Founders’ Update: Testing, tees and Tapp-in a Hat - Official discussion thread

[Pann 8,689]

From the ACE co-founders comes an update about the testing process and some Crowfall Store offers

 

FULL STORY

[McTan 3,104]

Just as a check-in: the major combat changes that were announced/discussed here have not all been implemented yet.  In particular, the root motion JTodd covered here (3:10) has not appeared to be addressed to me yet.  I noticed the obligatory, "combat is never finished" statement, but that still seems like an outlying problem of a different kind. I know I still get very frustrated with chasing people (i.e. they are at 10 percent and get nailed by snares but still manage to dance their way around for 30 seconds).

 

I'm really calling for maintained momentum with attacks, so I can keep hitting someone who is running, if they let me in range in the first place.  That is, if my group skillfully executes a chain-pull and legio snare, that person should be in serious trouble: they should definitely (and do) have counters, but simply pressing 'w' should not be one of them, IMO.  Perhaps a natural movement penalty for getting hit from behind while running, too?  Not sure.

 

P.S. Methinks it's time for a shirt!

Edited February 10, 2016 by mctan

[courant101 5,755]

"As a reminder, our testing process is to start our testing with the team, our families and the Pre-Alpha 1 and Pre-Alpha 2 groups."

 

Looks like Alpha 1 folks just lost their privilege of participating in the earliest playtests and now have to pay at least another $500 to get it back.

[Jah 8,372]

"As a reminder, our testing process is to start our testing with the team, our families and the Pre-Alpha 1 and Pre-Alpha 2 groups."

 

Looks like Alpha 1 folks just lost their privilege of participating in the earliest playtests and now have to pay at least another $500 to get it back.

 

Can you explain what you are talking about here? I see a reminder of the way they phase in testers, not a change to anyone's privileges.

[courant101 5,755]

Can you explain what you are talking about here? I see a reminder of the way they phase in testers, not a change to anyone's privileges.

 

In the last few months, when they needed extra people to test the earliest phase of a build, they were asking Alpha 1 testers to join in.

 

From what I've understood, now they removed this privilege from Alpha 1 testers and gave it to people who pledged $1,000-5,000.

 

Maybe I missed something though.

[oberon 2,473]

That sounds right Courant. I'd obviously like to be testing as soon as possible but at least we get some comfort knowing most of the alpha 1's are the people that show up consistently and it won't be long before they need us

Edited February 10, 2016 by oberon

[Jihan 5,468]

People who had pre-alpha already still have it (pre-alpha 1). Some people who had Alpha 1 are now being moved up to pre-alpha 2. ACE decided they needed a more gradual rollout process than jumping straight from the tiny pre-alpha group to the full Alpha 1 group, and they decided to do that based on dollars spent which is a perfectly reasonable move.

[Arkade 4,155]

In the last few months, when they needed extra people to test the earliest phase of a build, they were asking Alpha 1 testers to join in.

 

From what I've understood, now they removed this privilege from Alpha 1 testers and gave it to people who pledged $1,000-5,000.

 

Maybe I missed something though.

That will still be true. The only difference is that people who paid more will get in first. If anything, maybe you'll get in a day later than you would have otherwise. Considering that the game is still officially in pre-alpha, I'm grateful that I've gotten the opportunity to test as an alpha 1 player.

 

But if it matters that much to you, pony up the dough

[courant101 5,755]

People who had pre-alpha already still have it (pre-alpha 1). Some people who had Alpha 1 are now being moved up to pre-alpha 2. ACE decided they needed a more gradual rollout process than jumping straight from the tiny pre-alpha group to the full Alpha 1 group, and they decided to do that based on dollars spent which is a perfectly reasonable move.

 

Afaik ACE never jumped straight from a tiny pre-alpha group to the full Alpha 1 group. They did it gradually by inviting first the Pre-Alpha backers and the Alpha 1 backers who pledged first (depending on how many they needed). Then invited additional Alpha 1 backers periodically until they get them all in.

 

Since summer 2015: Pre-Alpha + earliest Alpha 1 supporters

Now: Pre-Alpha + $1,000 supporters

 

I fail to see how this change could be a "perfectly reasonable move". Of course, financially it may be beneficial since it adds another incentive to spend $1,000 or more, but removing a privilege to the backers who supported the game first, with +$500 total pledge, and giving this privilege to anyone who spends $1,000 may be detrimental in the end.

