Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Bianchi4Me

Re: WG's alleged inability to get people on the test server.

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
180 posts
2,725 battles

Frequently seeing the ardent WG defenders excuse the half-baked condition of the new patch by claiming it is "impossible" to properly test the game due to the lack of population on the test servers.

Do you seriously think they couldn't have gotten people on the server in the desired distributions simply by setting up an incentive campaign? One that requires you to play whatever ship classes they wanted to see and in whatever numbers they wanted to see them?

For example "Win 10 games in each class and get 10K FXP (or 500 doubloons, or 500k silver, or whatever)."  ... and Boom. Thousands of people on the test server, thousands of new people trying out CVs.  If they needed specific ships (like excluding all the AA beasts) do a bonus for those.  

I'll totally buy the idea that they couldn't create a perfected version in beta.  I do not buy the idea that they had to knowingly release a game version that even WG openly acknowledges is at least several months away from being finished optimized.

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,986
[ERN]
Modder, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
10,779 posts
4,839 battles

sxTiJVx.jpg

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,024
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,850 posts
16,505 battles

Public test usually fleshes out most problems with a ship/ship line.

But 

A new CV mechanic AND new AA mechanic will not be realistically tested.

Playing in public test was all AA builds.

.....

Have you specced ALL your ships full AA?

Now try those in PVP.

Are you still as effective?

Now you know why it will take 3 patches to balance the WHOLE aspect of the new game.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,982
[XODUS]
Alpha Tester
4,691 posts
2,005 battles
4 minutes ago, dEsTurbed1 said:

Now try those in PVP.

This is the actual problem. Public test was mostly done against bots, not players, and bots are useless for testing something like this.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,589
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,481 posts
10,399 battles
12 minutes ago, Bianchi4Me said:

Frequently seeing the ardent WG defenders excuse the half-baked condition of the new patch by claiming it is "impossible" to properly test the game due to the lack of population on the test servers.

Do you seriously think they couldn't have gotten people on the server in the desired distributions simply by setting up an incentive campaign? One that requires you to play whatever ship classes they wanted to see and in whatever numbers they wanted to see them?

For example "Win 10 games in each class and get 10K FXP (or 500 doubloons, or 500k silver, or whatever)."  ... and Boom. Thousands of people on the test server, thousands of new people trying out CVs.  If they needed specific ships (like excluding all the AA beasts) do a bonus for those.  

I'll totally buy the idea that they couldn't create a perfected version in beta.  I do not buy the idea that they had to knowingly release a game version that even WG openly acknowledges is at least several months away from being finished optimized.

 

 

They practically (or in fact did) sabotage the tests from the start. October, November, December, Early January. We had the Halloween Event, RN, and Christmas - which was going to keep players away. We complained about much of this, through SIX VERSIONS, and they just ignored it with he EXCUSE that there wasn't enough data. You don't need data when players are telling you the [redacted] aim point of DB's is off. Or that the gameplay get's boring, fast. They even said in a video of their own only 32% were good with the rework - 38% if they removed 16% of the overall test players who didn't play a certain number of battles. 

 

More importantly - the Halloween event. They added a totally new type of ship, with new gameplay, for us to test. Then added twilight to test a game mode. Jacuzzi ships - test run for fixed torpedo tubes that would later feature on some ships/subs. Space battles this past year/year before - test bed for adding localized storms to a PvP setting. You look back at every event, you look at every premium, they have PLENTY of ways to test the gameplay on the live server, and get participation, such as a New Years event of ships firing fireworks with a new type of "not carrier" to sub in. And could have them in events till they get hammered out. A proof of concept, which they never did for some insane reason, and more data than any other test. "Not enough data" and "players play different" were desperate excuses and attempts to spin the story in their favour - unfortunately a lot of us saw through it before then. 

 

Either it's true that this is simply forcing us to test console gameplay, so they didn't care because timelines, there are many grossly incompetent people who are in the wrong field of work, or seriously grosse negligence on several peoples parts. Possibly all of the above. I have a bit of a background in game/sim design and business - from the secrecy, to the rushed tests, to the very bad spin jobs to try and get positive momentum in the community, I'd say this entire thing has been amateur hour - but that'd  be an insult to amateurs. They would have waited till they got AT LEAST 45-55% of players to go "yep we want this" before dropping it on live. Someone at Wargaming had an agenda though, and had to fit a deadline. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
180 posts
2,725 battles
3 minutes ago, dEsTurbed1 said:

Public test usually fleshes out most problems with a ship/ship line.

