A beta testing PSA

[Monos King]

1 hour ago, Puma said:

What? You dont like that? YOU HAVENT EVEN TESTED IT YET!!!

 1. Ridiculous Feedback Approaches

 2. Objective Departures

 

Ridiculous approaches to feedback like not testing it are appropriate if the changes too are ridiculous. But wait - there is no objective meter for what is a ridiculous change. We are privy to living in echo chambers. You go in thinking your perspective is the correct one, when there is no such thing. But there's another side of the crowd. And now, in order to confirm it is ridiculous, you'll need to play it and offer evidence. It's a catch 22, and an appropriate one at that. Even when the below applies.

 

The example above, which I'm sure is intended to be an extreme, is characterised as very different type of situation than what is detested here with EM. This is because, aside from the mostly preferential thematic departure seen in the change from lethal -> energy, there is also an Objective Departure from it's previous state. Many arguments are pursued so this objective departure can be proven, because that's an appeal to logic that is rarely deniable. When you directly change every element of a sets abilities like in your example, you already have all the evidence that there was an objective departure. Are you proposing that is occurring now? If not, your comment above is irrelevant hyperbole. Even if you successfully demonstrate an objective departure - surprise! A lot of people actually like the insane changes above! Now you have to prove to them it's bad. And now what do you need to do?

You need to test the changes.

 

So no. Even if something ridiculous transpires, you still need to test it to some degree. Thinking that your opinion is so significant that it can weigh in against the perspectives of those who have played through a change will never fly on a game. No ifs or buts. 

[ScarySai]

2 hours ago, Puma said:

I propose changing all of Energy Melee's attacks single target attacks that do pure lethal damage that do negative HP on the caster and add a chance to grant invis to teammates. 

What? You dont like that? YOU HAVENT EVEN TESTED IT YET!!!
 
 
Sometimes you dont need to test something to say you disagree with the direction it's going. 

I would agree if energy melee weren't the worst possible thing to make this case with.

 

Dark Consumption as an AoE DoT nuke? Sure. Dramatic nerfs to mid-tier sets? Sure.

 

Energy melee? No shot. You're going to have to log into beta before I even think about respecting your opinion, as I know for a fact you weren't playing and mastering EM before this year. You need experience, be it with the old version of the set or the new one to make a case, here you don't have either.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by ScarySai

[Puma]

33 minutes ago, Monos King said:

 

 

The example above, which I'm sure is intended to be an extreme, is characterised as very different type of situation than what is detested here with EM.... If not, your comment above is irrelevant hyperbole. Even if you successfully demonstrate an objective departure - surprise!

 

Thinking that your opinion is so significant that it can weigh in against the perspectives of those who have played through a change will never fly on a game. No ifs or buts. 

First...yes it was obvious hyperbole to point out the hyperbole of Sai's claim.  I was being tongue in cheek. 
 
 
Second, I would actually disagree. You're placing the burden on people who want to maintain the status quo as opposed to those who proposed changes to do the work.  The burden should be on those proposing the changes, be they devs or other players. 
 
So if, say, some players wanted blasters nerfed because they were too controllery, it isn't up to people who like the current state of blasters to prove why they should be left alone.  They have ALREADY tested what they desire and have said they like it.  And they don't need to "Test" how much they would like having their controls nerfed.  They are, as I said, already happy.  They have spent time and effort to build around the current state.  So the onus when someone is suggesting change that would alter that is on the person suggesting change to show a)why the change is needed, and b)come up with a proposal for change that is acceptable or interesting enough to make people want to test it.  

Edited November 12, 2020 by Puma

[Puma]

8 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

I would agree if energy melee weren't the worst possible thing to make this case with.

 

Dark Consumption as an AoE DoT nuke? Sure. Dramatic nerfs to mid-tier sets? Sure.

 

Energy melee? No shot. You're going to have to log into beta before I even think about respecting your opinion, as I know for a fact you weren't playing and mastering EM before this year. You need experience, be it with the old version of the set or the new one to make a case, here you don't have either.

 

 

 

 

For the record, I didnt just log in to beta, Ive been testing energy melee before that.   I was using energy melee as a random example.  This thread isn't about energy melee. It's about beta testing in general, and saying unless you've tested a set your opinion is worthless. That's simply not correct and is hyperbolic. 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Puma

[Puma]

8 hours ago, ScarySai said:

I would agree if energy melee weren't the worst possible thing to make this case with.

 

Dark Consumption as an AoE DoT nuke? Sure. Dramatic nerfs to mid-tier sets? Sure.

 

Energy melee? No shot. You're going to have to log into beta before I even think about respecting your opinion, as I know for a fact you weren't playing and mastering EM before this year. You need experience, be it with the old version of the set or the new one to make a case, here you don't have either.

