Suggestions for Development and testing

[Puma]

As someone who tried hard to take part in beta testing Storm Blast, and for brief second having it seem like the Devs were actually listening to concerns of the players, I have to say, this whole system on this server needs an update. 

 

I know there's the Alpha testing server first hand.  But I also know how small that group is.   They're great people, but they're a tiny fraction of players. 

 

So when a new powerset gets to Beta here, and is largely "done" without some minor tweaks, it's really frustrating.  Frankly, with the problems identified with Storm Blast and having it pushed out the door like it was with no real warning, it makes me feel like there's no real point in beta testing.  The decisions have been made by the gods of this server, praise be their name.    

 

I would REALLY prefer it if, for future powersets, you change your approach.  Frankly, if the next set you're planning on doing was, say, Wind Control, I'd REALLY like it if you actually took your idea, polled the players on their thoughts of the direction before development, and after development, brought it to Beta here WITHOUT a firm commitment to have it launch "soon" and have the concept locked down in stone.  There were some real problems identified with the design of Storm Cell and Cat 5, and some good solutions posed.  There were so many posts by a couple of other players attacking people for daring to point out those problems on a set "so close to done" that deletions had to occur, then a few minor tweaks to numbers and animations that don't address those concerns brought up, and then no warning that it was about to go live so further testing and brainstorming solutions was a waste of OUR time. 

This is NOT the way things used to be.  I remember when Savage Melee was being tested and the Devs really listened, tweaked, and fixed what a lot of the problems with the set's design.  It didn't become a tier 1 set, but it became better. And they took their time and listened.   The approach I saw here with Storm Blast is also a different approach from what I see of the writing and contact development here too, where feedback seems to be listened to much better.  
 
Well, this time, I don't know what the rush is, but I feel like I just wasted a week of my free time testing something for no real reason.  Cool.   


You could have had one of the most beautiful sets in a long time be actually playable.  Now, it's a slog fest that is a chore to play at LEAST until the 30s, and then once you hit the high levels really struggles by its design against the kinds of enemies you face.  But hey...it's out, so I guess it doesn't matter.  But I'm disappointed and annoyed at how this whole thing was handled.  

Edited April 25, 2023 by Puma

[biostem]

The question is what is the goal for the beta period of testing - if it is merely to elicit feedback with the intent of only performing minor tweaks to the set, then no amount of "scrap this and go back to the drawing board" is going to be heeded, and only those providing the kind of feedback the devs are seeking, will be listened to.

[Rudra]

I don't know how the testing for new sets works on beta, but if the development process works like @Puma said, then that means you are going to get a sub-optimal result a not insignificant part of the time. If the alpha testers are only a very small community and only their inputs get rolled into larger changes and tweaks for new sets with beta being limited to final adjustments, then there is not a large enough base to fully test out a new set and iron out deficiencies or other concerns.

 

Again, I have no idea if things work the way @Puma said. I'm just saying that if things do work like that, then beta testing should really be considered open alpha testing until the set is properly polished.

 

I need to point out that I have not yet tried Storm Blast, so I have no opinion on how it turned out. I'm just commenting on the OP here.

 

You have a good point, @biostem, but so does @Puma depending on how the situation may be.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Rudra
Edited to correct "tesing" to "testing" and change "problems" to "concerns".

[biostem]

2 minutes ago, Rudra said:

You have a good point, @biostem, but so does @Puma depending on how the situation may be.

You have to differentiate between a "Closed Beta" and an "Open Beta".  What we have here is more akin to the latter, where anyone can try out the new stuff and provide feedback.  This means that large sweeping changes are unlikely to happen.  If we're thinking "pie in the sky" sort of stuff, then ideally we'd have alpha, then a closed beta, where a larger, but still exclusive group, was able to test the changes, provide feedback that could involve major overhauls, then the open beta, where anyone can try, but things will only receive minor tweaks, before going live...

[Puma]

19 minutes ago, biostem said:

The question is what is the goal for the beta period of testing - if it is merely to elicit feedback with the intent of only performing minor tweaks to the set, then no amount of "scrap this and go back to the drawing board" is going to be heeded, and only those providing the kind of feedback the devs are seeking, will be listened to.

I think this  is correct, but it's also very indicative of the problem.  But if you look at the first link on the Beta testing forum, it's this:
 

2. BE CONSTRUCTIVE. Going on about how the devs are idiots and you have the One True Vision for the game is not helpful; trying to engage with the changes and the reasons given is." 

That assumed they should be open to changes, but go read the thread for Storm Blast, where multiple alpha testers and others say the set was pretty much set in stone how the devs wanted it before coming here, a dev said that wasn't necessarily true, then multiple users pointed out the same problems with the set (big, set breaking problems, not minor ones) and with no warning it was just published live with no dev feedback.  That strongly implies it IS true.  

