Slitherine

GabeKnight wrote:Well, hold your horses, at least a little bit, Bruce...

bru888 wrote:I never realized that this could be possible and that what was preventing it was a darned typo!?!

As I understand it, even though the original file has a typo, the "defaultMaxZoom" of 37 still applied and was therefore hardcoded as default. So in either case you'd have to edit this file to a higher setting (e.g. 100) yourself manually with an editor. It's actually modding.

I hear you Gabe, but don't you think 37 is still a bit low, regardless? Maybe 200 is too huge for some computers but some additional maximum zoom surely is not a terrible burden for most computers. And "37" just seems like an odd number, you know? Like "sefault" seems like an odd word? Like perhaps both were just sloppily typed and left as is for years.

You take a look at those two screens above and tell me that it isn't a desirable feature to be able to see more of a map that beautiful. As well as practical. The only thing that I can think of is that the developers are afraid of crashing computers with too much zoom. I don't have cutting edge equipment myself but I had no problem zooming all the way out like that.

GabeKnight wrote:And "37" just seems like an odd number, you know? Like "sefault" seems like an odd word?

I'm still laughing while writing this...
..and yeah, I'm with you on everything.

bru888 wrote:Like perhaps both were just sloppily typed and left as is for years.

Maybe, could be, but technically it's still a "modified" feature you want and not an error.
Don't get me wrong, it's still well worth reporting and should be adjusted accordingly (my PC's up-to-date, so I wouldn't know if there are video performance limits to be accounted for)

Me, I was more disappointed that such things, that would have made the game experience better (like knowing that RP's spent on aux. units get refunded - among others), were never used, implemented in the UI or documented properly.

GabeKnight wrote:

GabeKnight wrote:And "37" just seems like an odd number, you know? Like "sefault" seems like an odd word?

I'm still laughing while writing this...
..and yeah, I'm with you on everything.

bru888 wrote:Like perhaps both were just sloppily typed and left as is for years.

Maybe, could be, but technically it's still a "modified" feature you want and not an error.
Don't get me wrong, it's still well worth reporting and should be adjusted accordingly (my PC's up-to-date, so I wouldn't know if there are video performance limits to be accounted for)

Me, I was more disappointed that such things, that would have made the game experience better (like knowing that RP's spent on aux. units get refunded - among others), were never used, implemented in the UI or documented properly.

Well, one thing is for sure, Gabe: Thank goodness for these forums. Let's see if we get an official answer in Tech Support but I sure as heck appreciate knowing about this and what I can do about it now.

it's still an error in the file, Gabe.

there are TONS of typos even in the CSV file, for that matter.

just because you can mod it, doesn't mean it's not still an error.

classic case I reported:

Heavy Treaded trait in game is not there... because everywhere in the CSV it is typed as "HeavyThreaded" instead. If you remove the "h", all of a sudden everything that was supposed to have that trait, now does.

it's very sloppy coding, and for something so incredibly simple as a text file.

for fun, I just checked, and those errors too go all the way back to the original OOB.

No way they weren't reported by someone.

makes me wonder if there is some language translation issue with their coders.

bru888 wrote:Like perhaps both were just sloppily typed and left as is for years.

quoted for obvious truth.

Agree completely that these things need to be ironed out before proceeding with more DLCs.

Unfortunately, it seems the pressure of releasing DLCs every 2-3 months takes toll on other stuff that adds up gradually, as there's no time to fix and test everything. It's the testing bit that requires time as the change may cascade down and impact unforeseeable things. Anyone can change the units.csv file for example, but who knows what that could lead to when you have hundreds of thousands of lines of code.

Ofc, one could argue that this particular change doesn't require too much testing, but who knows if changing it would cause crashes to some people? The motto of experienced developers is "don't change what works".

LOL

just... no.

I was a game developer in the '90s. This is just sloppy coding that literally takes all of 5 seconds to fix.

Why do you then think it's not fixed yet? Noone of the devs notived a topic from almost 2 years ago?

Edit: I haven't been a coder professionally like you (though I code as part of work), but I work with coders even now as part of my job in what is called a "controlled" environment. Nothing gets changed/implemented before it is tested, and an impact assessment is done. It's how things are and should be. A change may seem obvious to you, but it really can have impact on something down the road you'd never expect.

