Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
dustydrool187

Big World Step-BACK

Recommended Posts

Went through a dozen turkey legs in less than 10 minutes doing a 2v1 on my legio last night.  Hunger/eating mechanics need some work!  Would also be nice if we could socket food into an unused ability slot.  I literally died last night because my food was in the bottom row of my inventory and when I opened the inventory to eat mid fight the food dragged and I could not cancel the dialog box..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The assertions that Crowfall "isn't a survival game," from people who aren't on the dev team, are pretty funny.

 

The devs said it's a mix of things and the survival mechanics are merely a part of many things the game is intended to be. Regardless, testers opinions that the current mechanics suck are pretty important to listen to if you want the game to be successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant, redirect without crushing. But that's ok too.

 

I understand that. And your heart is in the right place. Nevertheless, my replies depend a lot on what i've heard from or have come to know about people (be it in the forums, the ingame chat, voice chats or other sources) up to the point of my reply. So they will vary from person to person, from situation to situation and from time to time, as i see them fit. And this did fit. Other cases are other cases and you will read different replies from me, depending on them. If they are appropriate or reasonable, thats an answer others have to give. And in case of the best reply, you will recognize both answers.

Edited by Kraahk

2W1ZHpA.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, NOW is about the only time they can ratchet difficulty up to 11.

 

If you want to make a hard game, you start in testing by making it too hard, then listen to the comments, find the biggest pain points, tone down those pain points, and see what people start squawking about something else.

 

Sometimes that means deliberately making things stupid bad/hard.  

 

Also it is VERY VERY hard to get the right balance. Sometimes things like "Lose 30% durability" sounds like it's not hard enough, but only if you have certain assumptions about how long it takes to replace gear. If for example you are expecting shops to have available large quantities of low end gear because of factories, then that 30% isn't really that bad, where as if everyone has to personally spend an hour on each piece of gear, yea 30% is really egregious.

 

These things are all working in unison, so that pulling on one lever is also pushing on three others because of the relationships.

 

What the Devs know that we don't (or don't pay attention to), is what actual scarcity of resources looks like.  For example the food issue. I know there are "Farm" parcels, that will probably spit food out in abundance in the early stages of the world, so maybe hunger speed is not bad and can be thought of more like healing potions or something. There are other types of factories as well, that will produce a variety of resources en mass, so other things that are time consuming now won't be later.

 

The real question I have to wonder about, is how much is harvesting in it's current format part of the base line supply, and how much is factory?

 

Given all the moving input values, who actually knows what decay value is correct? Nobody.  It sure feels way way too high now, and should be toned down once, but I would rather they add in the correct inputs first (resource production node tuning and factories), than keep tinkering with the time/productivity equation while inputs are changing.

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to keep harping on the same point a lot, I think.

 

A lot of the people who are logging in during pre-alpha testing really shouldn't be logging in during pre-alpha testing. A lot of people seem to be logging in under false pretenses, no matter how much the devs tell them "this isn't the finished product. this isn't even CLOSE to the finished product."

 

If you log on during pre-alpha, you're basically logging on in a world that is usually only populated by people who are literally paid to jump up and down while running toward this wall over here. The people who do dedicated game testing usually get paid for it, but because we paid to fund this game, they are giving us the opportunity to see the game in progress every step of the way.

 

Yes, sometimes the timeline is not what was promised. That has always been the case, though. But previously, developers and big companies like Electronic Arts, who are well familiar with this process, were the only ones who knew or cared.

 

If you want this game to succeed, be a good tester. Or just let other people do the testing and come back later. Nobody owes you a finished product DURING PRE-ALPHA. Pre-alpha is how you *get* to a finished product. Meticulous testing until everything works. Constructive feedback is important and appreciated. But so is a bit of self control.

 

Paid video game testers generally spend their time testing the video game. They pick specific things they want to test, and they test them until they have concrete results.

 

What we are seeing now is a small handful of people who think this is somehow analogous to the finished product, so they run around trying to play the game like it's finished, killing people who are in the middle of actually testing things and full-looting their bodies, then complaining how the game is too hard despite literally having never played "the game," because - and I can't reiterate this enough - this isn't the game; it is pre-alpha.

