EA Forums - Banner

Years of the same bug issues, is it ever going to be fixed ?

Prev1
The title says it all.

Is it possible that old bugs and issues CAN'T be fixed ? I'm beginning to lack confidence in permanent fixes to very old issues, let alone being able to fix new issues.

Please let us know if it is even POSSIBLE to fix the game. After all these years, I'm beginning to wonder.

kj

Replies

  • Can you be more specific as the recent crop of ‘issues’ aren’t caused by old ‘issues’ even if the result is the same, unplayable worlds!
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Yes, if you could be a bit more specific about which old bugs and issues, we can give a more specific answer.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • Yes, I should be more clear. Please do me a favor and clear up any misunderstanding I may have ?

    It is my understanding the hotfixes do a few things, one of those is to fix bugs in the game as well as other stuff this computer ignorant guy has no clue about.

    It is also my understanding that some bugs have been a problem to fix for a few years, and that new worlds launch with these known bugs and issues.

    It is my understanding that the recent hotfix created new issues, and had nothing to do with the old ones.

    Silly me should have just asked if there is currently any bugs and issues still needing to be addressed that have existed for a long time.

    If there are bugs and issues needing to be addressed, is there an official list for the community to read ?

    kj
  • gamerdruid
    3183 posts Moderator
    edited November 2018
    I am aware there is a development list, including some ‘features’ some players consider bugs. I am not aware of the content of that list, nor would I expect to be.

    My understanding is that hotfixes are different to patches. Patches are part of the developmental process of the game, whereas hot fixes are essentially emergency code to correct a major issue. Some of the changes have been necessary because of changes in how Chrome, in particular, works internally. This gave rise for the need for the hotfix rollout that was interrupted by the memory leak on the servers.


    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • Thanks gamerdruid.

    That clears up what some call " issues", and the difference between a hotfix and a patch. Good Job.

    Thanks for introducing me to the term, " development list " , and that it's on a need to know basis.

    Didn't know Chrome had changes and that it required a response from the dev's.

    So to be clear, the answer is yes, there is a development list that contains, in part, items that have needed to be addressed for a long time, and these items are included in new worlds when they open.

    I'm not faulting anyone for anything, just trying to get my head around stuff that is mostly above my head.

    kj
  • "kissjon wrote: »

    So to be clear, the answer is yes, there is a development list that contains, in part, items that have needed to be addressed for a long time, and these items are included in new worlds when they open.

    kj
    Not quite. Patches are rolled out to new and old worlds alike, new worlds aren’t, as far as I’m aware, treated differently to existing ones.

    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • EE_Elephterion
    1366 posts Envision Developer
    edited November 2018
    gamerdruid wrote: »
    Not quite. Patches are rolled out to new and old worlds alike, new worlds aren’t, as far as I’m aware, treated differently to existing ones.

    That is correct. All worlds receive the updates, even the oldest ones like Closed Beta 1, which is still around, just not open for new players anymore.
    Whenever we got a patch ready, the update is tested internally on a world with the latest version that is live. After that initial testing goes according to plan, we patch the PTE, for stress testing with a lot more players, a condition that's more difficult to replicate internally. If bugs arise we can address them there easily, compared to a retail world.
    When we think we have reached a stable release state, we patch the first set of worlds of retail worlds, and with a weeks distance the remaining worlds, just to make sure that a potential bug or problem that went unnoticed does not immediately hit all worlds at once.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • ...All worlds receive the updates, even the oldest ones like Closed Beta 1, which is still around, just not open for new players anymore.
    Whenever we got a patch ready, the update is tested internally on a world with the latest version that is live. After that initial testing goes according to plan, we patch the PTE, for stress testing with a lot more players, a condition that's more difficult to replicate internally. If bugs arise we can address them there easily, compared to a retail world.
    When we think we have reached a stable release state, we patch the first set of worlds of retail worlds, and with a weeks distance the remaining worlds, just to make sure that a potential bug or problem that went unnoticed does not immediately hit all worlds at once.

