Connect flow changes
To connect, you now have to use the "Play!" button in the top right corners. Have any Issues? Check out these instructions.

What's new?
Plenty of things. We are aware that we're not posting much news at this time, but the easiest way to keep track of what is happening is to look at the "resolved" action of our issue tracker. We have discovered some game breaking bugs and are doing a lot of research to figure out the correct behavior, but we are also swamped with smaller issues.

Please help us relaunch faster by confirming/unconfirming issues, and voting on what is the highest priority for you. If you see something that is obviously wrong, comment, and point to evidence on how it should be. If you are short on time, pick one single issue you care a lot about, and do some research for this one issue.

Issue Tracker Changes
The tracker got a few new features. For one, the reporter will now get an email notification for every comment or action that happens on a bug. Note that you should *not* reply to these emails, but post comments in the issue itself.
Moreover, the reporter can now also re-open closed issues with a click of a button if you think an issue has been incorrectly closed. If this happens, click the button, and comment on why you think this issue is not resolved.

Herald
To save us some time, we've decided to try opening up the Herald development to the community as an experiment. This is your chance to participate -- if you are a frontend engineer, you know about AngularJS, restful APIs and HTML5, and you are excited to help, have a look at the Herald page on the website, and help out.

Help us decide - your opinion matters
Have a strong opinion on a feature? Help us gauge interest by filling out this form. We will take the results into consideration when prioritizing and making decisions, but we will also weight the result against how much effort it will take to implement - so no promises at this point.

Need to know more about what is happening behind the scenes?
Besides responding in the issue tracker and the forum, I am occasionally publishing issues and solutions we encounter on blog.uthgard.org. Feel free to drop by if you are technically interested, and want to see a look behind the scenes.

I see alot of issues have been resolved already and i applaud for that!

I am just a bit worried about a certain scenario where a group of people might report a bug that is not actually a bug but just a feature they want to have to their advantage. Issue is reported and like 10 people of the same group/community confirm it. How are you going to prevent abuses like that?

Good work, but I would like to see an internal forum notification about comments on bug reports rather than to email. I eg almost never check my forum email address
Also it would be nice to be able to flag bugreports so you get informed if someone posted sth as well.

[R]Bloodwyne wrote:I see alot of issues have been resolved already and i applaud for that!

I am just a bit worried about a certain scenario where a group of people might report a bug that is not actually a bug but just a feature they want to have to their advantage. Issue is reported and like 10 people of the same group/community confirm it. How are you going to prevent abuses like that?

We count on you to also unconfirm/point out mistakes in issues

I would love to get some sort of direction what needs to be done, especially in some of the issue reports I have no idea what could be added to speed up the process. Take https://uthgard.org/tracker/issue/683/ as an example.

It contains chat logs from both uthgard and pendragon, an estimated formula and even patch notes as evidence and is not even assigend yet.

Raifs wrote:I would love to get some sort of direction what needs to be done, especially in some of the issue reports I have no idea what could be added to speed up the process. Take https://uthgard.org/tracker/issue/683/ as an example.

It contains chat logs from both uthgard and pendragon, an estimated formula and even patch notes as evidence and is not even assigend yet.

Votes.

Also notice that we only assign issues when we actually have the time to work on them, so as long as we are still fixing a different issue, we'll leave them as confirmed.

0241: Poison status ailment not highlighting name green in party.

It's not resolved, but is in resolved pile. How does one reopen it?

Scroll down a bit and your question will be answered in the issue report itself.

It wasn't a bug, it's working as intented.

TheKrokodil wrote:

Raifs wrote:I would love to get some sort of direction what needs to be done, especially in some of the issue reports I have no idea what could be added to speed up the process. Take https://uthgard.org/tracker/issue/683/ as an example.

It contains chat logs from both uthgard and pendragon, an estimated formula and even patch notes as evidence and is not even assigend yet.

Votes.

Also notice that we only assign issues when we actually have the time to work on them, so as long as we are still fixing a different issue, we'll leave them as confirmed.

It is very hard as an external community member to get a grasp on the not really visible severity system you will surely use internally to prioritize maintenance and bugfixing processes and having just popularity as a gage for influencing it from the external via voting numbers.

A lot of people will not understand how severity ratings of issues should work and what they are for and will only vote up issues that directly influence them. In that way a lobby of players can effectively push their agendas combining their vote power, while screwing the real severity ratings up that do not get the lobby treatment.

You could argue that popularity equals influence on people, but with vote counts ranging in the single digits or the low double digits this is not representive compared to population and people will also not spend hours to vote and confirm every issue.

