PaleOne

Tone....Respect and Logic when dealing with the Dev's

143 posts in this topic

On 6/14/2017 at 5:18 PM, PaleOne said:

I have noticed that there is a real belligerent tone being used by some testers when speaking directly to the Dev's about their design choices.

I think you can get your point across without being disrespectful

Make an argument and back it up with facts and data not emotion and insults.

I have watched the Murder of Crows series and respect these guys and their experience.

I also am so very grateful that someone is willing to go out there and risk capital to build a pvp siege mmorpg.

 

I know we have all invested capital right alongside them with payment comes expectations, but we need to have patience and some faith.

ok, I`m confused about the whole topic. I will go in details like; you`re grateful that someone that is ACE is willing to go out there and risk capital to build a PvP siege mmorpg. Fine that`s an opinion and I respect that. And personally I`ve been away since last summer in 2016 almost based on software issues in connection with Crowfall and support who is Gordon Walton - hence lack of testing and feedback about the game at all,@PaleOne 

 

So who are so disrespectful in testing recently, and is`t a real problem the recent year in 2017?  

- I just disagree with ACE policy how they implement and coded the game client exe files related to stability of their product to be exact the game client in this stage since we invested into this project some years ago. 

It`s like writing a moral letter to the US goverment to talk about insurance in US for instant, what u like or maybe lack of insurance on the US continent.   

 

- Yes, we all want a successful epic siege battle mmorpg, and I hope ACE will be successful, because how much time sink you must endure to reach the end game content and pvp in other titles like the Elder scrolls online is horrific. :)

Edited by mythx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, mythx said:

So who are so disrespectful in testing recently, and is`t a real problem the recent year in 2017?

I would like to know this as well. You just dont create a thread like this because people got a little rough when providing their feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would actually potentially be against the rules to point out specific individuals and instances that might have been overboard.  The point of this thread is to talk about the general issue so people can read and reflect on it.

Bramble likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

It would actually potentially be against the rules to point out specific individuals and instances that might have been overboard.  The point of this thread is to talk about the general issue so people can read and reflect on it.

Makes sense. I just cant remember a case that would warrant this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall replying to an ACE thread once, that had been put up as a reminisce / their position and viewpoint on a past event in a past game.

I was motivated to reply, and that summed up to something like:

"I backed Crowfall because of YOU GUYS (at ACE)."  That they present well from an experience and background perspective, and they present well in front of a camera, and that I felt they were being honest in dealings with everyone.  That the event mentioned illustrated what kind of person that individual was (of good character) when faced with a bad situaton.

And I made the point that was actually more important to me than Crowfall itself.  Because even if Crowfall the Game ends up not to my liking, I'd still be willing to try other Art + Craft endeavors in the future.

Because of WHO I was backing.

I want Crowfall to succeed of course.  But they aren't on personal contract with me alone.  Crowfall the Game will take care of itself, one way or another, all by itself related to my personal desires.

Because for me it's really more about WHO I backed.  That's why the idea presented in the OP is important. It's about WHO we are backing.

In the long run that's what carries forward.

"Give a Man a Fish, and You Feed Him for a Day. Teach a Man To Fish, and You Feed Him for a Lifetime. 

Edited by Bramble
spelling & punctuation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

Yes, getting mad over it is ridiculous.  It's like being told if you touch a stove it will be hot, then getting mad when you touch the stove and it is hot.

I remember you. I think your issue is to think that peoply who play the current alpha client are something like unpaid testers doing professional unit / integration / system testing work. You should look up the term "user acceptance testing".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_acceptance_testing

Quote

In software testing the ISTQB defines acceptance as: formal testing with respect to user needs, requirements, and business processes conducted to determine whether a system satisfies the acceptance criteria and to enable the user, customers or other authorized entity to determine whether or not to accept the system.[2] Acceptance testing is also known as user acceptance testing (UAT), end-user testing, operational acceptance testing (OAT) or field (acceptance) testing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Doradur said:

I remember you. I think your issue is to think that peoply who play the current alpha client are something like unpaid testers doing professional unit / integration / system testing work. You should look up the term "user acceptance testing".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_acceptance_testing

 

I am sorry but ACE gives people access to pre-alpha tests, they make it clear what to expect.  If you get mad over something they warned you about ahead of time you are being silly. 

Also their testing is completely normal as far as what you can expect in mmorpg testing.

I'm not really concerned with your connotation of what testing should entail.  The mmorpg industry has 20 years under its belt of this kind of thing, and what ACE is doing as far as the types of things you would test is completely normal within this industry, and for anyone to get mad at it, whether it is normal or abnormal would be silly, because ACE has made it clear what to expect many times. 

