The Need for a Player-based Testing of New Features

Colognoisseur

To the devs: You do not play the game the way players play the game.
If you did the idea of getting horrible expensive team-ups which you couldn't use without being able to delete them would have been obvious.
Except you do not play the game the way players play the game.
If you did you would know that being able to time using multiple shields without being able to see how much time is left on the cooldown would have been obvious.
Except you do not play the game the way the players play the game.
If you did adding a feature which shows how much a goon generates every turn but adds a noticeable pause after every turn while obscuring the board and hindering fast play would have been obvious.
Except you do not play the game the way the players play the game.

The solution is for you to find a group of people who do play the game who represent different levels of playing the game F2P, P2W, whales, Timmies, Spikes, Johnnies, mobile, PC and make sure a change doesn't adversely impact them. This doesn't even require a beta-server just the ability to show a change you're considering and get feedback. If you had done this with the three examples above I would bet they wouldn't have rolled out with those flaws.

An example of a game where this worked was Magic:The Gathering where the devs there loved making cards but they never considered the degenerate combos they were forming. In the early days for game balance they had to keep banning or restricting cards from competitive play because of these mistakes. They hired in a group of players to assist in design and things got dramatically better because people who actually played the game first were able to give feedback.

Please consider doing this so people who play the game can help those who design the game.

fmftint

Sadly player based testing is done live.

PVP end times: In game test
PVE end times: In game test
Shield cool down: Was going to be in game test but player reaction delayed it, pushed back (a first?)
Node refresh times: In game test

We are essentially playing a live beta, and many are PAYING to do it

Unknown

fmftint wrote:

Sadly player based testing is done live.

PVP end times: In game test
PVE end times: In game test
Shield cool down: Was going to be in game test but player reaction delayed it, pushed back (a first?)
Node refresh times: In game test

We are essentially playing a live beta, and many are PAYING to do it

MPQ is TOO success for them to handle . It will not live long.

esoxnepa

Colognoisseur wrote:

The solution is for you to find a group of people who do play the game who represent different levels of playing the game F2P, P2W, whales, Timmies, Spikes, Johnnies, mobile, PC and make sure a change doesn't adversely impact them. This doesn't even require a beta-server just the ability to show a change you're considering and get feedback. If you had done this with the three examples above I would bet they wouldn't have rolled out with those flaws.

An example of a game where this worked was Magic:The Gathering where the devs there loved making cards but they never considered the degenerate combos they were forming. In the early days for game balance they had to keep banning or restricting cards from competitive play because of these mistakes. They hired in a group of players to assist in design and things got dramatically better because people who actually played the game first were able to give feedback.

Please consider doing this so people who play the game can help those who design the game.

Hymn To Tourach, I still rage when I saw that card, and black players would try to argue it was balanced!

After watching the Q&A, I suspect that many of the Marvel NDAs would make it very difficult to keep a playtest team. It would make version management for what you could release to the playtest team, vs what could not be difficult to track. We already have players mining the binary and releasing information early (Thank you by the way!), but playtest teams are much harder to keep quiet. (I've been friends with playtesters, and they always feel the need to tell you things they shouldn't even if you don't ask.)

With their 2-week development blocks, adding a playtest cycle in would slowdown releases. So we are going to take it on the chin from time to time as they mature the game.

Unknown

esoxnepa wrote:

Colognoisseur wrote:

The solution is for you to find a group of people who do play the game who represent different levels of playing the game F2P, P2W, whales, Timmies, Spikes, Johnnies, mobile, PC and make sure a change doesn't adversely impact them. This doesn't even require a beta-server just the ability to show a change you're considering and get feedback. If you had done this with the three examples above I would bet they wouldn't have rolled out with those flaws.

An example of a game where this worked was Magic:The Gathering where the devs there loved making cards but they never considered the degenerate combos they were forming. In the early days for game balance they had to keep banning or restricting cards from competitive play because of these mistakes. They hired in a group of players to assist in design and things got dramatically better because people who actually played the game first were able to give feedback.

Please consider doing this so people who play the game can help those who design the game.

Hymn To Tourach, I still rage when I saw that card, and black players would try to argue it was balanced!

After watching the Q&A, I suspect that many of the Marvel NDAs would make it very difficult to keep a playtest team. It would make version management for what you could release to the playtest team, vs what could not be difficult to track. We already have players mining the binary and releasing information early (Thank you by the way!), but playtest teams are much harder to keep quiet. (I've been friends with playtesters, and they always feel the need to tell you things they shouldn't even if you don't ask.)

With their 2-week development blocks, adding a playtest cycle in would slowdown releases. So we are going to take it on the chin from time to time as they mature the game.

It is not a valid reasons. A work in progress should not release any movement

Unknown

I agree with op, but at the same time I got two weak counter points.

1. They can't cater all their changes to suit the best players. Like it or not, we share this game with players who lack our commitment and enthusiasm. It's kind of like speed limits. They're not set up with how well the best drivers drive. They're set up as the top speed you think the worst drivers can handle.

2. At this point, it's kind of been established. Mpq doesn't have people like you, mm, np, or locked test the game or new features. Either they choose to not do so, or they lack the authorization to do so. With their effort to respond to our feedback (see Demiurge_Will quick to respond to player criticism and state they'll provide a toggle for the ap notification), I'm currently leaning towards the latter.

simonsez

stephen43084 wrote:

1. They can't cater all their changes to suit the best players.

? He specifically said to get playtesters representing all levels. It's pretty clear that whomever is playtesting and designing these new features doesn't play the game for more than 30 seconds at a time, otherwise the cited issues would've been immediately obvious.

Unknown

simonsez wrote:

stephen43084 wrote:

1. They can't cater all their changes to suit the best players.

? He specifically said to get playtesters representing all levels. It's pretty clear that whomever is playtesting and designing these new features doesn't play the game for more than 30 seconds at a time, otherwise the cited issues would've been immediately obvious.

1. What part of "weak" counter point was vague?

2. We assume that the changes are the result of poor play testing. But even if you or another good player did the testing, this does not mean they will take your advice. They take all the feedback from testing, then they have to make changes with all players in mind. They don't necessarily give more weight to better players who test because they have to fashion the game experience for all players.