Congratulations Fellow Beta Testers UPDATE:Red response p.3

Colognoisseur

UPDATE: Cthulu responded to the post below on page 3 of this thread. It is a pleasant departure from previous issues.

After three years of suspecting the truth one of the developers finally admitted it.
If you haven't listened to the Puzzle Warriors 3 podcast you should.
Three of the developers show up and have the most informative 45 minutes on MPQ ever.

One of the things I have long suspected is they have no high level players on the team so they don't know what it is like.
When the developers answered questions abouy why Boss Rush was so bad they admit that they only tested each of the Boss characters individually and not in waves. Then they admitted that they only modeled it for their mid-range rosters. Which was why those in the middle had the most of a limited amount of success in that event.

They admitted the glitches for Kaecillius in the Dr. Strange event were also due to lack of modeling on anything other than the mid-range rosters they have.

Now they further go on to say they will make improvements in the second versions but you know what that makes all of us who don't have the same rosters as them? Unpaid Beta Testers.
In fact based on the resources most of us had to use to compete at the higher levels it was worse we were Beta Testers who paid them.

Just like it was after Galactus first run we have now done our job and they have a wonderful data set with which to improve the next run.

Sure we spent our resources but hey the honor of helping improve the game outweighs that, right?

That's right ladies and gentlemen work your way up to having a fantastic roster only to be seen as inconvenient and not worth developers time to correctly model their event.

I am once again pleading with the developer team to form a testing team of players with high level rosters. Despite all of the assurances that you have made in the past it doesn't exist on your end. You just admitted it.

I would really be better to have a small team of actual Beta Testers who can make your event better on day one than cynically using everyone else as a bunch of cannon fodder as you did with Boss Rush and Strange Days.

Tromb2ch2

They could really help us by giving themselves a maxed out roster and trying an event or two and telling us if they had fun. I'm guessing their answer would be no.

Vhailorx

It has always been apparent that demi only ever uses maxed characters after using a dev console to max them. They don't have any direct experience with building or maintaining a high level roster.

What's astonishing is to learn that they don't even play test boss events for 5* rosters when then have a game that they have intentionally designed to scale all the way from 100 health to 100,000 health characters. Kinda seems like a massive oversight.

jobob

I'm glad they at least admitted it, especially since we already knew it to be true. It was evident within minutes that Boss Rush was not working as designed.

smkspy

I only work here, I don't play this ****...sounds like the drug pushers motto.

it's amazing that developers don't have multiple accounts of varying roster strength...it's not like they are are likens and have to spend butt loads of money to achieve them.

Phumade

Colognoisseur wrote:

In fact based on the resources most of us had to use to compete at the higher levels it was worse we were Beta Testers who paid them.

Welcome to the Demiurge insider preview program! Its modeled after the windows insider program. Yes we know there is a charge to participate but your fees go to funding additional refinements.


There really needs to be a cadre of high level fun/balance testers or at least give the developers a stable of 5* champs so they can see the game as the high level rosters do.

In all honesty, there should be 5* seed teams that are used to test matchmaking and fun balancing. There is a big difference in reading a dashboard that summarizes win/loss rates and actually going through and seeing how players achieve those win loss rates. I suspect that one of the biggest disconnects is that they evaluate player experience on a match by match basis, but players view their experience as a 1hr play session composed of several matches.

In a players eyes, limping through a tough match and surviving with 1 character at 300 health is the same as losing that match and having to use up 3 hps. In the developers eye, its probably considered a win.

I suspect one concern the developers might have is if Leah_Luv (or any seed team) started playing and winning 5* matches, People would accuse the developers of specifically targeting or sniping other high level players. (and lets be honest, if they made one of us a 5* beta tester, who wouldn't use that opportunity to open a "dialogue" with some of their "favorite" rosters.

With all that said, the developers absolutely need to figure out a way to understand how high level players are experiencing the game. The bugs they are seeing are basic issues that every strong roster experienced. It isn't as if we all tried some weird edge case scenario of playing a match while also chatting on LINE and watching the football game in the background.

Edit:
I do appreciate their candor, and I hope that our comments here are use productively by the developers and not as signal to bunker down even tighter. Mistakes happen, and as long as they acknowledge how and why they occurred, I'm okay with supporting them.

Bronn1

Phumade wrote:

In a players eyes, limping through a tough match and surviving with 1 character at 300 health is the same as losing that match and having to use up 3 hps. In the developers eye, its probably considered a win.