 

My complaints will remain the same until I see people recognize them - so forever. People need to treat this like a test environment. Every person who treats pre-alpha like it's a finished product actively hampers people who are trying to treat pre-alpha like pre-alpha. That means you are literally slowing down progress, AND THEN COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW SLOW PROGRESS IS.

 

tl;dr: ACE has actually been unusually generous by letting us play during a stage of development that is usually completely closed off to the consumers. Maybe stop complaining about *every single thing you don't like in pre-alpha*. If you don't like it so much, come back for later test environments. The ones that are designed to resemble and refine the finished product.

Edited by goose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 Every person who treats pre-alpha like it's a finished product actively hampers people who are trying to treat pre-alpha like pre-alpha. That means you are literally slowing down progress, AND THEN COMPLAINING ABOUT HOW SLOW PROGRESS IS.

 

tl;dr: ACE has actually been unusually generous by letting us play during a stage of development that is usually completely closed off to the consumers. Maybe stop complaining about *every single thing you don't like in pre-alpha*. If you don't like it so much, come back for later test environments. The ones that are designed to resemble and refine the finished product.

 

That first bit could be a signature.

 

ACE if they are smart will ignore the emotion projected in posts, and simply stick to as close to a factual interpretation of what people are saying when they are running away with their emotions.

 

This links to the best game development speaker and lecture I have heard. Magic the Gathering head designer Mark Rosewater "Twenty Years, Twenty Lessons Learned".

 

Lesson 19 : "Your audience is good at recognizing problems, and bad at solving them."

 

https://youtu.be/QHHg99hwQGY?t=3411

 

 

.  

Edited by KrakkenSmacken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That first bit could be a signature.

 

ACE if they are smart will ignore the emotion projected in posts, and simply stick to as close to a factual interpretation of what people are saying when they are running away with their emotions.

 

This links to the best game development speaker and lecture I have heard. Magic the Gathering head designer Mark Rosewater things he has learnt from 20 years of game development.

 

Lesson 19 : "Your audience is good at recognizing problems, and bad at solving them."

 

https://youtu.be/QHHg99hwQGY?t=3411

 

 

.  

I've seen Mark Rosewater take a lot of poorly made socks from people over the years, but more people play Magic now than ever before, so clearly he must suck at his job.

 

....wait.

 

Edit: I love what this forum does to profanity. XD

 

I actually wanted to work for him for maybe... A third of my life? Half of it? But I realized that I wasn't actually patient enough to be a full-timer at R&D. Part time alpha tester for Crowfall is much more my speed. But that means that I also am more familiar than most with how much work and how little job satisfaction there is in game testing - I have done more research on the subject than most people, because for a chunk of my life I was actively pursuing doing it for a living.

Edited by goose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen Mark Rosewater take a lot of poorly made socks from people over the years, but more people play Magic now than ever before, so clearly he must suck at his job.

 

....wait.

 

Edit: I love what this forum does to profanity. XD

 

I actually wanted to work for him for maybe... A third of my life? Half of it? But I realized that I wasn't actually patient enough to be a full-timer at R&D. Part time alpha tester for Crowfall is much more my speed. But that means that I also am more familiar than most with how much work and how little job satisfaction there is in game testing - I have done more research on the subject than most people, because for a chunk of my life I was actively pursuing doing it for a living.

Goose! *hugz*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am kinda sick of the modern "survival" games. It seems to me that every single one of the new games in the genre is missing the point - survival should not be about tedious work to maintain resources from environment filled with resources. It should be about managing the scarce resources you have in an environment that is starved of them - choosing what to do to get to what precious little the world has to offer, when to sneak or seek another path or take a risk and go straight forward or take advantage of the environment and construct an ambush and lure your enemies into it. Time itself should not be the enemy but what what roams around you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they actually want more than 10 people to log in to test their game then they better make it a lot less tedious for us to do so.

Significantly more than 10 people have been logging in to test their game. Concurrently. On each of their servers.

 

Seems fine.

 

Edit: You know, in point of fact, this statement kind of irritates me. For the majority of pre-alpha testing, you don't actually NEED a large body of testers. A usual team of pre-alpha game testers is pretty frickin' small. Like, half a dozen people.

 

They have opened their pre-alpha gameplay up to us as a courtesy. They didn't need to do it. They could just have asked the community who wanted in and only accepted 5 people with actual game-testing credentials if they wanted to. Hell, they may have done exactly that - you don't know. There may be a private server where a small team of professional game testers work concurrently with the open servers.