[courant101 5,755]

That will still be true. The only difference is that people who paid more will get in first. If anything, maybe you'll get in a day later than you would have otherwise. Considering that the game is still officially in pre-alpha, I'm grateful that I've gotten the opportunity to test as an alpha 1 player.

 

The only difference is that the #1, #3, #6, #11 backers who pledged $500 got replaced by #7,489, #16,920, #21,495 backers who pledged +$1,000.

 

Creating a new group and removing a privilege that was given 5 months ago to get more people to pay $1,000 is not right imo.

[VIKINGNAIL 5,680]

The only difference is that the #1, #3, #6, #11 backers who pledged $500 got replaced by #7,489, #16,920, #21,495 backers who pledged +$1,000.

 

Creating a new group and removing a privilege that was given 5 months ago to get more people to pay $1,000 is not right imo.

I agree with this sentiment... the reality of it is that someone who spends that much though will probably look into the game quite a bit before dropping money on it.  I also imagine that for the most part this won't impact very many people.

 

Also testing is at a stage where I feel alpha 1s will still get in pretty quickly from here on out?

 

I agree with you, but I also feel that this change specifically won't be a big deal... though it may be indicative of a direction that could be troubling.

[FrostSword 194]

Can't wait for March to come!

 

The only difference is that the #1, #3, #6, #11 backers who pledged $500 got replaced by #7,489, #16,920, #21,495 backers who pledged +$1,000.

 

Creating a new group and removing a privilege that was given 5 months ago to get more people to pay $1,000 is not right imo.

 

While this is true that some people who pledge later may get into testing earlier than those who may have pledged earlier but at a lower amount, I think the end goal and purpose outweighs this fact.

 

I'd be foolish if I said there was no market incentive present, but I think (and I could very well be totally wrong), the main goal here is to go back and get a smaller group in testing just like they did with combat test. The smaller the test group the easier it is to knock out super huge issues (like they said in the article), and that is how most people test. I honestly don't think the number of new pledges at the higher levels is so much that it will drastically  effect the time for the people at lower levels to get in. I don't think the motive is to make people pay more, or to directly reward later backers at higher levels. I think it is simply we are approaching another major test cycle and are resetting.

 

To be honest, I'm not scared this could lead to going in the wrong direction later. That is a lot of trust in the devs, but from my perspective, it makes sense what they are doing, and I have no problem waiting a bit longer for the next sequence once the major bugs have been tackled to get in. Am I naive in that regard? Maybe. But that is my two cents.

Edited February 11, 2016 by FrostSword

[courant101 5,755]

I'd be naive if i said there was no market incentive present, but I think (and I could very well be totally wrong), the main goal here is to go back and get a smaller group in testing just like they did with combat test. The smaller the test group the easier it is to knock out super huge issues (like they said in the article), and that is how most people test. I honestly don't think the number of new pledges at the higher levels is so much that it will drastically  effect the time for the people at lower levels to get in. I don't think the motive is to make people pay more, or to directly reward later backers at higher levels. I think it is simply we are approaching another major test cycle and are resetting.

 

I don't understand how having 5 Pre-Alpha and 25x $1K backers is going to make a better or smaller group than 5 Pre-Alpha and 25x $500 backers.

[Tyrant 6,553]

This change to add Pre-Alpha 2 basically let's us get another ~75 potential testers (which means <15 people participating any given test in reality) into our earliest behind the scenes testing (we needed a bigger pre-alpha group just to do our initial testing, there are only ~24 Diamond/Bloodstone backers).  Since we start inviting in Alpha 1 players in groups of 400 at a time, it actually won't change when Alpha 1 players would get an invite, it just gives us more concurrent people for our initial testing which hopefully means less bugs before we do start ramping up a given test.

 

Seeing someone else's gain as your loss is normal I guess, but it won't change when any Alpha 1 player would be invited.  We've changed pledge package rewards before this, and will probably have to change a few more before we launch, but we work to make the changes positive for folks affected by those changes.

[FrostSword 194]

I don't understand how having 5 Pre-Alpha and 25x $1K backers is going to make a better or smaller group than 5 Pre-Alpha and 25x $500 backers.

