets with good description, repro steps and demo mission provided.

I cannot know what search elements you used, but my own personal bugbear didn't make the grade, despite fitting all the requirements above. 14 votes but didn't enter the list in the expected position.

The list is very, very long, and yet seemingly incomplete :D