 

Sure, we also serve as an extra body of test data, but the assumption that our data is the only - or even the most important - data is both baseless and arrogant.

 

That said, even if we are 99% of the testers, it sure looks like they're getting most of their data. Even if it feels to me like half my efforts are wasted, it isn't like they've given me a specific directive to test. If they had, I'd do it, but since they didn't, I feel comfortable assuming that they've got their end handled.

Edited by goose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Significantly more than 10 people have been logging in to test their game. Concurrently. On each of their servers.

 

Seems fine.

 

Edit: You know, in point of fact, this statement kind of irritates me. For the majority of pre-alpha testing, you don't actually NEED a large body of testers. A usual team of pre-alpha game testers is pretty frickin' small. Like, half a dozen people.

They have opened their pre-alpha gameplay up to us as a courtesy. They didn't need to do it. They could just have asked the community who wanted in and only accepted 5 people with actual game-testing credentials if they wanted to. Hell, they may have done exactly that - you don't know. There may be a private server where a small team of professional game testers work concurrently with the open servers.

 

Sure, we also serve as an extra body of test data, but the assumption that our data is the only - or even the most important - data is both baseless and arrogant.

 

That said, even if we are 99% of the testers, it sure looks like they're getting most of their data. Even if it feels to me like half my efforts are wasted, it isn't like they've given me a specific directive to test. If they had, I'd do it, but since they didn't, I feel comfortable assuming that they've got their end handled.

 

A courtesy? LOl they're charging 100 bucks for pre alpha right now. Iv played the last month and I have not seen more than 20-30 people on at a time. And that's rather weak seeing they sent out over 9k invites. This last test with the tediousness of it I havnt seen more than 10-15 people

On at a time. They can have all the tiny hidden test groups they want but when the general population is saying the game isn't fun then it's probably not fun.


                          Grief-super-small.png

https://twitch.TV/Badatron  

https://www.GriefGaming.pro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A courtesy? LOl they're charging 100 bucks for pre alpha right now. Iv played the last month and I have not seen more than 20-30 people on at a time. And that's rather weak seeing they sent out over 9k invites. This last test with the tediousness of it I havnt seen more than 10-15 people

On at a time. They can have all the tiny hidden test groups they want but when the general population is saying the game isn't fun then it's probably not fun.

Where'd you get the 9k invite figure from? The only mention I saw of a figure around that size was for the test starting on December 16th - the one that's going to include the first wave of Beta testers.

 

There's only a couple hundred people with pre-alpha privileges. o.O

 

Edit: lol. Wow, I'm using old data everywhere today.

 

So yeah, there's somewhere south of 10k people invited to Big World as of now, but apparently more than 60% of those people actually logged on. That means that, for a job that usually gets done by a team of 5 people, they've had around 5,000 people log in.

 

Sorry, what was your complaint again? Low turnout, you said?

Edited by goose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to keep harping on the same point a lot, I think.

 

Most people who don't listen to the other side tend to repeat themselves. You seem to be waiting for us to agree, but we won't.

 

Our opinion is testing is meant to test and provide feedback. The OP provided feedback on how he felt about game mechanics. And you came fanboying over to the defense of ACE who didn't ask for your protection. OP made valid points and I completely agree with them. These were changes that were implemented from one test to the next and we have expressed that we don't like them.

 

You can point out that we don't know entirely know the end game, but you don't either. If we don't mold it with our feedback, we have no excuse to complain about the final product. If ACE ignores our feedback and their game ends up sucking, they have no excuse for not listening to our feedback.

 

They have opened their pre-alpha gameplay up to us as a courtesy.

 

Really? We paid more than retail to test this game which is often a paid job. They want our feedback and probably can't afford many paid testers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where'd you get the 9k invite figure from?

 

Tyrant told us so.

 

Kickstarter Beta 1 backers (the Backer package) who backed our Kickstarter campaign between 2/24/15 and 2/26/15 (through backer number 7795) have been invited into Big World testing. Over 10,000 backers are now invited into testing Big World (and over 60% of those have played in testing during 2016).

[...]

P.S. I added the Beta 1 folks through Kickstarter backer number 14466, this brings us to over 11,000 people invited. Next addition will probably be during the next testing period.