Edit x2: Lastly, wanted to add- just because something was implemented incorrectly, if the initial testing was one with the incorrect implementation, you still need to test with proper implementation and cannot change it to what was intended, because you still don't know the proper impact of it would be

This is definitely not the only game where game variable-names have typos and still work. It's possible that there is an additional default-value hardcoded that the game falls back if something fails in the config files.
Just be happy that you can modify the game by these files. I personally have no real use of too high max-zoom levels by the grained units and letters and such. And zooming-in is okay for a moment of 3d-model gazing, but otherwise quickly forgotten again during normal gameplay where you demand a sharp mix of overview and letter-readability. The default-settings are fine for this that no one really cared about it the last two years.

Fingers crossed for a major patch where they fix all these small issues (and all the other inconsistencies in the units.csv).

I was just trying to say that they've produced so many DLCs recently that probably haven't had a chance to catch up on the "patching" side of things due to budget constraints.

Horst wrote:This is definitely not the only game where game variable-names have typos and still work. It's possible that there is an additional default-value hardcoded that the game falls back if something fails in the config files.

Easy to test: Replace the "variables.txt" files with an empty one and voilá, the game works fine with the the predefined setting as before editing the values. My guess is, this is true for all the config/text files in the data folder, and these were just used to override (and possibly add to) the hardcoded default values for testing or fine tuning purposes after the executables were compiled.
And for people like us...

When I started this thread more than a year and a half ago, I wanted to encourage the developers to be more attentive to the demands of the players.
Like many other requests made since the beginning of this game, we had to do reverse engineering to find ourselves the solution to the problem.
In this case, being able to zoom out seems to me essential to have a strategic view in a wargame like OOB. the fact that there has been no modification of the file throughout the various patches during this time is a bad sign sent to the players as to the seriousness of the development and monitoring (do the developers seriously read this forum?).

This way of doing things still exists, for example, in the way developers have dealt with the numerous and recurring requests regarding the implementation of traditional boardgame counters. Faced with their lack of response to this request I realized a mod that proposed this option. This work, which did not take more than a few days, could have been done by a trainee.

Today there are more than 500 players who have downloaded this mod.
Which company in this computer wargame niche market can afford to overlook such a large number of customers?

With the arrival on the market of potentially serious competitors (Panzer Corps 2 and some other surprises) I think that it will no longer be enough to break up the second world war in the form of multiple DLCs, but that it will be necessary to be more creative in the gaming experience offer.
I think at that moment, the potential creativity of the modders could (could have) helped them ...

We'll see.

Some people (like you) find this functionality essential, others (like me) do not and haven't even bothered changing the typos in the file you found.

When you work on a limited budget and time frame, you have to prioritise what you want to do- do you want new content? do you want to fix existing content? In the case of a small developing studio like "The Aristocrats", major patches that don't introduce anything (and therefore don't sell) are undesirable as they bring no new revenue streams. Sure, they can do a few quality of life improvements that all of us can appreciate, but is the game really broken in its current state? Do you prefer to get 2 DLCs a year with 1-2 major patches in between, or do you prefer 4 new DLCs?

The right answer is somewhere in between (in my view). I'm sure the devs are working hard on fixing stuff, but there's a lot of that and limited time. If only they had an infinite amount of chimpanzees to help them out...

Lastly, assuming they haven't read the topic is unreasonable. You can see Aristocrats/Slitherine members constantly reply to other topics in the "General Discussions" forum, so this one has been seen for sure as well. There are many reasons for not replying though I think it may be because they feel that the development work required for this (again, it's not just fixing the typo) is too much compared to the benefits. They likely don't want to start an argument with the community or been seen to disappoint by declining something that looks so simple to fix.

Anyway, I'm not defending the "no reply" attitude of the developers or the push for DLCs. I'm just saying there are two ways to go and it's up to the studio to decide how they want to do stuff. Imagine people going to a bank and demanding that they offer better interest rates on the accounts- demanding things from the developer is the same (again, in my view).

In the mean time, you and others who find this essential can just fix the issue yourselves (as you already did).

EDIT: I really need to probably start working... at work. Getting too bored and replying when I shouldn't. Apologies if I have offended!

