New Campaing, same problems... Almost Quiting...

[makkon 1,121]

3 minutes ago, Groovin said:

no.

I'm talking about the debuff you get when you leave combat and have a movespeed buff, something like Trailblazer. it's called pathfinding. it lasts 10 seconds or so and you don't move at trailblazer speed until it wears off.

that's what I'm talking about.

if mounting had that same debuff we wouldn't have people zipping off into the distance the moment you show up.

there's food that can decrease this time, but it's by a small amount.

ah sorry. yes this can be ok for mount. but speed should be increased this way

[Darguth 68]

Play a pre-alpha test build + expecting fully polished game loops = Recipe for disappointment

[Khenjin 33]

he doesn't expect a fully polished game, he expects some simple fixes and as far as I know they should be simple and "quick" to implement considering half the infrastructure is already there.

[Khenjin 33]

for example with the spirit bank, they have normal banks with the chests so why not simply disable the hotkey for spirit bank and add a spirit bank chest to the temple...

[Scorn 663]

8 minutes ago, Khenjin said:

for example with the spirit bank, they have normal banks with the chests so why not simply disable the hotkey for spirit bank and add a spirit bank chest to the temple...

Pls pls pls

[Darguth 68]

On 3/1/2019 at 3:56 AM, Khenjin said:

he doesn't expect a fully polished game, he expects some simple fixes and as far as I know they should be simple and "quick" to implement considering half the infrastructure is already there.
...
for example with the spirit bank, they have normal banks with the chests so why not simply disable the hotkey for spirit bank and add a spirit bank chest to the temple...

Because development resources are finite. Any time/thought/energy put into implementing, testings, iterating, and deploying a minor fix for a temporary system is time/thought/energy *not* being spent on a desired, more long-term solution.

I'd prefer they not polish anything that we absolutely know is a very temporary placeholder of functionality. I'd much prefer everyone's focus remain on a genuine embargo system that we can test and iterate on, rather than iterating over what essentially amount to placeholder assets.

[mandalore 2,664]

1 hour ago, Darguth said:

Because development resources are finite. Any time/thought/energy put into implementing, testings, iterating, and deploying a minor fix for a temporary system is time/thought/energy *not* being spent on a desired, more long-term solution.

I'd prefer they not polish anything that we absolutely know is a very temporary placeholder of functionality. I'd much prefer everyone's focus remain on a genuine embargo system that we can test and iterate on, rather than iterating over what essentially amount to placeholder assets.

This is the 14th best forum post I’ve ever read.  @Darguth you’re 100% right. 

[Matt1usL 2]

With the 

10 hours ago, Darguth said:

Because development resources are finite. Any time/thought/energy put into implementing, testings, iterating, and deploying a minor fix for a temporary system is time/thought/energy *not* being spent on a desired, more long-term solution.

I'd prefer they not polish anything that we absolutely know is a very temporary placeholder of functionality. I'd much prefer everyone's focus remain on a genuine embargo system that we can test and iterate on, rather than iterating over what essentially amount to placeholder assets.

Absolutely nailed it.

[Khenjin 33]

On 3/5/2019 at 3:53 AM, Darguth said:

Because development resources are finite. Any time/thought/energy put into implementing, testings, iterating, and deploying a minor fix for a temporary system is time/thought/energy *not* being spent on a desired, more long-term solution.

I'd prefer they not polish anything that we absolutely know is a very temporary placeholder of functionality. I'd much prefer everyone's focus remain on a genuine embargo system that we can test and iterate on, rather than iterating over what essentially amount to placeholder assets.

I agree with you to some extent.
they obviously want people to play the LIVE server and want people to be happy and enjoy it right?

so why not implement a simple change that would NOT take long at all but make everyone significantly more happy and the game much more enjoyable and add a lot more life and co-op to the game.

 

you could say why make any updates to the LIVE at all if they should just focus on making the game.

Edited March 6 by Khenjin

[Darguth 68]

8 hours ago, Khenjin said:

I agree with you to some extent.
they obviously want people to play the LIVE server and want people to be happy and enjoy it right?

so why not implement a simple change that would NOT take long at all but make everyone significantly more happy and the game much more enjoyable and add a lot more life and co-op to the game.

you could say why make any updates to the LIVE at all if they should just focus on making the game.