But 

A new CV mechanic AND new AA mechanic will not be realistically tested.

Playing in public test was all AA builds.

.....

Have you specced ALL your ships full AA?

Now try those in PVP.

Are you still as effective?

Now you know why it will take 3 patches to balance the WHOLE aspect of the new game.

 

Playing in Public Test was all AA builds because WG expected players to do the Beta for them for free, and in the case of people with premium time, to PAY WG for the privilege of Beta testing.  Which is frankly ridiculous.

IF the Devs had instead paid the players, as they should, by offering loot for playing certain classes/ships/builds they could have gotten whatever and however much they wanted on the test server.  WG being too cheap and/or too indifferent to properly test their product does not make it "impossible".  Have you noticed that other gaming companies manage to release updates that don't alienate the player base like a bunch ants whose hill just got stepped on?  

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,889
[SIM]
Members
4,011 posts
6,767 battles

They should have created a campaign on the test server that awarded a free mid-tier premium, either a new tier VI premium CV, or the player's choice of an existing premium. The campaign could have channeled players into various classes of ship in order to progress, potentially even into pre-built rental ships that weren't fully AA spec in order to let WG gather data on a variety of builds. The bottom line is that, if WG wants people to do this work for them, then those people need to be compensated. They already have a campaign model in place for the game, they already have a rental ship model in place for the game, and there should be no reason why they couldn't use those systems to guide some meaningful testing and award their volunteers in the process. While I actually enjoy the CV rework, I do not enjoy WG plopping a public test on the live server that they admit that they do not believe is ready for prime-time.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
675 posts
8,017 battles
51 minutes ago, Bianchi4Me said:

Frequently seeing the ardent WG defenders excuse the half-baked condition of the new patch by claiming it is "impossible" to properly test the game due to the lack of population on the test servers.

Do you seriously think they couldn't have gotten people on the server in the desired distributions simply by setting up an incentive campaign? One that requires you to play whatever ship classes they wanted to see and in whatever numbers they wanted to see them?

For example "Win 10 games in each class and get 10K FXP (or 500 doubloons, or 500k silver, or whatever)."  ... and Boom. Thousands of people on the test server, thousands of new people trying out CVs.  If they needed specific ships (like excluding all the AA beasts) do a bonus for those.  

I'll totally buy the idea that they couldn't create a perfected version in beta.  I do not buy the idea that they had to knowingly release a game version that even WG openly acknowledges is at least several months away from being finished optimized.

 

 

The thing is they already offer free premium time, free special signal flags, free premium camos and free regular signal flags just for playing a few games in test and people don't play.  This last round was the most populated I've seen in the last few patches and there were only around 1800-2k players at the peak.  Usually it's 300-500.  Plus you get to play all the tech tree ships, (usually) and experiment with various configurations without spending a dime. In addition to trying out new content and helping WG to better prepare for release I was literally able to try out the tech tree ships and decide which ones I want to grind for well before I ever could have tried one out on live.  PTS is not only a valuable service to the game we all love but it offers plenty of dividends for players who participate.

Some doubloons would be cool but I am able to earn plenty of credits, free xp, captains xp and regular xp just from the premium time, signals and camos granted as rewards to make it worthwhile.

 

Playing PTS should be a no-brainer.

Edited by Malamute_Kid
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
180 posts
2,725 battles
1 minute ago, Malamute_Kid said:

The thing is they already offer free premium time, free special signal flags, free premium camos and free regular signal flags just for playing a few games in test and people don't play.  This last round was the most populated I've seen in the last few patches and there were only around 1800-2k players at the peak.  Usually it's 300-500.  Plus you get to play all the tech tree ships, (usually) and experiment with various configurations with spending a dime. In addition to trying out new content and helping WG to better prepare for release I was literally able to try out the tech tree ships and decide which ones I want to grind for well before I ever could have tried one out on live.  PTS is not only a valuable service to the game we all love but it offers plenty of dividends for players who participate.

Some doubloons would be cool but I am able to earn plenty of credits, free xp, captains xp and regular xp just from the premium time, signals and camos granted as rewards to make it worthwhile.

 

Playing PTS should be a no-brainer.