 

 

 

 

I have a level 50 Energy/Energy stalker so what are you even talking about?  I have a 50 energy/WP tanker, too.  And I've tested energy melee on a scrapper with the changes. 
 
But again, energy melee was simply an example. I don't have a major beef with it since the changes that were made in alpha.  I don't think it's great, but not bad either, and an improvement over what's on live for all but stalkers. 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Puma

[Puma]

31 minutes ago, ScarySai said:

 

Energy melee? No shot. You're going to have to log into beta before I even think about respecting your opinion, as I know for a fact you weren't playing and mastering EM before this year. You need experience, be it with the old version of the set or the new one to make a case, here you don't have either.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Puma

[Infinitum]

2 hours ago, Puma said:

Actually, gotta disagree here.  
 
 
I propose changing all of Energy Melee's attacks single target attacks that do pure lethal damage that do negative HP on the caster and add a chance to grant invis to teammates. 

What? You dont like that? YOU HAVENT EVEN TESTED IT YET!!!
 
 
Sometimes you dont need to test something to say you disagree with the direction it's going. 

And you would be wrong.

[Puma]

You know what, I'm going to take a step back.  I don't believe Sai is a liar.  I think they must have either misstated something, overstated what they assumed about my play in the heat of an argument, or maybe just forgot for a bit who I even am.  I don't believe they'd intentionally misrepresent stuff. 

I think this somehow got way out of hand.   I understand the sentiment of the post, and don't disagree with its basic premise (it's important to test before you make up your mind about most  stuff) but also think that there are changes proposed, at times, that players don't need to test to believe they are the wrong move for whatever reason.  

I've been testing things in this patch as I can.  I can't possibly test all of it.  I have SERIOUS concerns about the directions of large parts of this patch.  I think those concerns are totally valid, even if I haven't been able to fully test out all aspects of it.  And I think some of those concerns aren't about testing, because they are concerns about the direction of whole archetypes and the game itself, not specific powersets.   
 
Clearly Sai and most of you disagree. I'm OK with that. I shared my views.  I'm not going to let this devolve any further. I apologize for blowing up the thread.  

[Monos King]

3 minutes ago, Puma said:

Clearly Sai and most of you disagree. I'm OK with that. I shared my views.  I'm not going to let this devolve any further. I apologize for blowing up the thread.

Puma, it's ok. You just need to know that if you think a powers performance is going to be negatively (or positively affected for that matter) by a patch, you need to check it for yourself to be sure. if you know that, the discussion above is just topic for thought.

[Troo]

Puma is correct.

[Infinitum]

21 minutes ago, Troo said:

Puma is correct.

[Troo]

[Infinitum]

[GM Tock]

Removed some off topic posts.  Carry on.

[AerialAssault]

I'd like to add on to the OP post and say that "old thing good, new thing bad" isn't really a valid argument. I understand that change can be scary, but I think being open to change is for the best.

 

If you look at contemporary MMOs, like ESO, WoW & FFXIV, they have been through radical changes at some point, and emerged better for it. Now, I'm not saying that Homecoming needs (or could even manage) a similar reimagining, but digging in and refusing to budge will only be harmful in the long term.

[Galaxy Brain]

There are obviously certain things that do not need testing to provide feedback on, like the current changes to Travel Powers + Ninjitsu where the performance shift is black and white. However, in any other circumstance where there are complex changes then I am 100% behind Sai where testing should be required.

[ScarySai]

100% agree, informed opinions and opinions of gameplay feel are valid, don't need to be a chef to know the food is burned.

 

Sadly, many opinions posted from certain people are just blatant knee-jerk reactions informed only by the poster's ass.

Edited November 18, 2020 by ScarySai

[Bill Z Bubba]

On 11/11/2020 at 8:33 PM, Monos King said:

Puma, it's ok. You just need to know that if you think a powers performance is going to be negatively (or positively affected for that matter) by a patch, you need to check it for yourself to be sure. if you know that, the discussion above is just topic for thought.

And yet those that DID test it, thoroughly, and STILL dislike it, are jumped on at every chance by a certain group of posters until they're simply driven from the discussion is disgust.

 

Some things never change.

[Monos King]

3 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

And yet those that DID test it, thoroughly, and STILL dislike it, are jumped on at every chance by a certain group of posters until they're simply driven from the discussion is disgust.

If they tested it and disliked it that's fine, yeah.

[Infinitum]

12 hours ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

And yet those that DID test it, thoroughly, and STILL dislike it, are jumped on at every chance by a certain group of posters until they're simply driven from the discussion is disgust.

 

Some things never change.

I'm not pointing fingers to you directly just in general to objections I have observed here.

 

No, its purposely obtuse to say something sucks not based on its merits, when this set accomplishes every prerequisite for being a great balanced set and even caters to how the set was, and how the set should perform in the current game environment as it is today.

 

Every legitimate objection has been addressed and modified since its been in testing.

