Why is the game AGAIN so badly bugged?

[DracKeN]

I'm getting really sick of discovering new (game-breaking) bugs after every 2nd patch. Even if we skip the pathing part, there are 2 brand new things coming with the latest patch and both breaking the crucial game mechanics.
Today's bug edition: 1) Sheeps refusing to change owner (picture below). Few moments later that game, I killed vivi's mill, 5 sheep were going under my TC where I had tons of vills, nearest blue vill was cca. 60 tiles away. 2 sheep changed sides, 3 sheep refused to do so and I had to kill them.
2) Units refusing to go through choke point: https://clips.twitch.tv/CrunchyPoisedWolverineCeilingCat-VSn162kjGvLWZ943
Happened multiple times that game both for me and Andre.

To the usual comment - report this. I'm doing so, but the main point is different. How incapable are the devs when they don't realize they're implementing new and new bugs while trying to fix something entirely different. I think in any normal company they'd be fired long time ago for so many fails. And why there isn't any real testing by them when they implement something new, why are those things always made as a suprise for players.

Look devs - in game balance is great. I'd like to see some changes there, but I'm fine with it and it's absolutely fine to keep it this way. Please, just focus on fixing the bugs in the game. It's 6 weeks since people bought new DLC, I think it would be deserved to get a stable game for a while.

 

[otw_Da]

People don't care - they already want a new dlc. Quantity instead of quality - new world religion.

 

[LowEloNobody]

If game devs were fired every time there was a bug in an update or patch, there wouldn't be any game devs left

 

[IYIyTh]

If game devs were fired every time there was a bug in an update or patch, there wouldn't be any game devs left

What if the same bug was present for nearly two years? There has to be a line with that logic.

At what point can you objectively say that there is a problem with how DE patches are conducted given the recurrence of old bugs with "new fixes?" If not with the folks making the changes, the person in charge of QA/implementation surely. Perhaps the question and the answer is the same -- there isn't any QA performed (except when it goes live, an effective beta.)

I don't care how many folks need to write a soliloquy about how "the game engine is old," that excuse went out the window when the investment was made to build a second remake of the game and a budget decision was made not to pursue alternatives. Just wish there was a bit less open passivity from folks who have influence in the community regarding pathing and the state of the game.

Do I first need to buy the HD, DE, DLC X 5 pack before basic things like right click attacking without having to hold control, putting units on stand ground, or pressing an extra button to attack things behind buildings like I could back in 1999 happens?

 

[T90Official]

I think the simple guess is - they’re still working off the old spaghetti code and when you change one thing it affects another. Two steps forward, one step back, repeat.

I agree it’s incredibly frustrating and I absolutely hate how “normal” it is for a patch to introduce problems. That should not be the norm. There’s big problems introduced at times too… pathing and unit responsiveness seem way worse recently. Disappointing.

 

[ProudObuch]

Here is a hot take:
Test new gameplay mechanics before releasing them.

But then again shareholders wants the deadlines done. so if you don't test it there are no bugs *taps head*

 

[tropfzahn]

the sheep bug was already reported in the official forums, and seems to be in the engine for longer actually: https://forums.ageofempires.com/t/g...e-converted-once-commanded-to-garrison/204620. should be the same with sheeps being tasked to go to transport ships.
i also think the melee pathing decreased with the last patch(es.)

 

[LowEloNobody]

there isn't any QA performed (except when it goes live, an effective beta.)

Well we do have the PUP, which was created to catch bugs, and does a fairly good job of catching the big ones

 

[IYIyTh]

Well we do have the PUP, which was created to catch bugs, and does a fairly good job of catching the big ones

The PUP should not replace basic Q/A testing, less you want to blame customers for not performing Q/A.

 

[T90Official]

Here is a hot take:
Test new gameplay mechanics before releasing them.

But then again shareholders wants the deadlines done. so if you don't test it there are no bugs *taps head*

Yeah, I’m sure shareholders are paying great attention to the aoe franchise.

 

[LowEloNobody]

The PUP should not replace basic Q/A testing, less you want to blame customers for not performing Q/A.

Well they have QA testing, (you're just saying that it should have a zero failure rate) and they have the PUP.
You said there isn't any quality testing, which there obviously is.

 

[IYIyTh]

Well they have QA testing, (you're just saying that it should have a zero failure rate) and they have the PUP.
You said there isn't any quality testing, which there obviously is.