I consider it a win, too. I love games that test my team and are tough to beat. It makes winning them that much more satisfying.

Granted, I'm not rocking some insanely high-level team, but I question the logic that says that a challenging game is a negative and coasting through games to pad ranking numbers without using health packs (one way the company makes money, I might add) is a positive. I suppose it depends on if the sole goal is collecting covers with only a time investment and little effort or if you want to have a fun and challenging game experience sometimes, too.

Now, that doesn't mean they get let off the hook for the Strange event, as there were glaring problems, but challenging people's teams isn't what I consider one of them.

Phumade

Bronn1 wrote:

Phumade wrote:

In a players eyes, limping through a tough match and surviving with 1 character at 300 health is the same as losing that match and having to use up 3 hps. In the developers eye, its probably considered a win.

I consider it a win, too. I love games that test my team and are tough to beat. It makes winning them that much more satisfying.

Granted, I'm not rocking some insanely high-level team, but I question the logic that says that a challenging game is a negative and coasting through games to pad ranking numbers without using health packs (one way the company makes money, I might add) is a positive. I suppose it depends on if the sole goal is collecting covers with only a time investment and little effort or if you want to have a fun and challenging game experience sometimes, too.

Now, that doesn't mean they get let off the hook for the Strange event, as there were glaring problems, but challenging people's teams isn't what I consider one of them.

Its a fair and reasonable critique, I do think that high level players look at their session through a very different lens. Specifically, health packs and character sustainability are important considerations to how players pick and chooses their battles.

Bronn1

Phumade wrote:

Bronn1 wrote:

Phumade wrote:

In a players eyes, limping through a tough match and surviving with 1 character at 300 health is the same as losing that match and having to use up 3 hps. In the developers eye, its probably considered a win.

I consider it a win, too. I love games that test my team and are tough to beat. It makes winning them that much more satisfying.

Granted, I'm not rocking some insanely high-level team, but I question the logic that says that a challenging game is a negative and coasting through games to pad ranking numbers without using health packs (one way the company makes money, I might add) is a positive. I suppose it depends on if the sole goal is collecting covers with only a time investment and little effort or if you want to have a fun and challenging game experience sometimes, too.

Now, that doesn't mean they get let off the hook for the Strange event, as there were glaring problems, but challenging people's teams isn't what I consider one of them.

Its a fair and reasonable critique, I do think that high level players look at their session through a very different lens. Specifically, health packs and character sustainability are important considerations to how players pick and chooses their battles.

Its a consideration I have as well. I want more covers and high rankings as much as the next guy, believe me. However, I consider it a part of the challenge to manage my team's health levels to maximize both the number of matches they can do without health pack use and the number of competitive builds I have to switch between to avoid said use as long as possible. To me, that's just part of the game. When I have the time to grind out a high placing in an event, I would like to believe that I'm just as competitive as a high-level guy in trying to reach single-digits. The skill of maximizing my health packs and character's health is the difference between Top 50 and Top 10.

Colognoisseur

Bronn1 wrote:

Phumade wrote:

In a players eyes, limping through a tough match and surviving with 1 character at 300 health is the same as losing that match and having to use up 3 hps. In the developers eye, its probably considered a win.

I consider it a win, too. I love games that test my team and are tough to beat. It makes winning them that much more satisfying.

Granted, I'm not rocking some insanely high-level team, but I question the logic that says that a challenging game is a negative and coasting through games to pad ranking numbers without using health packs (one way the company makes money, I might add) is a positive. I suppose it depends on if the sole goal is collecting covers with only a time investment and little effort or if you want to have a fun and challenging game experience sometimes, too.

Now, that doesn't mean they get let off the hook for the Strange event, as there were glaring problems, but challenging people's teams isn't what I consider one of them.

Bronn I also like challenging. The problem with Boss Rush as it was with the first Galactus run is there was no opportunity to use strategy. The characters were scaled so inappropriately that you lost in two or three turns. During Boss Rush my team of 3X 5* lost on turn 1 to Boss Phoenix. If there was enough red on the opening board the first turn Boss Phoenix could destroy my entire team. This happened four times. I made a match, the AI then obliterated my team. That's not challenging it is just frustrating.
My point is not that they shouldn't have challenging but it shouldn't become lose on turn one because they didn't take the time to do any testing at high levels.
In particular with 5* it seems like they have little understanding what it means to face the characters at the levels they are throwing at us. Which is because they have no one playing the game at that level, at all. This has been a consistent blind spot which I have continually pleaded with them to address.