 

To not like it is a personal preference -not anything that is based on testing it on its merits - because if you honestly do that, this set

1. achieves the pre nerf feel of EM,

2. is very simple to use,

3. Is much improved over both pre nerf and current live versions.

4. Offers something great but slightly different for every AT.

5. Is balanced well with Min Maxing or not.

6. Versatile

 

The only complaints left are from arguments that either haven't been involved in testing extensively or just flat out not being fair to the work put into this set to make it so good.

 

There just simply isnt any good reason to not like this set aside from being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

 

So the long and the short of it is you can say you dont like it, but you are only doing yourself a disservice by doing so, and not being at all objective.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Infinitum

[siolfir]

Oh, look @Bill Z Bubba, here's one of those now! 

 

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

I'm not pointing fingers to you directly just in general to objections I have observed here.

 

No, its purposely obtuse to say something sucks not based on its merits, when this set accomplishes every prerequisite for being a great balanced set and even caters to how the set was, and how the set should perform in the current game environment as it is today.

 

Every legitimate objection has been addressed and modified since its been in testing.

 

To not like it is a personal preference -not anything that is based on testing it on its merits - because if you honestly do that, this set

1. achieves the pre nerf feel of EM,

2. is very simple to use,

3. Is much improved over both pre nerf and current live versions.

4. Offers something great but slightly different for every AT.

5. Is balanced well with Min Maxing or not.

6. Versatile

 

The only complaints left are from arguments that either haven't been involved in testing extensively or just flat out not being fair to the work put into this set to make it so good.

 

There just simply isnt any good reason to not like this set aside from being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

 

So the long and the short of it is you can say you dont like it, but you are only doing yourself a disservice by doing so, and not being at all objective.

No, it is purposely obtuse to list your opinion as the end-all and be-all of valid feedback. The whole point in such a post is to suppress feedback by claiming some "objective truth" on things that are almost entirely opinion-based. Even throwing key words such as how things should perform is a cute little red flag of "this is my opinion," which means that you don't get to tell someone else that says, "No, it should work this way," that they are wrong and purposely obtuse.

 

So let's go through your points:

1. This is an opinion, as is anything related to "feel." Others are allowed to disagree because that's what an opinion is.
2. Again, an opinion - however, it is objectively less simple than it was and anyone with two brain cells to run together can see that.
3. "Much" is open for interpretation on the pre-nerf version, which never saw the proc-happy builds. Better than the current live version takes little to no effort. Both of these goals could have been achieved without a mechanic. That said, this is the closest to a factual statement you made so far in your post. Good job.
4. It works with AT inherents - by itself only has significant changes for the Stalker version, where the increased recharge on PC helps for it being the only AoE, and the same changes every Stalker primary get with Build Up, Assassin's Strike, and Placate. The Brute, Tanker, and Scrapper versions are literally only different in how they deal with target caps (Tanker) or criticals (Scrapper). But hey, keep padding it so the list of points looks longer, good on you.
5. Is it, though? It's still down in AoE damage, which is made up for by paying hit points to use your best attack more often. You've already got the complains in the TW thread about how EM is the new TW from people who feel it's (apparently) not balanced, although those are mostly trying to preserve the status quo on Titan Weapons. But see where this whole opinion thing comes in?
6. Again, a matter of opinion. It's versatile at what, exactly? Punching things? It doesn't provide AoE crowd control like Stone Melee, Electric Melee, or Super Strength; it doesn't heal you like Dark or Rad Melee. The -special is nice and it's the only melee set to offer it, but you also give up the animation change for ET to use it.

So the long and the short of is you can say you're being objective, but you're only being hypocritical by doing so, and not being at all objective. Whether others like the changes or not.

[Bill Z Bubba]

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

No, its purposely obtuse to say something sucks not based on its merits,

I am sick of you and your persistent insults to everyone that doesn't fall into line with your idiotic view of game balance.

 

1 hour ago, Infinitum said:

Every legitimate objection has been addressed and modified since its been in testing.

Liar.

[Infinitum]

41 minutes ago, Bill Z Bubba said:

I am sick of you and your persistent insults to everyone that doesn't fall into line with your idiotic view of game balance.

 

Liar.

Its not insults, and its not my view of game balance.

 

And yes the Devs have gone above and beyond to answer every LEGITIMATE concern about any change they have made.  Tear jerking and carpet pounding doesn't count.

[Bill Z Bubba]

Just now, Infinitum said:

Its not insults, and its not my view of game balance.

 

And yes the Devs have gone above and beyond to answer every LEGITIMATE concern about any change they have made.  Tear jerking and carpet pounding doesn't count.

More insults while lying about them not being insults. Pathetic.

[Infinitum]

Just now, Bill Z Bubba said:

More insults while lying about them not being insults. Pathetic.

Those were insults, yes, but they were also accurate.