I can't disagree, but I hope you can agree that the relatively few people they did round up to play with the current incentive structure was insufficient.  Also, the small population they did get was apparently not diverse enough to be meaningfully  representative. ("AA Spec versus The Bots", as the poster above alluded to.)  They didn't control/incentivizing what ships and builds were used to ensure they got a valid sample to test. I think they could have done so, as someone else pointed out, they have all the systems in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,133
[N-W-T]
Members
1,882 posts
7,482 battles
57 minutes ago, Bianchi4Me said:

Do you seriously think they couldn't have gotten people on the server in the desired distributions simply by setting up an incentive campaign? One that requires you to play whatever ship classes they wanted to see and in whatever numbers they wanted to see them?

Did you even play the PTS. They do offer incentives.  You could have gotten a set of 24 premium flags on your main account if you played all 3 8.0 PTS rounds.  Those flags are the hardest thing to come by in the game.  That's in addition to multiple standard flags and some camos. 

 

59 minutes ago, Bianchi4Me said:

For example "Win 10 games in each class and get 10K FXP (or 500 doubloons, or 500k silver, or whatever)." One that requires you to play whatever ship classes they wanted to see and in whatever numbers they wanted to see them?

Again this seems to prove that you didn't play the PTS.  The conditions for winning those dragon flags were to win 8 games in carriers, and 8 games in non-carriers. And for the non-CV missions you could "play whatever ship classes they wanted". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[RM-I]
Members
908 posts
7,795 battles

I have not played a random battle yet since the drop. I tried ranked a few times. So I haven’t seen the new cv’s in action. However, watching the videos of others playing cv’s, I’m a little turned off to wanting to play. There are two reasons for this (for me at least):

1. I was already not a fan of the cv’s. That means I didn’t like the gameplay and I sucked at it, and also that I hate seeing cv’s in battle, and therefore spec’ed AA on the ships that excelled in AA. 

2. Watching the video from ichase (somebody posted it a few hours ago here on the forums), the aa seems ineffective when the planes do their first strike. I was watching him harass a Wooster without fear of losing his planes. This was the bigger turn off to me, seeing as I really don’t like cv’s.

To wrap it up, I know that WG is going to keep this style of gameplay for cv’s. Nothing I say or feel can change that. I would just hope that they turn down  what appears to be more OP than the previous cv gameplay by limiting planes or how fast the planes can take off again between sorties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
675 posts
8,017 battles
Just now, Bianchi4Me said:

I can't disagree, but I hope you can agree that the relatively few people they did round up to play with the current incentive structure was insufficient.  Also, the small population they did get was apparently not diverse enough to be meaningfully  representative. ("AA Spec versus The Bots", as the poster above alluded to.)  They didn't control/incentivizing what ships and builds were used to ensure they got a valid sample to test. I think they could have done so, as someone else pointed out, they have all the systems in place.

I completely agree but I can't put all the blame for low pop on PTS on WG.  Sure they deserve their fair share of the blame but the majority of the player base is either unable to participate due to time constraints or other RL concerns, is too timid to try PTS or just doesn't care.  I often see people who say that they can't afford this that or the other thing.  Well, here is a clear opportunity to pick some really useful stuff for free and help to improve the game but most just don't avail themselves of the opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,133
[N-W-T]
Members
1,882 posts
7,482 battles
1 minute ago, pastore123 said:

I have not played a random battle yet since the drop. I tried ranked a few times. So I haven’t seen the new cv’s in action. However, watching the videos of others playing cv’s, I’m a little turned off to wanting to play. There are two reasons for this (for me at least):

1. I was already not a fan of the cv’s. That means I didn’t like the gameplay and I sucked at it, and also that I hate seeing cv’s in battle, and therefore spec’ed AA on the ships that excelled in AA. 

2. Watching the video from ichase (somebody posted it a few hours ago here on the forums), the aa seems ineffective when the planes do their first strike. I was watching him harass a Wooster without fear of losing his planes. This was the bigger turn off to me, seeing as I really don’t like cv’s.

To wrap it up, I know that WG is going to keep this style of gameplay for cv’s. Nothing I say or feel can change that. I would just hope that they turn down  what appears to be more OP than the previous cv gameplay by limiting planes or how fast the planes can take off again between sorties.