This graph characterizes how I have felt about the prospects of this game since the very beginning of my time here:
The troughs are usually after long periods of relative silence and inactivity. The peaks are when the designers have reappeared with fixes and new material. The times in between are maintained by faith that they will keep coming back.

And that's just about minimal expectations. There is so much more that could be done with this game such as, yes, cleaning up typos and reported minor errors.* Such as updating the Online News. ** Such as updating and augmenting the officially sponsored Community Content. *** Such as updating the manual. **** Such as promoting OOB in social media. *****

Examples:

* How long has this poor guy been talking about this? And this has become my own personal OOB bête noire. If it falls into the same category of benign neglect, I don't see how I'm going to continue here.

** As of this morning, it's still announcing "Burma Road & Patch 4.1.1" - something as basic and as simple as that is not updated. Maybe there is a strategy involved to promote the previous DLC "in case you missed it"?

*** Has not changed since at least January 2016 despite some very fine community content having been developed in the meantime (thanks, Erik and Shards). Battle of Britain is down again and that was reported when Panzerkrieg was in beta.

**** The game manual has not been updated . . . ever? It still says "OOB Pacific" and it's missing major changes like the new specialisation system, revised naval maneuver and battle technique, and the import core army tool.

***** There isn't any, as far as I know. Search Facebook for "Order of Battle."

Sorry, but I don't buy the "small staff and limited time" excuse for lacking these absolute basics of running a successful franchise. As it is, it's like watching somebody indulging in his hobby which he barely has time for and picks up occasionally when he feels like it.

These things have always bothered me about OOB and make me doubt its long-term viability. This naturally leads to my questioning the time that I have spent on it.

13obo wrote:Why do you then think it's not fixed yet?

because whoever is responsible is easily distracted would be my bet, and they likely just don't really care if these things are fixed or not if their boss doesn't tell them directly to fix it.

as to the rest... you are wayyyy overthinking this.

this is not complex code that needs multiple eyeballs and stringent testing rounds... they are simple typos in a damn text file. one of those files is literally 12 lines long.

Horst wrote:This is definitely not the only game where game variable-names have typos and still work. It's possible that there is an additional default-value hardcoded that the game falls back if something fails in the config files.

nope. as I explained, simple things like the "heavy treaded" trait do not work and do not show up in game unless you manually fix the typos. It has a significant impact on some maps.

Just be happy that you can modify the game by these files. I personally have no real use of too high max-zoom levels by the grained units and letters and such. And zooming-in is okay for a moment of 3d-model gazing, but otherwise quickly forgotten again during normal gameplay where you demand a sharp mix of overview and letter-readability. The default-settings are fine for this that no one really cared about it the last two years.

Oh come, ON. you might as well have said: "Just be happy you got a shit sandwich! they could have given you nothing!"

and whether you personally don't bother tweaking your zoom level is not relevant. at all. really. You might as well have said: "Well, I never use air units so I could care less if they only move 1 space per turn and run out of fuel in 2 turns". that's hardly relevant to the fact that those planes in that imaginary scenario are broken now, does it?

think more please.

and also? you're dead wrong about people not mentioning the zoom issue before. in case you didn't notice... this is not a new thread.

bru888 wrote: Sorry, but I don't buy the "small staff and limited time" excuse for lacking these absolute basics of running a successful franchise. As it is, it's like watching somebody indulging in his hobby which he barely has time for and picks up occasionally when he feels like it.

These things have always bothered me about OOB and make me doubt its long-term viability. This naturally leads to my questioning the time that I have spent on it.

+1

I apologize for my lack of sympathy. I just got too used of unfinished games that I tend to mod/fix games myself as far as it is possible. I also lack the patience waiting for official fixes either.
I have just reported the heavyThreaded typos in the technical forum. I'm currently updating my mod with some new features of v5.x.x, so maybe I find some more vanilla issues.

I've noticed something after changing the values in the "variables.txt": The southern map border shifts down somehow and makes the bottommost row of hexes being covered by the UI and hard to see and access with the mouse cursor.... sorry, hard to explain, see screenshot
I've been criticizing the unability to see the bottom hexes of some scenarios (sorry, terminator), but it seems to have been my mistake for not noticing all along. I'll have to test what did this, for the time being I'm restoring the zoom values to the Typo-"sefault"-value

Hi,

Just zoom in... And you'll see it again