I think there is a pretty substantial difference between zero failure and a reasonable QA expectation (especially when there are 2 year+ bugs along with recurring bugs that have been "previously fixed.") DE certainly hasn't performed to the former or the latter by any metric.


It's a re-re-release. There is no reason we can't agree that something isn't working as it should here as it relates to patching and/or updates -- there's no need to invent excuses and there is no reason to provide the benefit of the doubt two years on. It doesn't even have to be hostile.

It's just a fact that should be addressed.

 

[Cocaineallday]

I miss AoC.

 

[The Bloodless]

I think there is a pretty substantial difference between zero failure and a reasonable QA expectation (especially when there are 2 year+ bugs along with recurring bugs that have been "previously fixed.") DE certainly hasn't performed to the former or the latter by any metric.


It's a re-re-release. There is no reason we can't agree that something isn't working as it should here as it relates to patching and/or updates -- there's no need to invent excuses and there is no reason to provide the benefit of the doubt two years on. It doesn't even have to be hostile.

It's just a fact that should be addressed.

I have a feeling the qa testing is not the issue. Instead, it's unreasonable deadlines. Just guessing, but in aoe4 (different game but still) the beta was released, qa feedback given, and nothing done about it. Hotkeys, exploits, English trebs were all found out but not acted on. Why? Well, it's logical that the developers lacked time to fix the issues .

Similarly, in aoe2, the Lithuanian bug, the Genghis Khan spawning cheater(s?), The mangonel 4x damage boost bug were all found out relatively quickly but then simply not fixed quickly. I don't think additional qa testing would help, but more developers would help.

There is little financial incentive for Microsoft to allocate more resources to development on an already released game. Maybe a GoFundMe? 11

So I'd blame management (deadlines) or lack of developers, or not skilled enough developers, but not really qa.

 

[Belgawizard]

Yeah, I’m sure shareholders are paying great attention to the aoe franchise.

I’ve heard at Microsofts upcoming Quarterly Results in July the bugs & fixes will be addressed by the CEO

 

[Surf_Meal]

Unfortunately, I think it’s almost impossible for the Devs to fix the pathing. If it wasn’t they would have already. The skills no longer exist. Similar to the degradation of many human skills, craft and feats that require attention, problem solving and most importantly an unrelenting determination to make ‘the thing - the carries one’s name’ the very best they could - even if that means significant sacrifice. It’s care factor - people can ‘say’ they care or ‘we are working on it’ - meaningless sounds. Make it a priority, develop a plan and do it. The developers of yesterday achieved more with less. The proof is in the pathing. Having perfect pathing is a bedrock pillar to a good RTS. Placing attention elsewhere before this is perfect is misguided - cue Cube Mod.

 

[oozkan]

they’re still working off the old spaghetti code and when you change one thing it affects another. Two steps forward, one step back, repeat.

Classic developer excuse, blame the old developer who doesn't work there anymore.

 

[MuscleChamp]

I dont care, let me preorder aoe5 and buy the next DLC

 

[ProudObuch]

Similarly, in aoe2, the Lithuanian bug, the Genghis Khan spawning cheater(s?), The mangonel 4x damage boost bug were all found out relatively quickly but then simply not fixed quickly.

...and the units ignore walls bug, and the Burgundian Hand cannoneer have +100 attack bug, and the fire ship +100 attack bug, and the donjon foundation prevent defeat bug, and the Malay 166% age advance bug, also the Coustallier x2 damage vs archer bug, and the multiplayer powerpoint count the frames performance bug, and the boar losing aggro bug, that got fixed 3 or 4 times.
Wait, do you guys really think they have a Q&A team?

 

[IvIaximus]

Look devs - in game balance is great

I am not surprised by annual bug occurence. But I am surprised that people still say this thing. Like, how is it balanced? I do not play regularly anymore and only TGs now but men... There is Porto/Korea/Spain flank in majority closed maps, frank/indian civ pocket in majority open maps, brit/maya/bohemian/ethiopia flank in majority open maps and Lithaunia/Porto/Ita/Vik/Byza in majority of water maps. Arena, nomad and BF, they all have few OP candidates as well.
If in past we had OP civs in certain maps/positions in past, now we have 3 to 5 op civs for each map/situation and rest is useless as it was in AoC. Claiming balance has improved for anything other than 1v1 arabia is silly imho. And that is coming from guy, who spent ten years playing 1v1 arabias... This game is bloated and ****ed up beoynd repair. Sad

 

[asdfasdfasdf1]

i must be playing a different game lol. I just really don't suffer as much from bugs as you guys. i play like 2-3 games per day but the only real annoyance I have is melee pathing (but then again, aoc was shitty in this regard as well cuz knights were able to walk right through enemy archers).

