Congratulations Fellow Beta Testers UPDATE:Red response p.3

Kishida

doomette wrote:

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.

"Hey, boss, you really think they can paddle this canoe across the Pacific Ocean?"

"Well, we tested it in the indoor pool and it worked, so I don't see why not."

Vhailorx

doomette wrote:

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.

It is mind boggling that they would fail to test the signature feature of boss rush: fighting multiple boss waves.

And it's also shocking that phoenix passed qa after 1v1 testing. She was so stupidly overpowered.

Dragon_Nexus

Vhailorx wrote:

It is mind boggling that they would fail to test the signature feature of boss rush: fighting multiple boss waves.

And it's also shocking that phoenix passed qa after 1v1 testing. She was so stupidly overpowered.

Hey, they gave us demo nodes of OML and Silver Surfer against the then top 4* characters. There was a game played on this forum of who could lose while doing the least damage because that was harder than winning.
There were people who tried to lose and couldn't because the match damage was so good and the AI never managed to get enough AP for a move.

So they must have known full well how powerful those characters were.

alphabeta

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

There were people who tried to lose and couldn't because the match damage was so good and the AI never managed to get enough AP for a move.

So they must have known full well how powerful those characters were.

After players acted as beta testers in live this for them and the genie was out of the bottle they must have known - the podcast clearly says they had know tools to give them any clue this was the likely outcome before that.

GurlBYE

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

Vhailorx wrote:

It is mind boggling that they would fail to test the signature feature of boss rush: fighting multiple boss waves.

And it's also shocking that phoenix passed qa after 1v1 testing. She was so stupidly overpowered.

Hey, they gave us demo nodes of OML and Silver Surfer against the then top 4* characters. There was a game played on this forum of who could lose while doing the least damage because that was harder than winning.
There were people who tried to lose and couldn't because the match damage was so good and the AI never managed to get enough AP for a move.

So they must have known full well how powerful those characters were.

I think thats why seasons don't have nodes anymore lol.

Whats weird is that it was the only incentive to buy a character and the ONLY way to try it before you buy it and they removed it.

They probably did those two to get whales spending. because removing them in hindsight makes NO sense what so ever. They didn't even award anything.

Beastwood

GurlBYE wrote:

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.

.

I think people would test for free even only a handful without rewards not that i am saying incentives ain't a good thing it's nice to have your time appreciated and to be thanked but it would probably lead to some kind of abuse with people finding an easy fight and farming it for wins or sending a million feedback comments with a single emote in or something which they'd have to trawl through confirming or denying so it would have to be a well thought out system which is taking time away from elsewhere... but generally yeah some form of test server is always a good idea and of course steam users should get equal rewards as mobile in some way shape or form considering they pay the same.

Lots of games do it, Overwatch has a PTR and any new characters, maps and season ranking tweaks go on there first after internal testing and a lot of people will spend substantial time on there and blizzard takes in the feedback, sees how ranking goes and sees how play is effected and makes the adjustments necessary before release.
Battlefield was another aswell that had a Community Test environment for new maps gameplay tweaks etc none offer anything for your time nor are associated with your main account in anyway bar maybe the username/gametag you use but plenty of people were happy enough to go on keep ahead of the game test new things and provide feedback to improve the game etc

GurlBYE

Beastwood wrote:

GurlBYE wrote:

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.

.

I think people would test for free even only a handful without rewards not that i am saying incentives ain't a good thing it's nice to have your time appreciated and to be thanked but it would probably lead to some kind of abuse with people finding an easy fight and farming it for wins or sending a million feedback comments with a single emote in or something which they'd have to trawl through confirming or denying

Simple solution.

1 time reward per node.

One feedback award, if you choose to waste it with a smiley for a palty reward of like 10 HP, you are just making the game worse for yourself.

Crowl

fnedude wrote:

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.

No chance of that, if you have strict deadlines in software development then QA is always the first thing to be squeezed when delays happen and it will continue to be the case until somebody higher up decides enough is enough and blocks releases of unfinished events.

Taking boss rush as an example, they should have shelved it if it wasn't ready and rerun an existing event with easier scaling or better rewards than normal to make up for it.

As far as the person mentioning that a midrange roster probably aligns better with more of the players, that isn't usually the best way to test things, if your time is limited then get the edge cases right and your midrange is likely to be okay too.

Heartburn

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.

I would have to say there is a time and place for challenging your teams, i find it very frustrating when it occurs in a pvp event. To have your team constantly challenged scraping off a win each time in a event, where playing more matches in the fastest time possible, is far too draining, resources and mentally, until it devolves in to no synergy teams of who's left with loss after loss or lets see how this champ 2* team deals with this 4* and 2 champed 3* team. if i need challenging there other modes designed for it. besides the higher you go in PVP you naturally find stronger teams no need to be paired with them right out of the gate. i guess that is why my alliance is focusing PVE more. but i guess this is what i get for trying to play to have fun instead of gimping my roster to have an enjoyable experience in this goal post moving slaughter house of a game.

