Finally some info from Maxis on post 2.0 (works in progress)

[Board_Marshal 104]

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/9437292.page#28136320

 

 

Currently In Development 

Hi Mayors – This week we deployed Update 2.0, our first major upgrade addressing a number of fixes and improvements to SimCity. While the update made many significant upgrades and fixes, we know that players are eager for more. We are reviewing feedback and bugs that are reported and are working on additional fixes and upgrades. Below you will find some of the areas we are focused on improving over the next several weeks. In addition to the specific issues below, we are continuing to improve the traffic simulation and decrease the need for rollbacks. 

Once we have locked dates for releasing these fixes, we’ll update this thread. You can help by giving your feedback and/or report additional issues on our Answers HQ forums: http://answers.ea.com/t5/SimCity/ct-p/SimCity 

Thanks, Mayors! 

Future Fixes 

Issue: Some players experiencing higher than expected regional air pollution. 

• Status: Working on a fix. 

Issue: Demolish issue that occurred when players demolished buildings that had service vehicles, delivery vehicles, or agents out in the city or region. Previously, the agents would be in a state of limbo and would not recover when new buildings of that type were placed. 

• Status: Fix works in newly created cities. Working on a fix for pre-existing cities. 

Issue: High School buses stuck in neighboring cities. 

• Status: Working on a fix. 

Issue: Reports of Game Crashes. 

• Status: Working on fixes. 

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 04/26/2013 15:42:12

 

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

And this was a patch? A patch which causes more problems then fixes the ones beforehand?

[Cottoncandy Cyanide 145]

What kind of patch provides more problems then fixes anyway? :l

[Xenocity 343]

What kind of patch provides more problems then fixes anyway? :l

Plenty, especially when they come from Microsoft.

 

It is not unusual for patches to cause issues.

[lars_city 23]

I think the most prominent was the air pollution bug, which seem to have been a silly code-mistake by Mike... it is human to fail under pressure, but it should have been caught by their QA :-P

[Cyclone Boom 16,875]

What kind of patch provides more problems then fixes anyway? :l

Unfortunately, that's the nature of game patches I'm afraid. Due to the complexity of the code, if things are fixed in one area, new problems can potentially arise somewhere else -- hence creating a chain reaction effect. The only real way to reduce this is through precise and methodological testing.

 

But of course, all this takes time and resources.

[tnobles 38]

http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/9437292.page#28136320

Thanks for the heads up!

[DVDGuy 16]

Well at least there are acknowledging the issues and trying to fix it.

[MoridinUK 0]

 

Unfortunately, that's the nature of game patches I'm afraid. Due to the complexity of the code, if things are fixed in one area, new problems can potentially arise somewhere else -- hence creating a chain reaction effect. The only real way to reduce this is through precise and methodological testing.

 

But of course, all this takes time and resources.

 

 

And we are by far the most through test bed there is, and we demand the patches come thick and fast too...  We apply pressure to them to get it done quick while being the best way to find any further problems... I can see why releases get sent out with known errors in them, choice is to delay release (and upset us) or through it out to us and wait for us to find all the other problems they've not had time to dig out!

[Rufus Honker IV 100]

 

 

Unfortunately, that's the nature of game patches I'm afraid. Due to the complexity of the code, if things are fixed in one area, new problems can potentially arise somewhere else -- hence creating a chain reaction effect. The only real way to reduce this is through precise and methodological testing.

 

But of course, all this takes time and resources.

 

 

And we are by far the most through test bed there is, and we demand the patches come thick and fast too...  We apply pressure to them to get it done quick while being the best way to find any further problems... I can see why releases get sent out with known errors in them, choice is to delay release (and upset us) or through it out to us and wait for us to find all the other problems they've not had time to dig out!

 

 

And things are bound to get worse with this.  The push of the developer's employers and the fans who want a game NOW (the only people their employers will listen to) is strong.  Many games now have been released in questionable states of playability only to be fixed after a few patches.  This is hardly new - I didn't pick up Simcity 4 at release and for some years afterwards (I had three young kids and was playing World of Warcraft), but I remember reading that it was buggy and troublesome and not really "fixed" until the Rush Hour expansion.

 

While it's very true - the public at large are the best testers who will bend and twist a game in ways no programmer foresees - that should not be an excuse to pile up a list of major and minor issues to deal with "after release" just because the company wants to meet a deadline for their investors.

[mr_sim 7]

This is an old argument. Too many people fuss and carry on about patches. The truth is, the ones that complain, don't understand the process or the business involved. Those deadlines and investors, moreso investors of course, are what make the game possible to begin with. There were no "donations" from SC fans to create this latest version. It takes cash to pay devs, artists, testers, publishers, etc. Money, money, money. Even the resources put in to these patches are paid for by investors initially.

 

That aside, as a game dev, you can not just take a bug report, open up a file full of code, swap some stuff around, call it fixed and ship out an update. Aside from the sheer time involved in finding the actual problem in the code, you first must have enough reports of the same problem. Then you have to develop and agree with the other devs on the fix. Then you must test the fix to ensure it does indeed "fix" the problem as well ensuring it does not cause further issues, see above complaints.

