enrious2

Mentor
  • Posts

    746
  • Joined

  1. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Thirty_Seven View Post
    Yes... I know that I oversimplified the issue. As have the previous arguers.

    Just as I can't possibly know what or how things happened in the programming, neither can you. It just seems odd that you are unwilling to NOT fault the Devs directly. Not being able to predict EVERY possible consequence of an action, does NOT equate to incompetence.
    Whereas you would seem to believe that in no possible scenario listed they have at least some of the blame.

    In my arguments, there is expected a modicum of competence or failing that humanity. Perhaps it was missed?

    You also seem to imply that incompetence is avoidable and if so, something I would fail to agree with. Unless it be deliberate incompetence.

    Quote:
    P.S. Ergo = Therefore. Also, while we are being nitpicky, the period goes inside the quotation marks.
    How good of you to point out a typo. I thank you and will cherish the notion that my mistake was not one of reason but rather a mere lack of keyboard skill.
  2. Quote:
    Originally Posted by IanTheM1 View Post
    So, to repeat, do you honestly expect them or us, to chew through every single mission in the game with a glowie in it?

    Anything less than that would've potentially let the bug go live anyway, and this thread would've been created either way.
    Given the scope of open Beta testers, yes, without hesitation you mention it as something that changed. To not do if you knowingly impacted the system is incompetent.

    Let's say that the dev referred it to their manager as a change that they only tested with 3 random missions. A competent manager passes that on until it's made aware to the testers.

    Open Beta is supposed to be the safety net, both due to timing and to scale.

    Does saying in the release notes: "Known issue, Hess is borked, go do a Sister Psyche instead" really constitute an undue burden upon a competent staff?
  3. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Thirty_Seven View Post

    Let me break it down:
    The Hess TF is different now than it was on live before i16.
    This difference makes it annoying and uncompletable.
    The Beta Testers (nor Live Players) were never told about this change.

    Now we have two choices:
    — Therefore, the Devs changed it deliberately, and didn't tell anyone. WRONG
    — Therefore, the Devs must have changed something, that messed up the TF, and since I have no idea how their system works for calling maps, or placing glowies... I think it is safe to say they didn't mean to. After all, why would they deliberately mess up a TF and not say anything? RIGHT
    Argumentum ad bifurification.

    --Therefore the Devs changed something and didn't have a clue of the ramifications, which denotates incompetence. RIGHT

    --Therefore, the Devs changed the maps and hoped no one would notice. RIGHT

    etc.

    Hint: The word you're looking for is "ergo".
  4. Quote:
    Originally Posted by IanTheM1 View Post
    No. Due to time pressures they should not ask people to test things which have been confirmed as working or are assumed to be properly working. This is an extension of my example a few posts back.
    Were a dev to run through three example missions, as dictated in your example, and consider it tested, they should be fired for gross incompetence and the persons responsible for hiring said developer lose points on their annual review.

    Quote:
    Given the choice, do you tell people to smash up Power Customization to iron out all the bugs and oversights in your new system, or do you send them on a wild goose chase because "glowies might've changed maybe even though we don't think they did"?
    Given the scope of open Beta testers, yes, without hesitation you mention it as something that changed. To not do if you knowingly impacted the system is incompetent.

    Let's say that the dev referred it to their manager as a change that they only tested with 3 random missions. A competent manager passes that on until it's made aware to the testers.

    Open Beta is supposed to be the safety net, both due to timing and to scale.

    Does saying in the release notes: "Known issue, Hess is borked, go do a Sister Psyche instead" really constitute an undue burden upon a competent staff?
  5. Quote:
    Originally Posted by UberGuy View Post
    So due to time pressures they should not ask people to test things because they might not have time to fix uncovered problems before deadlines arrive.

    Result, the system goes live with defects which the users find, costing the developers credibility with their user community.

    Where I work, doing that costs the team money after year-end reviews.
    This.

    You're arguing on behalf of the devs that it's better to rush updates by not soliciting informed testing?
  6. Quote:
    Originally Posted by IanTheM1 View Post
    And again, if it was an under-the-hood change, not meant to display any outward alteration, why disseminate that information to the beta testers at all? Especially since, as I stressed in my example, there was no flaw or bug to be seen?
    In the case of your specific example, to which I replied, glowie-placement potentially impacts more systems than just 3 paper missions.

    Even if you don't buy that argument (which I can understand if you don't), then you also must consider risk-reward metrics.

    How taxing is it to ask testers to try a variety of missions/tfs and report back unexpected behavior from the system you altered?

    Little effort from the testers but potentially big rewards if they find something.