    Yea, so from one coder to another and I'm sure the kettle is black enough already, this is a major core design flaw. There should be a central engine with 'options' and there aren't. Correcting it isn't possible without rewriting the entire code. You've discussed "testing" things all the time and I'm rolling my head back falling out of my chair because the change should have been as simple as replacing call_A() with a redirect within call_A() to new_code(). Patching 200 "servers" is lunacy. I get I don't have an exact picture and I feel for whatever constraints you're dealing with but, yea, no.

    The original developers never thought the game would be around this long, a mistake made by every game coder since the dawn of time. 65 was a pipe dream so a bug was temporarily introduced at level 51 instead of coding for level 100 or developing "layered" worlds whereby veterans could "go to the next level". Changes were made per server in efforts to appease those with the loudest voices complaining, instead of sticking to what worked, they chased cash flow because you know, business 101().

    To get back to the original question, the answer is no @kissjon. The fundamentals of the game code combined with the hosting and access restrictions placed upon Envision by EA today inherently prevent things from changing from a high level point of view. This has been proven time and time again with every "patch" since the business model changed about a year ago. I'm thankful for the hard work put into the game by those involved, but the tools required to do efficient work here are simply not available. This is similar to looking at a mountain being moved and giving a spoon to a dozen laborers. They are the bestest hardest working friendliest most eager happy go lucky laborers on the planet, you will find none better anywhere - they simply don't have what they need.
  • Thanks for the responses.

    A response to Soixie's explanation will be appreciated. If the dev's agree with Soi, is work being done as Soi suggests ?

    If not, why ?

    kj
  • Soixie wrote: »
    Patching 200 "servers" is lunacy.
    True, fortunately we only have to patch 6 ;) But the game instances still need to be restarted in order to run the new code.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • Hummmm.

    @Soixie an @EE_Elephterion

    Thanks for the responses, and I've been taking time to think over the EE's response to my last questions.

    It's clear that EE agrees with you, except that there are only 6 to patch.

    With my limited understanding of how coding works, and not sure of the term, " game instances ", it seems that it is agreed between the two of you that the game needs an entire new code written so the Dev's time can be better spent doing other things instead of " testing " for all eternity.

    This all seems to support Soi's statement that the Dev's simply don't have the right coding to do the work efficiently. Do I have it right so far ?

    So two questions remain from above; " Is work being done to correct this " ? " If not, why " ?

    The answer to these questions seem to be missing, but again, my ignorance of this stuff might be preventing me from catching the answers.

    If the answers are actually missing, why are they missing ? Are some questions better left alone ? Am I asking too many questions ? Will further responses give rise to even more questions ? Will I ever run out of questions ? Aaaaaaa ! Somebody slap me quick ! ! !

    kj
  • gamerdruid
    3183 posts Moderator
    This game, in it’s current browser form is quite old. I would not expect it to be re-written, which is probably what is required to sort some of the bug and design issues.

    You still haven’t given a list of which bugs or design issues you think exist that needs attention. Maybe if you give an indication then a response to each one (or groups of the) can be given.
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!
  • World 62 not working. I cant do anything with the game. It loads but no attack, no collection of crates etc and it does a server re-boot every minute.

    very broken
  • @gamerdruid

    Seems I've been talking about the coding design issue all along. As far as bugs, I think that what some call bugs, is actually design flaws because of no one thinking this game would be around for this long.

    kj
  • Soixie
    410 posts Member
    edited December 2018
    The primary problem is, the "Developer team" herein do not have root access to the game code. Even if they wanted to change it, there are untold layers of bureaucracy, peer code review and approvals to perform. Envision doesn't even operate their own servers, much less provide direct access to perform updates.