Bramble likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

I am sorry but ACE gives people access to pre-alpha tests, they make it clear what to expect.  If you get mad over something they warned you about ahead of time you are being silly. 

Also their testing is completely normal as far as what you can expect in mmorpg testing.

I'm not really concerned with your connotation of what testing should entail.  The mmorpg industry has 20 years under its belt of this kind of thing, and what ACE is doing as far as the types of things you would test is completely normal within this industry, and for anyone to get mad at it, whether it is normal or abnormal would be silly, because ACE has made it clear what to expect many times. 

I find it funny that you act as if you knew how things work. Yet you are unable to even understand the point of my and other user's rather simple posts.

Noone is getting mad here. Noone talked about the testing procedure of ACE.

I talked about your lack of understanding of how the current alpha client serves as an user acceptance test for them. They want feedback from the end user, they need feedback from the end user. In one instance, in a YouTube video, Blair even complained about the lack of criticism: He said that while he is happy that many users gave positive feedback about the combat, it was not good enough for them and they decided to revamp it.

I am pointing out your patronizing style that belittles people who give legitimate feedback. You are alone with that stance. It's not in the interest of ACE, the game and definitely not of the players.

Edited by Doradur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Doradur said:

I find it funny that you act as if you knew how things work. Yet you are unable to even understand the point of my and other user's rather simple posts.

Noone is getting mad here. Noone talked about the testing procedure of ACE.

I talked about your lack of understanding of how the current alpha client serves as an user acceptance test for them. They want feedback from the end user, they need feedback from the end user. In one instance, in a YouTube video, Blair even complained about the lack of criticism: He said that while he is happy that many users gave positive feedback about the combat, it was not good enough for them and they decided to revamp it.

I am pointing out your patronizing style that belittles people who give legitimate feedback. You are alone with that stance. It's not in the interest of ACE, the game and definitely not of the players.

I think the issue here is that you don't understand the nature of their tests.  They've spelled it out pretty clearly.

This thread specifically exists to talk about the issue of people taking a disrespectful tone towards ACE when they are frustrated with the testing.  This occurs because people are either ill-informed about the nature of the tests (not ace's fault, they've done so much to let people to know what to expect) or because they simply lack general respect and courtesy for others. 

I think you are ill-informed about how combat was received.  They got TONS of feedback against their combat, and they had to revamp it. 

"Legitimate" feedback is done respectfully, logically, and calmly.  I'm also clearly not alone, as many people seem to understand the nature of these tests, and many are often concerned with the abuse ACE takes for things that they've generally gone out of their way to alleviate.  People just don't grasp things properly at times and that's on them. 

You keep trying to insinuate that I don't understand the nature of the tests.  Well ACE has spelled it out clearly, you seem to be pushing concepts that contradict with what they've often said about the tests, and they've tried to manage people's expectations, some people just don't care and would rather rage.  Or in this case, some people have their own connotation of testing, and seem to just flat out ignore that this is ACE's version of testing, and that means that what you've read on wikipedia is irrelevant.  The only thing that is relevant here is what ACE wants out of their own tests, what they've done to inform people of those desires, and whether they've done enough to reasonably alleviate frustrations people might develop.  They don't deserve some of the disrespect they've been getting.

Edit:  You can give ACE feedback on anything, and they will probably take it more seriously if you do it in a respectful way.  I'm not sure why you are trying to argue here.  Are you saying that even though ACE has warned people that the tests may not be fun, and the people are logging in voluntarily, that it is somehow reasonable for them to get angry and hostile and disrespectful towards ACE?

Edited by VIKINGNAIL
Duffy and Bramble like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

User Acceptance testing happens at the end of a production cycle, it's the last step before final delivery of a promised product. We are at least a year away from that. You do not do acceptance testing during a pre-alpha because by definition lots of things will be missing. If people are treating pre-alpha that way the problem is with them not ACE. The closest analogue to what we we are doing today is a combination of low level Unit and Integration testing. Eventually that will shift to include something resembling System Testing somewhere in the alpha/beta stages when the whole game loop is accessible. The last round of Beta will be the closest thing to a User Acceptance Test. 

I don't think anyone said criticism is bad or useless, just that you can be specific and polite while delivering it instead of general and rude. The developers are human, and while I'm sure they try to find useful information even in the 'worst' comments I'm sure the tone ends up impacting them in some way eventually, whether they are entirely conscious of it or not. Are we really debating if polite and factual criticism would not be of greater value?