Natsufan01

The issue with counting a win with 300 hp left as a win, is this game requires tens or hundreds of wins to be played well. This isn't a game to play 3 or 4 matches using 3 health packs each and you're done. That just one pve node completed on your inital clear. Or at most 300 points in pvp, at most. Needing a single health pack after a win is still a loss in the grand scheme, much less needing 3. And that isn't even top level play. That is good enough to finish top 100 or 200 each event. Top level play requires much more spending, a better roster, and better time management.

Another thing to consider about the difference in 3* levels vs 5* levels is the variety of characters available. Most 5* players have 4 or less champed 5*. Most 3* players have 20 or 30 3* characters. When a team of 3* go down, you can rotate to a new team several times. If a 5* team goes down, there is noone else to turn to. You heal the 5*. Their enemies are levelled to a point that even the best 4* get crushed. It's a different experience for them.

DrDevilDinosaur

How long before this thread gets shut down?

Daiches

DrDevilDinosaur wrote:

How long before this thread gets shut down?

As long as it takes them to shut down a roster cheat: all weekend and a day.

/s



There's nothing untoward about this thread though.

madsalad

After hearing the most recent episode of PW3, my only reply to the thread was going to "BEAT TESTERS!"

This thread does so much more than that. Thanks OP.

madok

So maybe the whole Shield Clearance system is a way for them to track what our beta testing score is?

fun_and_gun

just because they admitted that they're lacking in certain areas does not get them off the hook. a problem without a resolution is still a problem. i can only hope that they do put forth the due diligence.

Polares

Ok, great, they have admitted they don't testy properly the game, (we all knew that), but now, are you going to do something about this? are you going to fix it? Or you don't care?

The greatest problem is that we have been saying that the game is much harder in the high end, that there is a LOT of scaling problems, etc. for a long while, but since Boss Rush we have had 0 solutions! Not even one attempt! Common, Kaecilius was easier as a boss but he had the exact same level than my enemies in Boss Rush!!! And I had to use 3s against him! How is this fair???? 530 enemy against 260 level 3s. It looks like they learned nothing from Boss Rush, and they have still not acknowledged that normal scaling in PvE is also broken!

I sent a ticket as feedback for them about how broken is scaling and got not real reply, the typical "thanxs for your feedback" and nothing else.

FIX THE DAMN SCALING ASAP!!!

Figure15

"Demi! What is best in life?"

"To crush the rosters, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentation of the players."

JVReal

I think a beta group of people from this forum with varying rosters would be pretty cool.

Maybe sandbox the group when they want to have them test... put the event out for sandboxed people only, then when the testing is over, move the testers out of the sandbox and they get to keep the stuff they win from the event.

The hardest part will be the fact that they probably don't want people sharing info during the beta test... and we know people are notorious for sharing Screenshots and spoilers.

I think there is a big enough desire here for the testing, and it's free to them... and if they do it, that alleviates some fallout on them. If beta testing players play it, give it a go, and the larger community doesn't like it, the beta testers get to take some of the backlash as well.

Cat's out of the bag, now lets trim the claws and have fun playing with it.

stochasticism

Son what do the devs do with the high level rosters they can magically create on their dev servers? Look at them in awe and bemoan the fact that whoever made this game made it nearly impossible and spirit crushingly awful to get such a roster. I wonder who they think can fix that, because we think they can, or at least used to think that.

Xenoberyll

Dragon_Nexus wrote:

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.

It makes sense to test for the majority of players. Of course it does. But games like this are always aiming at the top end. When you're growing your roster you do it to become better and 'level up'. This game often becomes harder as you level up though and less rewarding. So where's the incentive?

The high level community is not only very outspoken but also a lot of us buy fairly often. The vibe that we get from CS and Devs isn't that we're contributing to their ongoing success nor even liked. A lot of vets who post on forums or send requests to CS get the feeling we're getting on their nerves instead.

Apart from statistics D3 seems to know little of how you play the game at that level and they draw (wrong) conclusions from their data rather than listen to the Community. As shown by MMR, Scaling and how they wanted to nerf two of the most common 5star characters (it seem in their Minds OML/PHX are common so they must be op, when to us they were just the most available 5stars after Surfer (who wasn't so great))

Even Developers like Dice (battlefield) have test servers for their games where part of the community who want to contribute can give their advice /opinion. It's past time D3 starts to listen a bit more