    Also, human nature being what it is, doing so means that you've done your due-diligence and thus people affected if it goes Live are much more forgiving had you done so.

    A cardinal error is to believe that programming exists in a non-human vacuum.
  7. Quote:
    Originally Posted by IanTheM1 View Post
    Both of the ones I highlighted were mentioned by BABs as being things that were fixed. Likely, they didn't make it into the patch notes due to lack of relevance or because of their scope. The former affected terrain game-wide, the latter was a part of a laundry list of animation bugs fixed by BABs.
    Great!

    Why weren't they in the release notes, as potentially they could cause bugs?

    Quote:
    Moreover, and perhaps I'm simply being pedantic, I consider changelogs and patch notes to be two separate, if similar, beasts. I'll fully agree that we could use a better listing of changes, but I could also understand well why some things don't always end up on them.
    It may help to clarify terms. I think of changelogs as being the specific changes to specific issues that are internal documents detailing to fellow devs what happened.

    I view patch notes as a summary overview of the *nature* of said changes, meant for the general public.

    Also, in terms of potential, there is no difference between minor and major changes. Impact impacts, the scale of the effect being not necessarily dependent on the scale of the change.

    Quote:
    Not to mention that there are many different links in the chain that could cause exclusions from the notes. I recall the occasional note being in dispute because QA couldn't replicate it.
    If so, then that's a failure of leadership. It's that simple.
  8. Quote:
    Originally Posted by IanTheM1 View Post
    That's whereabouts where I stand as well, actually, though I'm leaning more towards "someone accidentally saved one map file over another".
    A possibility I don't discount.

    Quote:
    The bulk of my criticisms have been aimed squarely at the reactions seen in this thread, many of which appear to be ready to vilify the devs over a simple bug. Or at least demand a new level of refinement in the beta testing process that just isn't feasible, or some cases literally impossible.
    I think we may quibble over whether or not such things are possible, but I'd without reservation saying that Castle's second post is very much an unexpected positive way of dealing with it, at least as pertains to the KHTF.

    I'd just like someone to say the same regarding the Hess/glowie thing.

    'cause I don't think for a second that they expected Hess to behave as it is now, "Woah, that's unexpected" is at the least honest.

    And ultimately, honest means you trust your players. And it's a way for us to trust the devs.

    People are funny.

    Quote:
    Let's keep in mind that the game is five years old, and the folks working on it aren't necessarily the same ones who designed the original code. If you've read any of BABs' posts, you've seen how quirks and glitches can spiderweb outward unexpectedly in a system.
    I can empathize were that the case. Again, honest disclosure would mean that we are treated as partners, rather than subscribers.

    I'd prefer to be the former, rather than the latter. Especially since the former implies a longer-term view.

    Quote:
    What I find much more realistic (though do not necessarily believe is true, mind you), is that if, for example, a change was made to glowies when someone altered the system, they then checked a handful of missions (or mocked up a few testbed ones) to make sure nothing exploded due to their changes, and then simply overlooked how their change broke three particular missions.
    I don't discount it as a possibility. I do think that if it were the case, it would be negligent on the part of either the individual programmer and/or their supervisor to not pass that on to the public relations devs or community reps so they could pass it on to we, the beta testers. Failing that, it's a failure of leadership to allow such information flow to exist.

    Quote:
    The expectation wraps back around to the two impossible ideals expressed earlier in the thread that either the devs should check every single iteration of anything ever to ensure bugs don't crop up when they make a change, or that they've meticulously mapped out an unfathomable spiderweb of systems and code and simply just know what will affect what, always.
    I daresay it isn't possible to relate *areas* of change to the populace, unless the circumstances I stated above exist, in which case I'd expect no fruit basket for the developer or manager in charge. And as a fall-back position, a mea culpa is surprisingly honest and well-received because at the end of the day, we're all human and I'm more suspicious of people who make no mistakes than those that do.
  9. Quote:
    Originally Posted by IanTheM1 View Post
    Come back to me when you've got word that the change was intentional. Also thanks for overlooking the fact that I'm well-willing to criticize them for changes that don't make it into the patch notes, I just don't assign motives for why they happen.
    fwiw, I didn't overlook the fact and I think it's something we can all agree on.

    My position, which appears contrary to yours (please tell me if I'm wrong), is that someone in all likelihood made a deliberate, intentional change to a system that impacts say, glowie placement.

    Note that I don't say definitively as I can't speak as to others' thoughts, but I can tell you from experience that the effects of such changes can and often do have unexpected results.