Edited by Duffy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

You keep trying to insinuate that I don't understand the nature of the tests.  Well ACE has spelled it out clearly, you seem to be pushing concepts that contradict with what they've often said about the tests, and they've tried to manage people's expectations, some people just don't care and would rather rage.  Or in this case, some people have their own connotation of testing, and seem to just flat out ignore that this is ACE's version of testing, and that means that what you've read on wikipedia is irrelevant.  The only thing that is relevant here is what ACE wants out of their own tests, what they've done to inform people of those desires, and whether they've done enough to reasonably alleviate frustrations people might develop.  They don't deserve some of the disrespect they've been getting.

You only speak about yourself. You don't understand the nature of the tests. You ignore what this test is about. I have never seen anyone share your opinion that playing the current alpha (or "pre-alpha") client amounts to doing unpaid free labor. And definitely not any of the devs.

I'll try it again: ACE wants feedback from the end user, from his specific point of view.

They are smart enough to know, that the end user will not have insight in the whole context, and can filter out the irrelevant feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Duffy said:

User Acceptance testing happens at the end of a production cycle, it's the last step before final delivery of a promised product. We are at least a year away from that. You do not do acceptance testing during a pre-alpha because by definition lots of things will be missing. If people are treating pre-alpha that way the problem is with them not ACE. The closest analogue to what we we are doing today is a combination of low level Unit and Integration testing. Eventually that will shift to include something resembling System Testing somewhere in the alpha/beta stages when the whole game loop is accessible. The last round of Beta will be the closest thing to a User Acceptance Test. 

I don't think anyone said criticism is bad or useless, just that you can be specific and polite while delivering it instead of general and rude. The developers are human, and while I'm sure they try to find useful information even in the 'worst' comments I'm sure the tone ends up impacting them in some way eventually, whether they are entirely conscious of it or not. Are we really debating if polite and factual criticism would not be of greater value?

It was not meant to say that this is only an user acceptance test. But it definitely is neither an unit, integration nor system test in a professional sense. For that we would need access to unlimited in-game resources, dev powers and so on.

I am not debating the rudeness. I don't follow these forums much anymore and don't know what this is about.

But I am pretty sure that the climate would be much better, if there were less wipes, item loss, less grind and more actual alpha testing tools like said unlimited resources.

Edited by Doradur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, the closet analogue is that level of testing aka specific features and how those features interact with new features when they are brought on line. Eventually it will transition to more of a general ongoing System Test once enough systems are added. We're in that transition phase now that they are no longer doing Hunger Dome or Siege Perilous and are instead building up the basis of the Campaign system. Due to this open and free-form nature of testing, it's not quite the same form as the professional version, I agree. But that's a symptom of lack of control or authority over the 'testers' and not a side effect of the process.

The sort of tools you're talking about are very useful for specific testing, but they are also a crutch that would be abused by the 'player-base' to get around system and integration testing. Thus many systems would end up getting less eyes on it as they are easily circumvented with those sort of tools. That's without getting into having to lock down the testing tools to avoid abuse, stability issues, or other general tomfoolery. If they seriously wanted to open up access to that sort of tool and unit testing they would need to strictly control who has access to those tools and in what environment (maybe it's a potential EK testable thing?). I could not imagine opening those sort of tools to a general audience on a public environment.

Edited by Duffy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Doradur said:

You only speak about yourself. You don't understand the nature of the tests. You ignore what this test is about. I have never seen anyone share your opinion that playing the current alpha (or "pre-alpha") client amounts to doing unpaid free labor. And definitely not any of the devs.

I'll try it again: ACE wants feedback from the end user, from his specific point of view.

They are smart enough to know, that the end user will not have insight in the whole context, and can filter out the irrelevant feedback.

No, it seems you don't understand the nature of the tests. 

Uh, there are plenty of people that understand that testing things right now is a favor for ACE and that they are not going to be paid for it, as a matter of fact they paid ACE to help them out. 

I'll try it again:  ACE does not need to be disrespected when you give feedback to them.  If you are angry about a "test" then chances are you do not understand the nature of this testing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, VIKINGNAIL said:

No, it seems you don't understand the nature of the tests. 

Uh, there are plenty of people that understand that testing things right now is a favor for ACE and that they are not going to be paid for it, as a matter of fact they paid ACE to help them out. 

I'll try it again:  ACE does not need to be disrespected when you give feedback to them.  If you are angry about a "test" then chances are you do not understand the nature of this testing. 

