Please Devs, there is still time, give a passive to 5* Magneto while he is Airbone

DAZ0273

This does not seem like a QA issue, it is a design issue. Magneto is playing as designed, it is just that the design is counter productive and bad. The Whaliest whale there is could play for hours and not find anything wrong with Magneto's in game functioning as intended. It is just the intended bit that is bad.

ThaRoadWarrior

Actually, there is a thread about him also having a lot of bugs down in the bugs thread, so it doesn't even sound like he's playing as intended...

https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/83983/magneto5-bugs#latest

DAZ0273

Ha! Perfect storm!

PiMacleod

Getting that out of my system was cathartic. 

However, I just wanna point out that just because the current definition of "QA Tester" means what everyone believes it means, doesn't mean that can't change.  

My job title, literally, is "analyst".  Not joking.  I'm an analyst in a "payment integrity" department of the company.  Which is to say that I analyze deficiencies where we are paying out (or not).  HOWEVER -- if I were to make a lateral move to another department, the term "analyst" becomes something entirely different, because it's what that department requires.

My point is -- be flexible.  I would encourage some to stop thinking that because someone else said "QA Tester" means "this" that it has to.  It's a human-made title, given to employees.  Q is for quality (in this case), and quality can mean a lot of things.  In this case, I'd like to think that the 'quality' of the product would improve if the designers didn't just look from within for their design concepts.  It's okay to look at the others and get the untapped wealth of knowledge elsewhere.  It's okay to, as a professional, do a Google search and see what others are doing.  Its okay to reach out.

I understand EVERYONE's point on here about "that's not what they do".  I just don't see why that matters.  Flexibility makes you more profitable, and adds to your resume.  Let everyone be flexible.  Heck -- you could even do it for 'free'... just reach out to your testers, and ask their opinion about their play time with patch X and character Y.  If 5 testers say "NA", but 1 tester says something in-depth... pull that person aside, and maybe have a 20-30 minute talk with them to see if theres any merit.  Check the sources they are citing.  And if it turns out to be something, now you can keep it in mind that person A seems to be paying attention to more details, and perhaps would be deserving of a better title/job in the future.

Ugh -- I need to stop.  I have my own work to do, and I'm rambling too long about things I cannot change.  Sorry to waste your time -- I probably just don't know enough about business I guess.

ThaRoadWarrior

This idea that language is ever-evolving and everyone should just get onboard with incorrect terminology when correct terminology exists and is readily available is something I kind of push back on. Not to dig on you specifically, @PiMcleod, this is just my own personal Old Man Yells At Cloud issue. Like somebody makes a mistake, and when they get corrected rather than incorporate this new knowledge they double down on being wrong and tell the rest of the world they need to evolve and be wrong also. 

QA Tester is a specific role within the game industry with a specific job description. Playtesters are different, and look at different things. If I am trying to hire a QA Tester to make sure my code is bug free, and I get some person trying to critique my game design, that person is getting let go. I may be too close to the issue being in the industry lol.

AXP_isme

OTOH English didn't get to be as dominant as it is today by being precious about usage. Just look at French: le weekend or le sandwich anyone?

Let me qualify that a bit more. There is a time and place for specificity. Some fields and some roles require unbelievably high levels of specificity and semantic distinction. It's the general construct of the language that is constantly evolving, adapting, borrowing and stealing to get stronger. 

Your QA tester doesn't have to do exactly what someone else's QA tester does but... It should be clear from their job description what they do and don't do. 

Clear? Good. 

ThaRoadWarrior

This is my favorite part of every sufficiently long thread - where we get pedantic about linguistics. I like it much better than Godwin's Law.

ThaRoadWarrior

Also to specifically address your point about why not have your QA testers pull double duty as game design playtesters, they just don't have the training for that. Design and game balance are a teachable discipline, and it isn't the same as following a QA Test plan trying to create repeatable bug scenarios. A lot of QA talent is seasonal, and their job is looking for performance problems on specific devices and random app crash/cert stuff. It's not actually qualitative analysis of a specific game feature - it's a very outsourceable service and there is no guarantee you'll have a dedicated resource for it for any length of time. So really the ask here is for the design team to design better powersets, and to test them in more realistic scenarios. 