Edited April 25, 2023 by Puma

[Puma]

3 minutes ago, biostem said:

You have to differentiate between a "Closed Beta" and an "Open Beta".  What we have here is more akin to the latter, where anyone can try out the new stuff and provide feedback.  This means that large sweeping changes are unlikely to happen.  If we're thinking "pie in the sky" sort of stuff, then ideally we'd have alpha, then a closed beta, where a larger, but still exclusive group, was able to test the changes, provide feedback that could involve major overhauls, then the open beta, where anyone can try, but things will only receive minor tweaks, before going live...

This is a major problem then, in my opinion, as someone who has access to both open Alpha and closed beta testing, and it's resulting in sub-par releases.  

[Rudra]

13 minutes ago, biostem said:

You have to differentiate between a "Closed Beta" and an "Open Beta".  What we have here is more akin to the latter, where anyone can try out the new stuff and provide feedback.  This means that large sweeping changes are unlikely to happen.  If we're thinking "pie in the sky" sort of stuff, then ideally we'd have alpha, then a closed beta, where a larger, but still exclusive group, was able to test the changes, provide feedback that could involve major overhauls, then the open beta, where anyone can try, but things will only receive minor tweaks, before going live...

I agree. When a product gets to the open beta stage of development, it is basically done and undergoing final testing/tweaking. If something turns up in open beta though and it is not a minor tweak? Then the product should be able to be moved back to an earlier stage of development, even if only briefly, for correction. This becomes even more critical if the closed alpha team is a particularly small group and there is no open alpha stage. City of Heroes lacks an open alpha stage as far as I know of. So the test server, despite being an open beta server, meaning it is for final adjustments, would also need to double as an open alpha server too. If there is an open alpha server though? Then the test server is fine with just being an open beta server and changes being limited to minor adjustments, though more players would need to be made aware of the existence of said open alpha server.

 

Edit: I should point out that even open alphas are not usually "open", and are still fairly exclusive for access. They are however, more open to others to provide additonal feedback.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Rudra

[biostem]

12 minutes ago, Puma said:

This is a major problem then, in my opinion, as someone who has access to both open Alpha and closed beta testing, and it's resulting in sub-par releases. 

I'm not privy to the feedback that was given during Alpha - was there enough calling for drastic overhauls, or were most ambivalent or positive, that it moved ahead anyway?

[Ruin Mage]

Now, I'm going to preface this with: I have Closed Tested a couple of things and am part of the open-invite Tester Discord (I've posted it several times and I'll post it again if asked) - so I have a very very clear bias. I am also speaking from a general standpoint of what I've seen / what I know from being in the tester Discord. I can't really speak onto why the devs didn't "listen" to certain voices regarding Storm Blast. You'd have to get an answer directly from them.

 

1 hour ago, Puma said:

it's resulting in sub-par releases. 

Page 5 and Page 6 both fall under a new pattern of feature-locking deadlined releases. This is in part because we only have one person who can push these patches out. Now, they could change that but I imagine that's not the quickest or easiest solution. Faultline has had a very shit show of his life when traveling abroad, and isn't always going to be there. So 5 & 6 were given deadlines and feature locks. They did not want, to my understanding, massive pages that kept getting more features. This is why it may feel sub-par, but its hardly that in my opinion.

 

 

1 hour ago, Puma said:

polled the players on their thoughts of the direction before development

No. Not a chance in hell after prior pages should this be done. People do not have the ability to think critically or reign themselves in - within a broad sense of 'people' and this is not our server in the developmental sense. Now, we have had feedback change things in both the Closed Beta (where we're under a loose trust situation to NOT share what we're testing) AND in Open Beta. However, polling does not in any circumstance work. It has never worked in my experience with it and game development, and trying it out after prior pages and the insane amount of Patch Note Reactors? No. By all that is holy no.
 

 

1 hour ago, Puma said:

I remember when Savage Melee was being tested and the Devs really listened, tweaked, and fixed what a lot of the problems with the set's design.  It didn't become a tier 1 set, but it became better. And they took their time and listened.

Paragon Studios vs a bunch of volunteers is not a good comparison to make. Savage Melee was not a HC creation. The standards of a paid company do not need to be upheld by 3 (so far as I know) volunteers doing the Power Development.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Shadeknight

[Marbing]

I was going to say something more but… @Shadeknight pretty much covered it. 
 

Also,

Testing is done before it hits feedback and after it hits feedback. Changes happen both before and after as well. Some things don’t change, some things do. The devs listen and do the best they can, but they have a different perspective. 

Edited April 25, 2023 by Marbing

[Puma]

1 hour ago, Shadeknight said:

Now, I'm going to preface this with: I have Closed Tested a couple of things and am part of the open-invite Tester Discord (I've posted it several times and I'll post it again if asked) - so I have a very very clear bias. I am also speaking from a general standpoint of what I've seen / what I know from being in the tester Discord. I can't really speak onto why the devs didn't "listen" to certain voices regarding Storm Blast. You'd have to get an answer directly from them.