I would really appreciate a different system, that clearly states the priority of the issue, while lower priority issues can be influenced through votes to bump them up on the to-do lists. Priority should always be assessed by an expert, so a competent member of your team in my opinion.

jimsen wrote:

TheKrokodil wrote:

Raifs wrote:I would love to get some sort of direction what needs to be done, especially in some of the issue reports I have no idea what could be added to speed up the process. Take https://uthgard.org/tracker/issue/683/ as an example.

It contains chat logs from both uthgard and pendragon, an estimated formula and even patch notes as evidence and is not even assigend yet.

Votes.

Also notice that we only assign issues when we actually have the time to work on them, so as long as we are still fixing a different issue, we'll leave them as confirmed.

It is very hard as an external community member to get a grasp on the not really visible severity system you will surely use internally to prioritize maintenance and bugfixing processes and having just popularity as a gage for influencing it from the external via voting numbers.

A lot of people will not understand how severity ratings of issues should work and what they are for and will only vote up issues that directly influence them. In that way a lobby of players can effectively push their agendas combining their vote power, while screwing the real severity ratings up that do not get the lobby treatment.

You could argue that popularity equals influence on people, but with vote counts ranging in the single digits or the low double digits this is not representive compared to population and people will also not spend hours to vote and confirm every issue.

I would really appreciate a different system, that clearly states the priority of the issue, while lower priority issues can be influenced through votes to bump them up on the to-do lists. Priority should always be assessed by an expert, so a competent member of your team in my opinion.

Absolutely agree, like me posting animist bugs trying to recreate the monster that once was in 1.65. Yet... already 66.6% of the population loathes animists (alb & mid) so this could get downvoted to hell and affect class balance. This is just an example but there are a lot of areas that this type of vote system just does not work for.

Edit: I have noticed that some issues have been resolved with little or no votes though so hopefully things like class balance with adequate evidence will be picked out and fixed regardless of the voting system.

agree, the voting system could have its pitfalls (like in rl) but I think there is always the common sense approach of staff as a fallback ... so far they have proven to be fairly accurate in their overall vision of 1.65

@Kroko, great to see the issue tracker has the (absolutely necessary imho) feature to revisit resolved issues, thanks!

cheers

@Priorities:

Right now, we actually don't have a priority system for issues. Mostly because priorities always change depending on what issues are discovered, and also on how much time we have. If we have 1h of time on an evening after work, we're not going to spend it doing hours of research, but we'll use it to fix an obvious, easy-to-fix instead. The cost of context-switching is very real.

The only priority we have so far is the number of votes for an issue. When a GM/Developer/Staff member finishes their current issue and becomes free, they look at the top confirmed issues, and pick one they can solve. Given that higher voted issues appear higher on the list, they're more likely to be picked.

Adding priorities to the tracker would be possible, but I feel like it will end up in a maintenance hassle that won't really give us much of a benefit. Maybe a per-developer bug/task queue would be more appropriate, but I'm not even sure how well that would work.

Raifs wrote:Scroll down a bit and your question will be answered in the issue report itself.

It wasn't a bug, it's working as intented.

Not sure what you mean by working as intended. It is NOT working as they described it works.

0241: Poison status ailment not highlighting name green in party.

"The group window and mini-group window now show the additional following states by changing the affected player's name to an associated color. This functionality is present in Classic, Isles, and Trials of Atlantis clients. These states will be prioritized and displayed in the following order with the associated color in parenthesis: linkdead (blue), dead (red), mezzed (cyan), diseased (orange), poisoned (green), out of zone (grey), nominal (white) From patch 1.67."

The state poisoned (green) is not being displayed

Asca

ascanet wrote:

Raifs wrote:Scroll down a bit and your question will be answered in the issue report itself.

It wasn't a bug, it's working as intented.

Not sure what you mean by working as intended. It is NOT working as they described it works.

0241: Poison status ailment not highlighting name green in party.

"The group window and mini-group window now show the additional following states by changing the affected player's name to an associated color. This functionality is present in Classic, Isles, and Trials of Atlantis clients. These states will be prioritized and displayed in the following order with the associated color in parenthesis: linkdead (blue), dead (red), mezzed (cyan), diseased (orange), poisoned (green), out of zone (grey), nominal (white) From patch 1.67."

The state poisoned (green) is not being displayed

Asca

This freeshard is set to 1.65.

I am definitely interested in helping with the Angular 2 frontend, I will be in IRC!