I am sorry, this makes no sense. You are caught in a circular loop of flawed logic and wrong assumptions.

It even contradicts what you said about user feedback having influence on the combat revamp.

Honestly I think that your contributions are the least worthy on these forums. The devs are professional enough to ignore some rudeness. But constant derailing of topics and belittling of constructive feedback, to the point that noone wants to join the discussion, isn't healthy for a discussion board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Doradur said:

I am sorry, this makes no sense. You are caught in a circular loop of flawed logic and wrong assumptions.

It even contradicts what you said about user feedback having influence on the combat revamp.

Honestly I think that your contributions are the least worthy on these forums. The devs are professional enough to ignore some rudeness. But constant derailing of topics and belittling of constructive feedback, to the point that noone wants to join the discussion, isn't healthy for a discussion board.

No, nothing I've said contradicts the concept of giving feedback.  Nor does it contradict anything I've said about feedback influencing combat revamp. 

If you can find anything I've said that states people shouldn't give feedback go right ahead and quote it.  However, I have said people should be respectful when giving feedback. 

It's also of course ironic that you are accusing me of derailing topics, when you are the one trying to dance around the topic of this thread. 

It's also pretty clear that you disagree on the nature of these tests, but I think it's wiser for everyone to go by what ACE has clearly laid out as far as what they hope to accomplish in these tests, it's not intuitive to try and stick to whatever definition you have, when it simply isn't relevant to what ACE is doing and intends for their own tests.  You have to learn to adapt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Doradur

I and most of my group share the opinion that participating at this stage is voluntary free testing for the most part. There is only marginal value to the player because this is a pre-alpha, lots is missing and lots will change before it ever matters to us on an individual level.

Most of my motivation is for learning about how the game works to give myself a bit of leg up and build some out of game tools so that when we get to release I'm ready out the gate. If that results in some feedback for ACE, all the better. But I personally will not be constantly messing with every single little thing in the interests of testing or trying to 'play' the current pre-alpha test as if it's a real game (because it's not and it's not going to be anytime soon). I'm just not interested in doing that or spending the time right now. I'm hoping that it eventually gets complete enough to be a generally fun way to spend time despite being in an alpha/beta form, but I don't think that will happen until at least the real campaigns are up running smoothly.

I don't really want to keep this going because I don't think anything new is being said, but I felt that some evidence to the contrary may help you formulate a better view of the current state of 'testing'.

Edited by Duffy
Doradur likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like the paying diner at the restaurant the paying tester here is entitled to their opinion and this forum is the place to air out any and all grievances pertaining to the tests/game.   

Just like the paying customer at a restaurant who is rude to the servers or curses the cooks when they don't get what they want, the paying tester who acts the same can be assumed to not be a pleasant person; I'm not going to tell them they can't do it (because it's their right) but I can certainly judge them and subsequently categorize them as such for doing so.   

I don't understand why we need a thread that essentially says, "don't be a d**k."  

Duffy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Duffy said:

@Doradur

I and most of my group share the opinion that participating at this stage is voluntary free testing for the most part. There is only marginal value to the player because this is a pre-alpha, lots is missing and lots will change before it ever matters to us on an individual level.

Most of my motivation is for learning about how the game works to give myself a bit of leg up and build some out of game tools so that when we get to release I'm ready out the gate. If that results in some feedback for ACE, all the better. But I personally will not be constantly messing with every single little thing in the interests of testing or trying to 'play' the current pre-alpha test as if it's a real game (because it's not and it's not going to be anytime soon). I'm just not interested in doing that or spending the time right now. I'm hoping that it eventually gets complete enough to be a generally fun way to spend time despite being in an alpha/beta form, but I don't think that will happen until at least the real campaigns are up running smoothly.

I don't really want to keep this going because I don't think anything new is being said, but I felt that some evidence to the contrary may help you formulate a better view of the current state of 'testing'.

You misunderstood me. VikingNail thinks the "pre-alpha" client we have access to is some sort of professional test bed, and that we were meant to treat it as such. But of course that's wrong. We players want to play. The devs want to see how the specific game elements work in the hand of the end user. They don't expect a professional quality assurance attitude.

I thought it was necessary to point out this problem of "free labor" approach, because it would necessarily lead to massive disrespect of the player base. The prime example is "Landmark", a massive failure on many different levels. One of those was that the devs treated their "alpha testers" like free laborers. The "Landmark" forums had no choice but to become a rude place; for the simple reason that the responsible people there didn't deserve respect.

And that's the connection to the topic in case it was lost to someone.

Edited by Doradur
mythx likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.