    One thing that will point the way to which it is will be the speed in which it is rectified.

    In a way, it's a no-win for the devs. Either they admit that they made a change that negatively impacts us without warning (which in effect is what the forearmed bit I referred to above means - we know, it isn't a surprise, thus we shrug our shoulders and move on) or they honestly didn't think that that system was impacted, which implies incompetence.

    Which is also, incidently, why I think Castle's second post is very surprising to me. And very encouraging.
  10. Heh, some people never learn.

    Neg rep, left anonymously: "Arguing just to argue sounds about right"

    One day, someone will buy you a clue.
  11. Quote:
    Then I'd have to wonder what the purpose of raising that objection was in the first place, since as mentioned previously in this thread, the devs are well aware that undocumented yet intentional changes are foolish and would amount to nothing. Not to mention that it ignores the probability of a bug being a bug (or perhaps even an honest mistake), rather than a clandestine attempt to destroy the Hess TF as we know it.
    My interpretation of that quote is the area of the intentional change is undocumented to the persons testing said changes. CoX is simply too vast a program to say in effect, "Hey guys, we changed some things we didn't tell you about. Please test them."

    That simple. The stuff they put in the Beta Release Notes were no doubt heavily tested (even if the devs at times prefer to ignore the resulting feedback of such testing).

    The things that are undocumented (to the testers), but intentional suffer a very inversely proportional chance of testing and thus discovery of issues.

    Quote:
    What I'm saying is, objecting to undocumented/intentional changes is much like me coming out to object to the devs threatening to blow up the world - pointless, because there was no intention to in the first place. If you'd like to criticize their patch notes process, I can get behind that, since there have been clear failures of it in the past.
    The intent to change map behavior and/or glowie positioning (to say nothing of the AI - "Hey guys, hostage AI changed, can you test?") *is* intentional, in all probability. Should Castle come on and say that there were no changes to directly related systems to maps and/or glowie placement (for fruit-basket points, Castle could also say that no change that was done was ever thought to impact either of those areas) executed then I will immediately apologize and say I'm wrong. And that being the case, then it means that they had no clue that some subsystem change would affect them.

    And that'd mean that they need to improve their own internal documentation but incompetence does not necessarily follow.

    I'll not address the patch/release notes issue because I think it could be improved regardless.
  12. Quote:
    Originally Posted by IanTheM1 View Post
    I would love to know how you got that from what I posted. On the contrary, it sounds like that's what you expect of the devs.
    You would seem to expect us to know the changes they made.

    You would seem to expect the devs to know what we know regarding the changes they made.

    Simple truth. The maps changed.

    The impact of said changes is often unforseeable, which I fully grant you but isn't the issue. And the unforseen impact is not a point of contention.

    Quote:
    You seem to be hung up on the idea that the change to Hess was some sort of intentional alteration gone awry, and clearly should've been communicated to us to test. Except that our buddy Occam notes that seeing as how the glowies are bugged, and there was no patch note concerning it, it probably wasn't intentional at all. The devs can't make you aware of a change if they themselves are unaware of it.
    The maps or glowie positions were changed, unless you dispute that. Even if no one had run any Hess TFs on Beta, at the very least an informed populace would be able to know that map and/or glowie positions were changed and thus, *gasp* provide better feedback to the devs should the issue make it to Live.

    And at the very least, such a policy would remove any element of FUD. FUD is a bad thing, unless you work for the government.

    Quote:
    What are you looking for? Are you asking the devs to publish a complete and thorough changelog to the game with each patch sent to the Test Server? Do you understand how time consuming, and in many cases redundant or confusing, that would be?
    Oddly, I am well aware of what posting a complete changelog would involve. At what point were such specifics asked for? How hard is it to say, "Hey guys, we're messing with glowie placements and/or the maps on a tf. Please let us know if you see anything borked with either."

    I do not know the level of programming experience or software testing experience you have, so I apologize in advance if I sound lecturing. Seriously.

    When you ask people to test changes you made to a system, it is common procedure to at least clue your testors in as to the nature of the changes and while it is often counter-productive to detail specifics, you still tell them the areas affected.
  13. Quote:
    Originally Posted by toona View Post
    2) Master of badges fighting AVs at 49, (STF, RSF). That so cheapens it for those that put hours in to get that badge. Or is this like Little League now and everyone gets a badge for participating? For the record i don't care about badges, it still must suck for those who do and have went to great lengths to get them.
    Back when I cared about badges, I was on a team that took 9 tries (that I was on, they did a couple before) before getting MoSTF.

    I have a great deal of respect for those who persevered and finally earned it. It's the one badge I feel I have.