Because development resources are finite and this is pre-alpha testing. They implemented a rudimentary spirit banking system to basically make the "game" functional for testing purposes. I'm sure by now they've heard the testing feedback loud and clear about the inadequacies of that placeholder system. They are working on a replacement embargo system which will presumably address those inadequacies. They should be able to assume that people that signed up for pre-alpha testing can tolerate less-than-polished placeholder assets for short durations until MVPs of real assets come online, because...y'know...that's a reasonable expectation given that we're essentially QA at this point and that's exactly what QA testers do. So why distract from the strategic goal for throwaway work to make impatient/unreasonable playtesters happier in the immediate term?

I also think the average gamer dramatically underestimates the effort and complexities of "quick" fixes in software development. Not to knock ACE or the game industry in general, but their QA standards in game development are just not that high. And with generally good reason, because they aren't developing life-and-death technology like surgical instruments or missile systems. It's a game. So every time you tweak the game you introduce a relatively high degree of risk in regressing functionality. Which then angers gamers and leads to more iterations of that "quick fix".  To implement something you need to, generally:

1. Design the solution.
2. Get some kind of approval/consensus that the design is good.
3. Implement the solution.
4. Peer-review the implementation.
5. Run automated tests locally.
6. Integrate to a shared code branch.
7. Run integration tests on the shared branch.
8. Deploy a build from the shared branch.
9. Run manual smoke and exploratory tests.
10. Iterate over all of the above steps until it's working and not introducing regressions.
11. Then all of the steps necessary to deploy batch changes to a production branch.

A "quick fix" still needs to go through those steps -OR- they can skip those quality controls but risk breaking things that aren't small/trivial/unimportant and disrupt the players and testing more than the original problem ever did. All of that knowing they are choosing to delay a go-live date to achieve the "value" of the "quick fix". That just doesn't seem worth it to me in the vast majority of instances where I hear playtester asking for a "quick, small fix" to placeholder assets and systems.

TL;DR - Suck it up. This is playtesting and exactly what you signed up for. Let them focus on building the actual game we want, not the game we currently have.

Edited March 6 by Darguth

[mandalore 2,664]

36 minutes ago, Darguth said:

TL;DR - Suck it up. This is playtesting and exactly what you signed up for. Let them focus on building the actual game we want, not the game we currently have. 

This man is my spirit animal. 

[mystafyi 386]

9 hours ago, Darguth said:

Not to knock ACE or the game industry in general, but their QA standards in game development are just not that high.

LOL you are being very nice. We are pre-alpha so I don't really expect any QA, barring a game breaking issue. 

[Khenjin 33]

On 3/7/2019 at 12:07 AM, Darguth said:

Because development resources are finite and this is pre-alpha testing. They implemented a rudimentary spirit banking system to basically make the "game" functional for testing purposes. I'm sure by now they've heard the testing feedback loud and clear about the inadequacies of that placeholder system. They are working on a replacement embargo system which will presumably address those inadequacies. They should be able to assume that people that signed up for pre-alpha testing can tolerate less-than-polished placeholder assets for short durations until MVPs of real assets come online, because...y'know...that's a reasonable expectation given that we're essentially QA at this point and that's exactly what QA testers do. So why distract from the strategic goal for throwaway work to make impatient/unreasonable playtesters happier in the immediate term?

 

I also think the average gamer dramatically underestimates the effort and complexities of "quick" fixes in software development. Not to knock ACE or the game industry in general, but their QA standards in game development are just not that high. And with generally good reason, because they aren't developing life-and-death technology like surgical instruments or missile systems. It's a game. So every time you tweak the game you introduce a relatively high degree of risk in regressing functionality. Which then angers gamers and leads to more iterations of that "quick fix".  To implement something you need to, generally:

1. Design the solution.
2. Get some kind of approval/consensus that the design is good.
3. Implement the solution.
4. Peer-review the implementation.
5. Run automated tests locally.
6. Integrate to a shared code branch.
7. Run integration tests on the shared branch.
8. Deploy a build from the shared branch.
9. Run manual smoke and exploratory tests.
10. Iterate over all of the above steps until it's working and not introducing regressions.
11. Then all of the steps necessary to deploy batch changes to a production branch.

A "quick fix" still needs to go through those steps -OR- they can skip those quality controls but risk breaking things that aren't small/trivial/unimportant and disrupt the players and testing more than the original problem ever did. All of that knowing they are choosing to delay a go-live date to achieve the "value" of the "quick fix". That just doesn't seem worth it to me in the vast majority of instances where I hear playtester asking for a "quick, small fix" to placeholder assets and systems.