What on earth does this have to do with the OP's topic of testing on the PTS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[RM-I]
Members
908 posts
7,795 battles
2 minutes ago, DouglasMacAwful said:

What on earth does this have to do with the OP's topic of testing on the PTS?

I guess you could say that since there wasn’t enough data from players in PTS, we are getting what we have now. Which then brings me to my comments. I should have also added that they shouldn’t have released it on the live server as it is either. 

I played one game in the PTS with cv’s and decided I didn’t like cv’s even more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[SNIPR]
Beta Testers
475 posts
4,511 battles

Well its not like there were any events going on the main server for a premium or steel or anything of value...

 

They could have made an event with the new carrier gameplay You know.  Like the Halloween one where they tested submarines (which were more fun than this)

 

It just felt like they rushed CVs out the door.  I understand they have their own development cycles but... Just because you are hungry doesn't mean you should force yourself to eat spoiled food (Not saying the update is) Realistically you go out of your house.  Buy a burger or something and stave off your hunger.

 

Maybe if players could complete the events on the main server while on PTS...? (while I know it could be 'abused' you would likely be able to pull more pop that way and allow players who might not have the minimum required ship tier to participate in events.)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
180 posts
2,725 battles
1 minute ago, DouglasMacAwful said:

Did you even play the PTS. They do offer incentives.  You could have gotten a set of 24 premium flags on your main account if you played all 3 8.0 PTS rounds.  Those flags are the hardest thing to come by in the game.  That's in addition to multiple standard flags and some camos. 

 

Again this seems to prove that you didn't play the PTS.  The conditions for winning those dragon flags were to win 8 games in carriers, and 8 games in non-carriers. And for the non-CV missions you could "play whatever ship classes they wanted". 

The Flags are only a means to earn bonus amounts of what people actually want, right?  So those items are clearly not "the hardest things to get" since they only exist to get you something else.  And, once again, DID IT WORK to get the numbers they needed?  No it didn't.  You are certainly entitled to feel like it should be sufficient to motivate people, but the number of folks participating shows it wasn't.  It's important to remember that WG is competing against itself in that the live server has incentives going on at the same time.

Further if people played all the ships classes and builds WG wanted, why then are we being told the test results were heavily skewed by many people only bringing full AA spec ships?  Is that what WG wanted?  Or did that also not work? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,017 posts
4,817 battles
1 hour ago, Bianchi4Me said:

Frequently seeing the ardent WG defenders excuse the half-baked condition of the new patch by claiming it is "impossible" to properly test the game due to the lack of population on the test servers.

Do you seriously think they couldn't have gotten people on the server in the desired distributions simply by setting up an incentive campaign? One that requires you to play whatever ship classes they wanted to see and in whatever numbers they wanted to see them?

For example "Win 10 games in each class and get 10K FXP (or 500 doubloons, or 500k silver, or whatever)."  ... and Boom. Thousands of people on the test server, thousands of new people trying out CVs.  If they needed specific ships (like excluding all the AA beasts) do a bonus for those.  

I'll totally buy the idea that they couldn't create a perfected version in beta.  I do not buy the idea that they had to knowingly release a game version that even WG openly acknowledges is at least several months away from being finished optimized. 

 

 

WG does offer awards for getting people to do testing in the form of flags.  However, your regular player probably wouldn't care about going onto the test server because it detracts from the actual game and the stats don't keep. 

It's a bit jarring right now, but they do need massive amounts of data to implement the changes. 

Of course, that one suggestion about perhaps doing a PvE event for carriers could've been a good way to test the waters, but that's come and gone...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
159 posts
12,823 battles
1 hour ago, WanderingGhost said:

They practically (or in fact did) sabotage the tests from the start. October, November, December, Early January. We had the Halloween Event, RN, and Christmas - which was going to keep players away. We complained about much of this, through SIX VERSIONS, and they just ignored it with he EXCUSE that there wasn't enough data. You don't need data when players are telling you the [redacted] aim point of DB's is off. Or that the gameplay get's boring, fast. They even said in a video of their own only 32% were good with the rework - 38% if they removed 16% of the overall test players who didn't play a certain number of battles. 