    Now meh.
  14. Quote:
    Originally Posted by IanTheM1 View Post
    I am still very confused concerning the expectation that the devs inform us of bugs before they've actually been found. I'm pretty sure if the devs had that capability they would've taken James Randi up on his offer and cashed in on proving psychic powers rather than making a superhero MMO.

    There is no process in the world that could catch these sort of things outside of checking every single piece of anything in the game any time there's a new patch. Logging changes made doesn't cut it when (at least from an outsider's perspective) the game's programming works like the chaos theory - a butterfly in England can cause an earthquake in Brazil.
    You seem to expect more of the devs and us than we, i.e. omniscience.

    The point is very simple - make us aware of the changes, even vaguely in the case of AI and somewhat more specifically in the case of Hess.

    How can we intelligently test changes without being informed they've been made?

    Also, to the "brave keyboard warrior" who left me anonymous rep with the following note:

    "You know what he meant, and you know he didn't call you stupid. Now you're arguing just to argue. Let it go."

    Actually, I didn't. I never suggested that "Even if the Devs handed us a complete list of things they wanted looked at, it wouldn't help squash every bug that crops up with a new Issue" because only an idiot would suggest or expect that any and all bugs would be found (let alone fixed) for a given release, I sought clarification.

    Not only was someone putting words into my mouth (and again, those of a an idiotic belief), but my exact words were quoted, which made me doubt it being an accident.
  15. Sorry, where did I suggest such an approach would "squash every bug that crops up with a new issue?"

    Are you calling me stupid?
  16. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Zloth View Post
    You seem to have it in your head that somebody went in and changed something in these specific TFs. That's not real likely - possible, but not likely. It's more likely that they made a change to another part of the game to fix some other bug (like maybe Amy's tendancy lately to attack the team that summons her) and it broke something over here.

    These things happen ALL the time in programming. The only way around it that works well is exhaustive testing. If any changes need to be made to fix bugs found in the testing, you start all over again. If they tried to take that tact with this game, we would probably have just gotten issue 3 - assuming the game even survived this long, which wouldn't be likely.

    So they have folks run through a bunch for a few weeks and catch what they can. Beta testers will always miss things but they probably aren't game breaking bugs. Once the patch goes live, the players will find a bunch more bugs and those get fixed over the next month or two - assuming they are fixable and serious enough to fix.
    Something that focused testing (and by focused, I mean informed) helps alleviate. To say nothing of the idea of being forewarned is forearmed.
  17. Quote:
    Originally Posted by Castle View Post
    I won't argue the Hess aspect; I don't know what changed there or why any more than you do. It sounds like someone dropped the ball, certainly.

    However, the issue of Katie not following properly is a flat out bug. There's no way we can provide you with documentation on a bug, since by definition it shouldn't have happened, period.
    Castle, dude that's a very stand-up reply. Even coming on here and telling us that Katie is a bug is a big help for us.

    To reiterate the OP and the gist of it - if you want us to test things in Beta, let us know what. Not detailed reports of what you changed, just simply something akin to "We made some changes to the Hess. Can some of you run it a few times and please give us feedback?"

    In other words, a somewhat more focused Beta.
  18. Quote:
    Originally Posted by UberGuy View Post
    This is a very broad definition of that term, and not one I or many others will accept. It is not one the devs have provided. This is one of the things I most dislike about your forum presence: your presentation style is such that you appear to presume you speak for the devs thoughts, intentions and goals with authority.
    Dev mindreading is an exploit.

    And for what it's worth, I fully expect the devs to quietly fix whatever's wrong (and I was on the Katie that is mentioned in the OP and can vouch for the behaviour described) and never say a word about it.

    Because doing so would be to admit weakness.
  19. Hit me up in game.

    You can find me in main global channels.
  20. Ice, thank you for replying.

    Glad to see there aren't purpled out reps running around.
  21. enrious2

    Forum Reputation

    That's what the rep system is on virtually every board I've seen with it.
  22. enrious2

    Forum Reputation

    I like rep. It's another form of pvp that the Rednames have set up for to us to use.
  23. I just realized.

    Before my sabbatical, PERC got lots of lewt from a toon auction.

    What's PERC done with it?

    I mean, that was billions and no PERC stuff has happened since what, May?
  24. I've tanked both yellow mitos and hami with a DA tank with 3 kb IOs. Only time he suffered kb was if he was hit by 2 or 3 simultaneously, which also kbs my Invul with Unyielding.

    I've never had kb from a yellow on my fire brute with 3 kb IOs, etc.