Dragon_Nexus

To play devil's advocate a little bit, I imagine the mid-rage roster they use is likely indicative of the majority of their players. In many cases it might be a step above what most players have. So if they're pressed for time, they're likely going to spec their games for the group who are most numerous rather than the ones most vocal.

Now, speaking as a player, it was amazing to hear this admitted openly. We knew at the time of Boss Rush that the event could not possibly have been tested. Hell, we *hoped* that was the case, because the alternative was it had been tested hard and thoroughly and the devs said "Yup! This is exactly what we wanted!" and were actually *happy* with it. And I really didn't want to believe that at all.

I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but I feel like I really should. Developers putting their hands up and saying "We screwed up" is always welcome if it leads to change. I sure as hell don't want to **** people for mistakes, but I *do* want people to own up to their mistakes. Boss Rush has the potential to be a load of fun - a gauntlet style Boss event. But as it was released it was utterly insane, and even worse that it was part of the anniversary event. Playing it overly safe and cuatious and making it stupidly easy by accident and then slowly increasing the difficultyon re-releases would have been favourable - end the anniversary with a big, fun giveaway, right? Not "Happy Anniversary! Now DIE."

scottee

The funny thing is that there's tons of high level players who would voluntarily test new events for them or do community relations work. You wouldn't have to all of the sudden learn what high level play was like, you could just bring someone in who already knows it well.

BigRussian

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

"Happy Anniversary! Now DIE."

Dragon_Nexus

scottee wrote:

The funny thing is that there's tons of high level players who would voluntarily test new events for them or do community relations work. You wouldn't have to all of the sudden learn what high level play was like, you could just bring someone in who already knows it well.

Or, I dunno, read the forums now and then...

But then they'd need to make some kind of "Suggestions" sub-forum to collect all the stuff toge-...wait a minute!

OnesOwnGrief

Pretty sure what I'm about to say isn't going to add anything to discussion, but it was pretty clear that the devs did not play their game. IceIX actually did play, but he never reached the level most of the long-standing players are currently at.

If time to test is something they don't have, then they should back off on the two week release schedule of new characters and actually test their product before pushing it out. As it stands, if players are testing out these things then it should be properly labeled in game, give higher rewards the first time around, or reduced HP vaults and such. Taking advantage of your player base is how you lose players.

wymtime

So this was anniversary week and they needed to get the event out so they threw it against the wall and hoped it was ok. It wasn't and it has taken a long time for them to admit it. Was there an apology on the forum, on Reddit, on Facebook? No.

Here is the thing in the past when they were messing around with scaling on PVE they announced it on the forum and asked for our feedback. They admitted that sometimes a subtle tweak can have a huge impact and they would only see it in game. A lot of players gave very constructive feedback. It was brutal at times and unplayable but we gave feedback.
I an event like boss rush if they didn't play test it enough they should just give us unlimited health packs or 100 health packs and say since this is a new event it might have some bugs and different difficulty levels. We want to make sure you have a good experience and can continue to play the event so we are giving you 100 health packs for the length of the event. This way even if you die every time you can continue to play and help your alliance reach its goals. P.S. YOUR SUPPOSE TO LOSE

GurlBYE

It's hard to muster sympathy when its not that hard to set up a test server and would give steam players some benefits that mobile players feel "set up a test account and transfer over 20% of the iso you win!" or something like 100 iso per fight 100 HP for feedback.

There are too many ways around this.

It's unfortunately not surprising.

And it could be solved by spending the 10-15 minutes I spend once in a few days here. And there's a giant feedback forum, and there was a 30 page thread for the event.

fnedude

Well you know the old say, once you admit you have a problem, you can enter rehab to fix yourself....

It's nice to hear that they recognize that they didn't QC it as fully as they probably should have. It did seem it was "rushed out" (after the fact, because there was not adequate QC'ing of the event).

Hopefully they'll change things around so events like this won't happen again.

ClydeFrog76

Add me to the "pissed off but not at all surprised" list.

The game, and playerbase, deserves so much more.

justplainchips

Very nice to hear that they've had an admission, now they just need to compensate their beta testers.

https://d3go.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=46217

doomette

Colognoisseur wrote:

When the developers answered questions abouy why Boss Rush was so bad they admit that they only tested each of the Boss characters individually and not in waves.

So they tested a simpler, easier format that none of the players would actually be experiencing and thought that would be adequate? Bonkers.