However. Much more interesting:

 

when the general population is saying the game isn't fun

 

It's always funny to see single persons with huge post counts like "10" (and by this fact proving their tremendous knowledge about and dedication to crowfall) referring to themselves as the general population. Especially if the play the old "no, no, it's already a game and no test and this game just isn't good enough to be a game" game.

 

No, that was unfair. I know it and i regret it. Every single voice is important. But nevertheless i had to write it. Because those postings just sound like some people have been paid to post such things. Maybe it's just to make yourself a name within the community for future purposes. That would make sense and would be abslutely ok. In both ways i just couldn't take any of these postings serious anymore (if i ever did). But then again, it's a game. Or it will be one day. And the act of playing is opposite to the act of being serious. So, regarding this, maybe you are just right doing it your way. :) Like Confucius said: Who cales, but nice talking to you.

Edited by Kraahk

2W1ZHpA.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs said it's a mix of things and the survival mechanics are merely a part of many things the game is intended to be. Regardless, testers opinions that the current mechanics suck are pretty important to listen to if you want the game to be successful.

Exactly. Dismissing every comment or feedback that its just a test is pretty silly. The reason we are testing is because they NEED OUR FEED BACK.

 

They put something in game to test, people test it, if the feedback is negative then they know, if the feedback is positive, then they know. But to say the people giving feedback are wrong for negative feedback is really bad.

 

Disagree with their feedback, dont just dismiss it that its not important. 

 

And if anything, new peoples feedback is just as, if not more important then people who have been around testing for a long time.

 

Its a fresh set of eyes that view things un-jaded. 

 

Now they may have some misconceptions for sure, but dont dismiss them.

Edited by Vectious

CfWBSig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people who don't listen to the other side tend to repeat themselves. You seem to be waiting for us to agree, but we won't.

 

Our opinion is testing is meant to test and provide feedback. The OP provided feedback on how he felt about game mechanics. And you came fanboying over to the defense of ACE who didn't ask for your protection. OP made valid points and I completely agree with them. These were changes that were implemented from one test to the next and we have expressed that we don't like them.

 

You can point out that we don't know entirely know the end game, but you don't either. If we don't mold it with our feedback, we have no excuse to complain about the final product. If ACE ignores our feedback and their game ends up sucking, they have no excuse for not listening to our feedback.

 

 

Really? We paid more than retail to test this game which is often a paid job. They want our feedback and probably can't afford many paid testers.

To everything above the last line, I present the entirety of my reply, taken from the post you quoted:

 

"My complaints will remain the same until I see people recognize them - so forever."

 

As to the last line of your post, they probably can't afford many paid testers, true. That's a career that usually pays around 35k a year - maybe more by now. But they also don't need to pay five people a living wage because they have a body of volunteers who make up in numbers what they lack in practical experience.

 

And yes, obviously they want our feedback. That's why they have a list of things they need feedback ON. That's why they give things titles like "harvesting and crafting big world test version 3.x"

 

I get that overall impressions also matter - things like "the combat feels too slow and clunky" are important, and signify that an entire system might need major revision. I even agree that some of the OP's assertions have merit - I personally don't mind the hunger mechanic, but I see a lot of people who do, and I also don't feel like it adds anything especially meaningful to the game right now.

 

But not all feedback is equally valid. OP had some valid points, but it isn't like I replied to his first post in a vacuum. Other people addressed his points more specifically, so I didn't feel the need to be redundant. 

Edited by goose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Dismissing every comment or feedback that its just a test is pretty silly.

 

to this i agree. dismissing every comment in every case, just by saying it is a playtest - that's wrong,

 


 

but in general:

 

it's a different thing if people give feedback or if they just complain and rant because they expect a game but in fact act within a test environment.

 

to say it right: both gives informations. so in the end it both is good. but you can't expect people, who are trying to contribute to the game by testing more or less seriously and give constructive and focused feedback to the devs, not to give contra to those people who "seem to" give feedback by just complaining in a manly negative way.

 

those kind of statements are usually just political statements to build a reputation for later use in game. their reason is surely not to help the game development. helpful, they will be anyways. like them, nobody has to. ending this discussion, the sooner the better it will be. may the fork be with you.

Edited by Kraahk

2W1ZHpA.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...