PiMacleod

ThaRoadWarrior said:

Also to specifically address your point about why not have your QA testers pull double duty as game design playtesters, they just don't have the training for that. Design and game balance are a teachable discipline, and it isn't the same as following a QA Test plan trying to create repeatable bug scenarios. A lot of QA talent is seasonal, and their job is looking for performance problems on specific devices and random app crash/cert stuff. It's not actually qualitative analysis of a specific game feature - it's a very outsourceable service and there is no guarantee you'll have a dedicated resource for it for any length of time. So really the ask here is for the design team to design better powersets, and to test them in more realistic scenarios. 

...to double-down on your ending statement, I'd rather have the design team either actually play the game too, or incorporate people that do.... Or at the worst, incorporate knowledge from testers and forums alike.  You know -- the people that play.

Because at the heart of this discussion is Magneto has 3 powers, and none of them have synergy with each other.  Which tells me that they don't play what they make.  ....and that leads back to "but it worked, and that may be what they wanted"... and that should lead to "but is that what the people we're selling this to actually want?"... and that should land with a resounding "No."  That entire thought process is missing.  And the only way to replicate it would be to involve people that play the game.

Shoot, if they'd even have a dedicated "alpha" group of testers that get the chance to play a new character on a live server that only the alpha group gets access to, I'm sure that as long as said alpha group was composed of people who've been playing for at least the most recent year (if not longer), then they'd get good feedback and quality metrics that they could use.

Funny -- I'm having a discussion about game-balance issues on another topic over Skype with a friend.  I just can't seem to stop myself, can I... sigh.  I need my own cloud to yell at, @ThaRoadWarrior

ThaRoadWarrior

I've said it elsewhere, and I continue to believe that powers and characters are designed in a "whitebox" fashion, and I believe there is a (rhetorical) file of cards someplace with either individual powers with no flavor text or groups of 3 powers with no flavor text assigned waiting for a character to be chosen, and then specifically flavored to a particular release based on how easy it is to flavor them. This is the "correct" way to do game design - things should be fun in the absence of the fiction and theming, but every once in awhile a character like this one comes out that kind of feels like a bunch of random powers that almost kind of work on paper but then super don't. I think Spider-Ham was another example of 3 powers that sure are some powers, but don't have anything else going for them. It's a shame, I love Magneto and would really like to have seen him be awesome. 

PiMacleod

You may be right.  And I agree -- fun should be primary.  No one has fun losing...  well... unless it's in a rag-doll-physics game, then it's always fun.  :P

HoundofShadow

Polaris/C5rol/Mag5 could be fun against Ultron in the coming Alliance Event. You are gaining yellow ap passively (once you get the strikes rolling) thanks to Ultron destroying the bottom row every turn. Since you can't stun Ultron anyway, you might as well give the blue to Mag5.  

Or you can use Polaris/C5rol/Characters with active yellow power to have fun.

MegaBee

HoundofShadow said:

Polaris/C5rol/Mag5 could be fun against Ultron in the coming Alliance Event. You are gaining yellow ap passively (once you get the strikes rolling) thanks to Ultron destroying the bottom row every turn. Since you can't stun Ultron anyway, you might as well give the blue to Mag5.  

Or you can use Polaris/C5rol/Characters with active yellow power to have fun.

I feel like 5-star Carol would take too long to power up.

Polares

Well, Mags has been “officially” released and no word from Devs and no changes. I doubt they will change him now. I knew this was the most probably outcome but I still feel disappointed.

It is sad to see how little the Devs think about our opinions, and how little they care about their own game. 

HoundofShadow

The purpose of C5rol being there is to help the team get free yellow aps whenever Ultron detroys the bottom row with your strike tiles. 
 
I trief C5rol/Polaris with Luke C4ge and Wasp. I think it was pretty fun. I would be trying this pair with other characters that has yellow power. Invisible woman is on my mind because her team invisibility is cheap at 7 yellow ap, and once things get rolling, the whole team will go invisible permanently for the entire match.