I mostly have a good experience playing the game and I don't miss playing 500ms+ ping aoc games on Voobly in the slightest.

 

[ProudObuch]

(but then again, aoc was shitty in this regard as well cuz knights were able to walk right through enemy archers).

Knights can't walk through archers because units have collisions, but 40 archers cramming into 1 tile is an easy pass for you?
Melee pathing is partly **** because of this very restrictive collision that aoc lacked.

 

[DracKeN]

I am not surprised by annual bug occurence. But I am surprised that people still say this thing. Like, how is it balanced? I do not play regularly anymore and only TGs now but men... There is Porto/Korea/Spain flank in majority closed maps, frank/indian civ pocket in majority open maps, brit/maya/bohemian/ethiopia flank in majority open maps and Lithaunia/Porto/Ita/Vik/Byza in majority of water maps. Arena, nomad and BF, they all have few OP candidates as well.
If in past we had OP civs in certain maps/positions in past, now we have 3 to 5 op civs for each map/situation and rest is useless as it was in AoC. Claiming balance has improved for anything other than 1v1 arabia is silly imho. And that is coming from guy, who spent ten years playing 1v1 arabias... This game is bloated and ****ed up beoynd repair. Sad

I disagree there, both 1v1 and TGs are way more balanced than in the past regading civs. Sure, it's also due to having 42 civs instead of 18, so there are more options. But for any map, you can easily find 10 quite powerful civs for any position in TGs.
Say Arabia pocket civs - what we had in aoc? Huns, Franks (teoretically Persians). What we have now? Huns, Franks, Gurjaras, Hindustanis, Berbers, Burgundians, Cumans, Khmer, Lithuanians, Magyars, Poles, Sicilians, Slavs. Obviously depends on the map, but all civs are very strong pocket civs. Same goes for flanks.. Water is even better example - Vikings were a must, and then Japanese, Mayans, Saracens, Mongols were kinda the only good options left. Now you have Vikings not nearly as dominant as they used to be + byz, bengalis, dravidians, italians, japanese, koreans, lithuanians, malay, portuguese, saracens, mongols..
Regarding balance, I'd prefer xbow nerf to make them bit less powerful, although removing attack move micro was a very good step and I could name few more things, but I think 95% of top players would tell you the balance is the best we've ever had in AoE2.

 

[Influenza]

I disagree there, both 1v1 and TGs are way more balanced than in the past regading civs. Sure, it's also due to having 42 civs instead of 18, so there are more options. But for any map, you can easily find 10 quite powerful civs for any position in TGs.
Say Arabia pocket civs - what we had in aoc? Huns, Franks (teoretically Persians). What we have now? Huns, Franks, Gurjaras, Hindustanis, Berbers, Burgundians, Cumans, Khmer, Lithuanians, Magyars, Poles, Sicilians, Slavs. Obviously depends on the map, but all civs are very strong pocket civs. Same goes for flanks.. Water is even better example - Vikings were a must, and then Japanese, Mayans, Saracens, Mongols were kinda the only good options left. Now you have Vikings not nearly as dominant as they used to be + byz, bengalis, dravidians, italians, japanese, koreans, lithuanians, malay, portuguese, saracens, mongols..
Regarding balance, I'd prefer xbow nerf to make them bit less powerful, although removing attack move micro was a very good step and I could name few more things, but I think 95% of top players would tell you the balance is the best we've ever had in AoE2.

U can't list civs like gurjaras and simultaneously think you are making a point about the game being well balanced

 

[Influenza]

i must be playing a different game lol. I just really don't suffer as much from bugs as you guys. i play like 2-3 games per day but the only real annoyance I have is melee pathing (but then again, aoc was shitty in this regard as well cuz knights were able to walk right through enemy archers).

I mostly have a good experience playing the game and I don't miss playing 500ms+ ping aoc games on Voobly in the slightest.

Their behavior in 1.0c is exactly how knights should behave, or do you think it makes more sense that charging horses get stopped by some archers?