 

After all of that, you submit your code to be approved and upon approval, wait for it to be included in a patch full of other fixes that may or may not agree with your code. It is a long process that requires a great deal of effort and MONEY and it behooves anyone affected to, at the very least, be content with the knowledge that the game developers recognize there are issues and are working through this very process to fix them.

[xdsxblazinxdsx 2]

Yea sorry, I agree they maybe hard at wor to fix these issues and I'm not debating the fact that the issues maybe complicated but on the other hand this could have been better avoided by better play testing. Or they should have delayed release or they should have had a better beta. Some I these core mechanics have been broken probably since they were made. I especially don't like that when they release a patch they make the game even more unplayable then it was. Now instead if tricking traffic I have huge pollution problems to deal with? What's next?

[galacticwarrior 9]

To be honest, in my kinda useless opinion, it's the pollution and traffic bugs ONLY which are stopping me from playing the game. The rest of the bugs detract from the gameplay but I don't really care about them since I seem to have a "clean" edition of the game.

However, it is ridiculous to not spot a game-breaking bug in 3 weeks of QA testing..

[Rufus Honker IV 100]

To be honest, in my kinda useless opinion, it's the pollution and traffic bugs ONLY which are stopping me from playing the game. The rest of the bugs detract from the gameplay but I don't really care about them since I seem to have a "clean" edition of the game.

However, it is ridiculous to not spot a game-breaking bug in 3 weeks of QA testing..

 

Something that Maxis seems to miss in every single Simcity game is how tried people get of dealing with traffic.  It is realistic to have traffic problems but to give us so few solid ways of dealing with it is ridiculous. 

 

In a way they yet again introduced a needed concept and rendered the fix moot. 

Upgradable to higher capacity roads: GOOD! 

Those higher capacity roads come with the fact that the zones on them can upgrade to higher density and thus creating more traffic mitigating the higher capacity: BAD!

[mr_sim 7]

 

Those higher capacity roads come with the fact that the zones on them can upgrade to higher density and thus creating more traffic mitigating the higher capacity: BAD!

 

 

Dezoning said zones before upgrading your roads prevents such an issue, allows for better control of your skyline/population and is a built-in mechanic, not a bug. So, there's that.

[Jons511 12]

Those higher capacity roads come with the fact that the zones on them can upgrade to higher density and thus creating more traffic mitigating the higher capacity: BAD!

Dezoning said zones before upgrading your roads prevents such an issue, allows for better control of your skyline/population and is a built-in mechanic, not a bug. So, there's that.

Yeah but then if you get an abandoned building or rubble, you have to rezone it for anything to build there again after you demolish it. Then you gotta remember to go back and de-zone it AGAIN so you keep the same density. It's a complete waste of time and unnecessary micromanaging of things that should be made easier by tying density to zones instead of road capacity.

[mr_sim 7]

 

 

Those higher capacity roads come with the fact that the zones on them can upgrade to higher density and thus creating more traffic mitigating the higher capacity: BAD!

Dezoning said zones before upgrading your roads prevents such an issue, allows for better control of your skyline/population and is a built-in mechanic, not a bug. So, there's that.

Yeah but then if you get an abandoned building or rubble, you have to rezone it for anything to build there again after you demolish it. Then you gotta remember to go back and de-zone it AGAIN so you keep the same density. It's a complete waste of time and unnecessary micromanaging of things that should be made easier by tying density to zones instead of road capacity.

 

Complaining for the sake of complaint. The method works fine and is not the inconvience you are making it to be.

 

I do however, agree on density to an extent. I feel roads need different densities and zones need different densities. Just like in SC4 and just like in the real world. I do not agree though "easier" should be the justification. This game is already kindergarten simple.

[jrbaytown 2]

 

What kind of patch provides more problems then fixes anyway? :l

Unfortunately, that's the nature of game patches I'm afraid. Due to the complexity of the code, if things are fixed in one area, new problems can potentially arise somewhere else -- hence creating a chain reaction effect. The only real way to reduce this is through precise and methodological testing.

 

But of course, all this takes time and resources.

 

well said.

[mrbisonm 1,620]

Simcity 2013........hm.......still sounds to me like...."working on fixes"....lol.

 

 

mrb

[MrCinatit 30]

It took quite a few patches and add ons before SimCity 4 became the game we became to know and love. And even then, there were some fixes which simply needed to be done within the community instead (the NAM, for instance). 

 

That is not to say it will be the same with the current installment. Time will tell if this edition will become as modification-friendly as the previous installment. 

[macscfan 117]

It took quite a few patches and add ons before SimCity 4 became the game we became to know and love. And even then, there were some fixes which simply needed to be done within the community instead (the NAM, for instance). 

 

That is not to say it will be the same with the current installment. Time will tell if this edition will become as modification-friendly as the previous installment. 

 

I worry about this.  Given that corners were cut/it was pushed out the door too early because of some deadline set by EA, what if somebody in upper management (outside of Maxis) realizes that if it's too mod-friendly, we can recreate all of the DLC they want to sell to us?