Unmoved units warning

Tech support for Panzer Corps

Moderators: Slitherine Core, Panzer Corps Moderators, Panzer Corps Design

Post Reply
Wings
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:18 am

Unmoved units warning

Post by Wings »

Image

It reads "Unmoved units warning" and the help to this option states: "If checked this game will warn you about any unmoved units when you press the end return button"

So it always talks about "unmoved" only.

However in several tests during the game when I had it activated, it would ALWAYS warn about unmoved units, which totally confused me, especially after double checking everything after several turns, so I decided to make a test scenario:

Image


It turns out that the message only disappears when you have all units moved AND all shots taken. So in this last screenshot you would get the ""Unmoved units" warning because of the tank at the top.


One other issue; why doesn't the option TOOLS\OPTIONS in the editor do anything? Is this a bug or something that is going to be added later?
IainMcNeil
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13558
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am

Post by IainMcNeil »

This is WAD - we are counting firing as a move that is available. I think most people are comfortable with it?
Wings
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:18 am

Post by Wings »

iainmcneil wrote:This is WAD - we are counting firing as a move that is available. I think most people are comfortable with it?
I can understand that you count firing as a move, but that's not the issue here, the issue is how it's being named in the game and in the game it's clearly named "unmoved units" beside the checkbox and in the help. This might be a minor issue to you, but it was obviously very confusing for me, someone who never played this genre before. What is actually meant with "unmoved units" might seem obviously when you look at my 2nd screenshot, but it most certainly isn't when you have a large operation going on with tons of units!

On top of that, I've noticed that one of the intentions of the development team was to attempt to pull a wider audience to this genre (like me). In that context I don't see why it should be labeled like this, after all it did totally confuse me and any change would only require the change of a text in 2 locations , which takes like seconds (a lot less than it took me to write a test scenario, prepare and upload screenshots and post this thread!) and I don't even need to see the source for that, based on my years of experience as a professional programmer. You don't have to release an update for only this problem or compile your source, it can be done as part of major update.

Mind you, I'm not asking you to change this for ME (since I know by doing my own research why things didn't behave as it was described in the options), I just think that it's an easy and quick change that could take away a lot of confusion, especially for those new to the genre.

Do with it what ever you like, I'm just trying to help here, but this is now the second time in a short time that I attempt to make one of your product betters without having any benefit for myself and again I sense like it's not very much appreciated. To give you an idea about my intentions: I don't even use that option, but I just felt like testing it (since I love this game and want it to be a success!), because I assumed that most beta tester wouldn't be interested in checking that option, most of them just want to play.

If you're or others are going to argue about every change that I suggest with good arguments and that takes only a few seconds to make and that don't even benefit me, then I might as well stop with my good intentions! Disagreeing is one thing, but disagreeing because YOU or long time players don't see the benefit for yourself ONLY, when newcomers most certainly would, is just not the proper way in my opinion to increase the interest in your product among a wider audience, especially when you're already going to argue about something what would require a minor change and which would make things a lot easier to understand by people new to this game or genre.

I'm not even going to bother to write a thread about a minor design issue in the library, since I probably get the same treatment...sigh:


Image
Wings
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:18 am

Post by Wings »

Excuse me for the tone of my post, it's just that I get frustrated at times when I want to make this product do well, not for myself, it's just fueled by my love for the product and I know that this might be hard to understand to some of you, but that's really the way it is. I've been looking for EXACTLY this game like 10 years, others in the genre just didn't do it for me, including surprisingly the original Panzer General. I can understand people's fascination for PZ, but that's often because they've been playing it since the early days, like I have been doing with the 14 year old Total Annihilation, but to play a game from 1994 in 2011 when you're used to modern titles, is a step most people don't take. If I never started playing TA in 1997, I would never have played it in 2011 like I still do at times.
Last edited by Wings on Wed Jul 20, 2011 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
IainMcNeil
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13558
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am

Post by IainMcNeil »

We're not disagreeing with - but the point is we have very limited resources. Fixing a text bug is not as quick as it sounds. It has to go on to the features request change list, then get implemented, then tested. The simplest change actually takes up a substantial amount of time when you work it through the entire process. We feel there are more important things to work on and unless others find it a problem we're unlikely to invest time in such minor issues, unless there is demand for it, which is what I was asking. If others agree this is an issue we can look at it. It's simply a matter of cost/benefit and prioritisation. We really value all feedback but that doesn't mean we can make every change requested.
Wings
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 10:18 am

Post by Wings »

iainmcneil wrote:Fixing a text bug is not as quick as it sounds. It has to go on to the features request change list, then get implemented, then tested. The simplest change actually takes up a substantial amount of time when you work it through the entire process.
C'mon hey, you're not talking to an amateur here, this is not like me and my fellow programmers getting requests years ago that required a change or addition of a field of an internally described file during the days that we didn't have any technology for externally described databases, a field change or addition that would have required the change of numerous programs and related files and documentation and a major file migration procedure (that would possibly also interrupt daily operations) and pre-production testing for a company with a quarter billion dollars turnover every year, we're talking here about adding a few words to a text field and c'mon hey, that needs to be tested too? And writing that entry on a feature request list takes more than me preparing a scenario, screenshots (plus upload) and a forum text, not to mention that I've already done most of the documention of this issue?

If you think that "unmoved units warning" is read by most newcomers as "Warning about unmoved units AND units that haven't fired", then just say so, but don't come up with some lame excuse straight out of the "Pocket book for efficient support", without making any attempt to be more flexible, because then I'm done talking rather quickly.
Horseman
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1542
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 2:27 pm

Post by Horseman »

Wings wrote:
iainmcneil wrote:Fixing a text bug is not as quick as it sounds. It has to go on to the features request change list, then get implemented, then tested. The simplest change actually takes up a substantial amount of time when you work it through the entire process.
C'mon hey, you're not talking to an amateur here, this is not like me and my fellow programmers getting requests years ago that required a change or addition of a field of an internally described file during the days that we didn't have any technology for externally described databases, a field change or addition that would have required the change of numerous programs and related files and documentation and a major file migration procedure (that would possibly also interrupt daily operations) and pre-production testing for a company with a quarter billion dollars turnover every year, we're talking here about adding a few words to a text field and c'mon hey, that needs to be tested too? And writing that entry on a feature request list takes more than me preparing a scenario, screenshots (plus upload) and a forum text, not to mention that I've already done most of the documention of this issue?

If you think that "unmoved units warning" is read by most newcomers as "Warning about unmoved units AND units that haven't fired", then just say so, but don't come up with some lame excuse straight out of the "Pocket book for efficient support", without making any attempt to be more flexible, because then I'm done talking rather quickly.
Surely as a programmer you understand that ANY change needs to be tested? NO company programming software would make even the smallest change with out testing it before release? Oh wait some do...the ones who have to patch the patch time and again to fix new bugs that they've introduced....

You're been very confrontational in your posts and I like thats a little unfair on the Devs, the issue you're reporting is not a game breaker in any way shape or form.
IainMcNeil
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 13558
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:19 am

Post by IainMcNeil »

I think you are assuming the person who fixes the bug is reading your feedback. They are not. It has to be filtered through to the change request list and prioritized. Fixing it takes seconds. Then it has to go back to be checked and verified. It is the logistics of getting something on to the bug list and then regressing it that puts an overhead on any change. E.g. probably a minimum of 15 mins of overhead per bug spread across the team. Add in the few seconds to fix and you have maybe 16 mins. I'm sure you understand.
Post Reply

Return to “Panzer Corps : Tech Support”