 

More importantly - the Halloween event. They added a totally new type of ship, with new gameplay, for us to test. Then added twilight to test a game mode. Jacuzzi ships - test run for fixed torpedo tubes that would later feature on some ships/subs. Space battles this past year/year before - test bed for adding localized storms to a PvP setting. You look back at every event, you look at every premium, they have PLENTY of ways to test the gameplay on the live server, and get participation, such as a New Years event of ships firing fireworks with a new type of "not carrier" to sub in. And could have them in events till they get hammered out. A proof of concept, which they never did for some insane reason, and more data than any other test. "Not enough data" and "players play different" were desperate excuses and attempts to spin the story in their favour - unfortunately a lot of us saw through it before then. 

 

Either it's true that this is simply forcing us to test console gameplay, so they didn't care because timelines, there are many grossly incompetent people who are in the wrong field of work, or seriously grosse negligence on several peoples parts. Possibly all of the above. I have a bit of a background in game/sim design and business - from the secrecy, to the rushed tests, to the very bad spin jobs to try and get positive momentum in the community, I'd say this entire thing has been amateur hour - but that'd  be an insult to amateurs. They would have waited till they got AT LEAST 45-55% of players to go "yep we want this" before dropping it on live. Someone at Wargaming had an agenda though, and had to fit a deadline. 

For the casual gamer, there's literally no time to play on public test.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
19 posts
2,722 battles
2 hours ago, MajorRenegade said:

sxTiJVx.jpg

this, this, 1000x this.  I saw it coming from a mile away that this was NOT going to end well, yet all the CV haters "you just mad CV won't be op anymore".  Now I'm just sitting here, eating popcorn as I watch the chaos unfold while thinking "we told you so"....

 

P.S. if all the ships are running AA builds on the PTS, maybe, just maybe their might be something wrong with game balance but that just might be me *shrug*..............

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
817
[MIA-I]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,804 posts
8,671 battles

The balance is much better than in previous test versions and even how it was on live with the old CVs being so dominating, which is straight up miraculous considering how big of a change this patch was and that we mostly faced mindless bots without any AA skills (players also didn't have captains) on the test server. As expected OP has no battles in carriers. This is probably also true for all of these other posters who say the game is doomed when they haven't even played the part of the game that this patch affects. Of course I spend some time and do that, and the results are exactly as I expected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,765
[RLGN]
Members
11,699 posts
20,690 battles
3 hours ago, Malamute_Kid said:

Plus you get to play all the tech tree ships, (usually) and experiment with various configurations without spending a dime.

Only treason I pulled the trigger on Montana for my main account.

52 minutes ago, NeoRussia said:

As expected OP has no battles in carriers. This is probably also true for all of these other posters who say the game is doomed when they haven't even played the part of the game that this patch affects. Of course I spend some time and do that, and the results are exactly as I expected.

Is over 4,000 carrier games enough?

Not even close to being one of those players who caused so much hell in higher tier games using the RTS, and I STILL hate this rework.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
870
[WAG]
Members
1,806 posts
10,653 battles
6 hours ago, Bianchi4Me said:

due to the lack of population on the test servers.

30 Second queue times.

Seriously... why so short?  What was gained?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
870
[WAG]
Members
1,806 posts
10,653 battles
5 hours ago, Malamute_Kid said:

I completely agree but I can't put all the blame for low pop on PTS on WG

I can.. I went to the PTS, and the only battles I could get into with over 5k on the PTS were ones with only a couple of live players, becasue the queue was 30 seconds. They didn't WANT real players... for whatever reason, they chose a queue time that would pretty much guarantee that we wouldn't see any real simulation of the PvP we get on the live servers. We don;t know why... they don;t communicate... they just dictate... I am done playing for a while... I've had enough of the .... "non-communication"

Edited by Elo_J_Fudpucker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
870
[WAG]
Members
1,806 posts
10,653 battles
5 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

Possibly all of the above.

If it is not their idea, it is not a good idea... the more we push for one thing the more they are going to dig in to the way they know is best.... we all wish for a better game, but we will have to live with whatever they give us.... or not, eh?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
936 posts
6,428 battles

The rewards for the test server is literally pennies to a good player. I have thousands of signals stocked up for clan battles that i dont need more. Those rewards are useless to players who have been in the game for a long time.

Also im not gonna give up additonal 20 GB of my disk space just for a frikking test server. I did that once but i had to clean my disk and am not gonna waste 20 GB on that.

Thats why WG has alpha and beta testers. They are the ones who failed us with the rework or WG just didnt listen to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×