 

Part of the reality is that's how it has been set up, those who pay more get earlier access.

 

I came into this with a more cyclical mindset (which may or may not be how the devs are approaching it. this is just my perspective and what i expected). A major thing is being worked on (let's say combat) so we go through the levels (within ACE->families->pre-alpha->alpha1->etc). Then once that test cycle is ending and the new major thing is coming (such as destruction) we roll back and start with a smaller group (relative to the size at the end of the previous cycle: in this case adding a couple extra people based on pledge levels) and do it again.

 

I don't want to set up a straw man, so if you would like to share what you think might be an alternative method, that could help me understand where you are coming from.

 

Odds are this won't change right now, but a good argument and discussion would at least provide useful feedback.

Edited February 11, 2016 by FrostSword

[courant101 5,755]

This change to add Pre-Alpha 2 basically let's us get another ~75 potential testers (which means <15 people participating any given test in reality) into our earliest behind the scenes testing (we needed a bigger pre-alpha group just to do our initial testing, there are only ~24 Diamond/Bloodstone backers).  Since we start inviting in Alpha 1 players in groups of 400 at a time, it actually won't change when Alpha 1 players would get an invite, it just gives us more concurrent people for our initial testing which hopefully means less bugs before we do start ramping up a given test.

 

Seeing someone else's gain as your loss is normal I guess, but it won't change when any Alpha 1 player would be invited.  We've changed pledge package rewards before this, and will probably have to change a few more before we launch, but we work to make the changes positive for folks affected by those changes.

 

I understand all of this and it makes sense to me, but I think that it doesn't change the negative impact on the Alpha 1 testers, which is that every time you'll need more players to test the earliest build, you'll ask for those who paid +$1,000 rather than doing what we were used to: picking in the +$500 pool. If the behind the scene tests require more precautions in regard to sharing images/videos, for example, then I guess it probably makes sense to have a distinct new group.

 

Saying "We've changed pledge package rewards before this, and will probably have to change a few more before launch..." doesn't legitimize any current decision imo, and on the contrary I think that any alteration to the initial deal (money pledged for the list of rewards), but in extreme cases, should be avoided.

[reselath 58]

Generally if someone pays for something, they should have it, so removing, revoking, or changing anything to a backers reward or access level should be done with a good bit of scrutiny and thought. Just my two cents. 

[courant101 5,755]

I don't want to set up a straw man, so if you would like to share what you think might be an alternative method, that could help me understand where you are coming from.

 

The alternative I'm discussing is to make no change. If they need more people, they would do as they were doing, asking Alpha 1 folks to help. Pretty sure A1 people are as helpful and dedicated as Ruby and Emerald testers. Now that the decision is took, I guess it's pointless to talk about alternatives, but I believe that criticisms can always be considered (or not) for future decision-making processes. 

[Arkade 4,155]

I understand all of this and it makes sense to me, but I think that it doesn't change the negative impact on the Alpha 1 testers, which is that every time you'll need more players to test the earliest build, you'll ask for those who paid +$1,000 rather than doing what we were used to: picking in the +$500 pool. If the behind the scene tests require more precautions in regard to sharing images/videos, for example, then I guess it probably makes sense to have a distinct new group.

 

Saying "We've changed pledge package rewards before this, and will probably have to change a few more before launch..." doesn't legitimize any current decision imo, and on the contrary I think that any alteration to the initial deal (money pledged for the list of rewards), but in extreme cases, should be avoided.

I'm sorry, but your complaint seems petty and childish. Nowhere in the package did it say that alpha 1 testers would be able to play during pre-alpha testing, so you've already gotten much more than your bargained for. Perspective.

[courant101 5,755]

I'm sorry, but your complaint seems petty and childish. Nowhere in the package did it say that alpha 1 testers would be able to play during pre-alpha testing, so you've already gotten much more than your bargained for. Perspective.

 

True, but Alpha, according to the Kickstarter page, was planned for Summer 2015, so I fail to see how Alpha 1 folks got "much more than we bargained for", nor how it's relevant to the current discussion.

 

"First release (with partial functionality) will begin alpha testing in late Summer 2015."

 

"Alpha testing for certain features of the core module will begin at the end of Summer, 2015."

Edited February 11, 2016 by courant101