TL;DR - Suck it up. This is playtesting and exactly what you signed up for. Let them focus on building the actual game we want, not the game we currently have.

I understand resources are finite. I understand it was placed there for a reason. 

this embargo system from what I heard is a complex system that sounds like it will take awhile to implement.

we are tolerating it, that is why we are still playing the game lol...

again why update LIVE at all if they just need to make the game...

 

 

 

not an average gamer, I have done little and I do mean little amount of programming and I have programming friends who develop their own stuff. every time they update anything it has the chance to screw things up so why would this be any different to a normal update??

What angers gamers more than anything is quality of life changes not being implemented. Every SINGLE person I have discussed games with don't care about new content or fixing some things, the thing they care most about is having quality of life changes made sooner than later to the game. they prefer that over a expansion most of the time...

 

all those steps have to be done for any update pretty much so why not include "this" instead of "that". such as adding in new content like these new mobs coming in 5.8.5....

I and I know MANY MANY others would prefer some quality of life changes over some new mobs being added to a game that already has a super short game loop...

 

you can't say they are delaying their go-live date to implement a fix because they are delaying it already by having a LIVE server and updating it/already fixing things.

 

TL;DR - don't talk about things if you don't know the full extent and understand they want people to enjoy the LIVE server.

[mandalore 2,664]

1 hour ago, Khenjin said:

What angers gamers more than anything is quality of life changes not being implemented. Every SINGLE person I have discussed games with don't care about new content or fixing some things, the thing they care most about is having quality of life changes made sooner than later to the game. they prefer that over a expansion most of the time...

Don't use some anecdotal ad hoc bleh and pretend its empirical.  Some of the testers have been testing the pre alpha for years and understand what it is.  There are still a fair amount of missing mechanics and systems that need far more attention.  Right now we are testing the scoring mechanics and they can do some QoL changes here and there but I wouldn't ever think to require them to focus on pausing the pre alpha to fix all of the QoL issues.  There's no shame in coming back when the game is in a more finished state and raising your concerns about QoL then.  It's a temporary system that functions (we might not like what it does but it works) and will eventually be replaced with something else.  Would I like to see it go away?  Yep.  Would I rather Frostweaver, embargo systems, dregs, new controller and movement, siege improvement, roads, crafter redo, war tribes, better map rng, and a half dozen other things first?  Yep. 

 

Take a break and come back in dev when QoL is 100% of their concern?  There's no shame in pre alpha breaks man.  We all get angry.  CF is a game with a lot of passion. 

[Khenjin 33]

3 hours ago, mandalore said:

Don't use some anecdotal ad hoc bleh and pretend its empirical.  Some of the testers have been testing the pre alpha for years and understand what it is.  There are still a fair amount of missing mechanics and systems that need far more attention.  Right now we are testing the scoring mechanics and they can do some QoL changes here and there but I wouldn't ever think to require them to focus on pausing the pre alpha to fix all of the QoL issues.  There's no shame in coming back when the game is in a more finished state and raising your concerns about QoL then.  It's a temporary system that functions (we might not like what it does but it works) and will eventually be replaced with something else.  Would I like to see it go away?  Yep.  Would I rather Frostweaver, embargo systems, dregs, new controller and movement, siege improvement, roads, crafter redo, war tribes, better map rng, and a half dozen other things first?  Yep. 

 

Take a break and come back in dev when QoL is 100% of their concern?  There's no shame in pre alpha breaks man.  We all get angry.  CF is a game with a lot of passion. 

I'm not saying at all they should just do QoL changes only.... 

I was just making a point.

I'm not angry at the game or need a break. I understand what it is and that it functions.

you mention dregs though, that is where it will matter most in controlling and getting resources and if people simply don't lose stuff when ganked in dregs it will be a bit broken...

also doing this one fix does not mean they can't do the other ones aswell.... so don't say it like that.

[mandalore 2,664]

14 minutes ago, Khenjin said:

I'm not saying at all they should just do QoL changes only.... 

I was just making a point.

I'm not angry at the game or need a break. I understand what it is and that it functions.

you mention dregs though, that is where it will matter most in controlling and getting resources and if people simply don't lose stuff when ganked in dregs it will be a bit broken...

also doing this one fix does not mean they can't do the other ones aswell.... so don't say it like that.

Is ganking the primary way you play?  

[Khenjin 33]

not at all.