    I'm sure "they" will reply and claim otherwise and "they" can spin whatever story they like, the past several years speak for themselves. Envision Developers have no control over back end support since EA bought them.
  • This platform is terrible. It took me 3 minutes to be able to post this message!!!! Lag time in the game is intolerable.
  • gamerdruid
    3183 posts Moderator
    edited December 2018
    Soixie wrote: »
    The primary problem is, the "Developer team" herein do not have root access to the game code. Even if they wanted to change it, there are untold layers of bureaucracy, peer code review and approvals to perform. Envision doesn't even operate their own servers, much less provide direct access to perform updates.

    I'm sure "they" will reply and claim otherwise and "they" can spin whatever story they like, the past several years speak for themselves. Envision Developers have no control over back end support since EA bought them.

    What little I do know about the ownership and development of the game doesn't tally with what you say here. It is well known that Envision are an independent game development company and not owned by EA. It is also well known that Envision weren't the first game development company to work on the game.

    A little google research brought up this!
    https://www.envision-entertainment.de/
    I am not an employee of EA/Envision. The views expressed are my own!

  • EA provided 100% funding for this game, it's development, ownership and control since day 1 (2010).


    In August of 2011 a reshuffle occurred at EA, Frank Gibeau, once EA Games boss, moved into his new role at as head of EA Labels. EA Labels then formed Bioware who, collectively with Victory games, was formed for the sole purpose of recreating the Command and Conquer series. The game was ultimately released under the name EA Phenomic, whom managed it until going bankrupt / dissolved in 2015. The rumor was a falling out with EA over the direction and resources associated with C&C:TA.

    EA then sold the "day to day management rights" of C&C:TA to Envision, but EA retained 100% of the cash flow and executive decisions. This was performed by EA VP, Dirk Ringe creating a dedicated team of 25 (mostly "Ex-employees" of EA) and founding Envision Entertainment. Envision's control over this game is in title only as EA still owns and controls the server management. I didn't pull corporate records, though I imagine EA does in fact have a financial interest (ownership) in Envision.

    Envision has since been free to market some, but EA learned regret rather quickly by not supporting the original C&C:TA design team properly. EA has since been attempting to break into the same market with little to no success (yet), a space in which Envision has proven themselves.

    The servers (6) this platform is hosted on is provided by Akamai corporation out of Cambridge, MA (between the USA and EU) and paid for by Electronic Arts;
    1 a13-67.akam.net 2.22.230.67
    2 a7-66.akam.net 23.61.199.66
    3 a6-65.akam.net 23.211.133.65
    4 a8-67.akam.net 2.16.40.67
    5 a1-164.akam.net 193.108.91.164
    6 a4-64.akam.net 72.246.46.64


    Just a few references:
    http://whois.domaintools.com/commandandconqueralliances.com
    https://www.vg247.com/2011/12/04/command-conquer-alliances-outed-by-domain-registration/
    https://www.videogamer.com/news/command-and-conquer-tiberium-alliances-is-now-being-run-by-an-indie-developer
    https://www.engadget.com/2013/11/05/envision-entertainment-rises-from-the-ashes-of-ea-phenomic/
  • Soixie wrote: »
    The primary problem is, the "Developer team" herein do not have root access to the game code.

    We do have, in fact, the source code; as Envision are comprised of some the original developer who wrote it - and still work on it.
    Envision Entertainment Community Liaison
  • Soixie
    410 posts Member
    edited December 2018
    Soixie wrote: »
    The primary problem is, the "Developer team" herein do not have root access to the game code.

    We do have, in fact, the source code; as Envision are comprised of some the original developer who wrote it - and still work on it.

    Carefully chosen words and not a direct response with what I stated. I can also pull the public source code and tinker with it offline, doesn't mean it's getting updated at the server. My point is that since 2015, there is a massive disconnect between the development team and EA's controlled servers. There shall always be problems because of this. There are only two sides to this coin;

    1. Envision answers to EA regarding any code design changes and is unable to perform necessary updates
    2. Those physically performing server updates are incompetent.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!