 

Page 5 and Page 6 both fall under a new pattern of feature-locking deadlined releases. This is in part because we only have one person who can push these patches out. Now, they could change that but I imagine that's not the quickest or easiest solution. Faultline has had a very shit show of his life when traveling abroad, and isn't always going to be there. So 5 & 6 were given deadlines and feature locks. They did not want, to my understanding, massive pages that kept getting more features. This is why it may feel sub-par, but its hardly that in my opinion.

 

 

No. Not a chance in hell after prior pages should this be done. People do not have the ability to think critically or reign themselves in - within a broad sense of 'people' and this is not our server in the developmental sense. Now, we have had feedback change things in both the Closed Beta (where we're under a loose trust situation to NOT share what we're testing) AND in Open Beta. However, polling does not in any circumstance work. It has never worked in my experience with it and game development, and trying it out after prior pages and the insane amount of Patch Note Reactors? No. By all that is holy no.
 

 

Paragon Studios vs a bunch of volunteers is not a good comparison to make. Savage Melee was not a HC creation. The standards of a paid company do not need to be upheld by 3 (so far as I know) volunteers doing the Power Development.

A:  The polling I'm talking about is about the general public's reception to major ideas: things like Storm Cell and how it could function, for example.  Do most players WANT a power that works that way, etc.  Polling what the public would like before you personally get invested as the developer is EXACTLY the way to develop new products in an established player base, and I say this as someone whose Masters thesis was, partly, related to MMO design and communication.  You don't poll on every detail, but you ask the general public opinions like "If X powerset were made, which design would be most interesting to you- A, B, or C?"  "What problems do you forsee with design issue A?  B? C?" etc.  The results don't even need to be public. The polls can easily be done via Forms to give the DEVS the feedback while making users' comments and ideas not seeable by the playerbase.  This would allow Devs to get an idea about the general reception and possible oversights of their vision for a set.  Is it really a good one to the general population, etc.  This would be BEFORE they put in the work of coding, AND present them with possible problems to avoid ahead of time in their design.  You know...problems like designing an entire set around a key power and a tier 9 that require you to focus exclusively on your primary attacks if you want them to do their full damage.  Ramping up is a cool idea, but it has a serious design flaw that could have been fixed if they'd have had more people looking earlier on.  *shrug*

B:  Savage Melee was not finished by Paragon Studios.  It was tested and finished by people in this community, and went through several major changes as we did.  And the set is much better for it. 
 

C : If there is a clear deadline where no changes can be made, the testers here should be notified. It's a waste of -our- time having us spend two hours  testing out a new combo tonight to see if there really is a problem, or what the solution could be, if they're already launching as is tomorrow morning at 6 AM.  And if they don't plan on any changes during beta testing here besides bug fixes, they should make that clear as well.  I feel this current system is unintentionally inconsiderate to the player base outside of the alpha test server, and even some of us on that server are here testing it and possibly wasting our time. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Puma

[Wravis]

What sets have the devs made that are actually good and used after the initial surge of excitement? Of the sets the Homecoming team made, the only one I can think of that is actually used and not underbaked and undertuned is Electric Affinity.

People point out these sets are bad when they hit the beta servers, but we're told the alpha testers know better and to just take what we're given.

Just push out the sets then. Letting the general population "test" without any actual influence only serves to annoy people.
 

[Rigged]

2 hours ago, Shadeknight said:

Paragon Studios vs a bunch of volunteers is not a good comparison to make. Savage Melee was not a HC creation. The standards of a paid company do not need to be upheld by 3 (so far as I know) volunteers doing the Power Development.

 

Wait, seriously? Only three?

 

Can we please get a tutorial or something so that the rest of us can join in and help? Lots of us are very invested in this game. That we have to wait months in between balance changes due to manpower issues is ridiculous. The issue isn't a lack of enthusiasm, it's a lack of know-how. A few weeks ago I begged for an explanation or tutorial on how to edit the textures and models and put them in the game. Is there really no one in the loop willing to educate the rest of us so that we can open the gates of modding?

Edited April 26, 2023 by Rigged

[Rudra]

7 minutes ago, Rigged said:

 

Wait, seriously? Only three?

 

Can we please get a tutorial or something so that the rest of us can join in and help? Lots of us are very invested in this game. That we have to wait months in between balance changes due to manpower issues is ridiculous. The issue isn't a lack of enthusiasm, it's a lack of know-how. A few weeks ago I begged for an explanation or tutorial on how to edit the textures and models and put them in the game. Is there really no one in the loop willing to educate the rest of us so that we can open the gates of modding?

Modding isn't going to happen. Not on CoX. I don't remember why and am disinclined to go looking for the answer, but it is out there, somewhere. If you want to become a developer, there is a process that someone linked on another thread to apply to become a dev.

 

(Edit: Yes, I know there are mods out there. I'm using one to shut the gargoyles up when on my demon summoner. However, they are not officially recognized and fall into the "user beware" category.)

Edited April 26, 2023 by Rudra

[Ruin Mage]

6 hours ago, Rigged said:

Can we please get a tutorial or something so that the rest of us can join in and help? Lots of us are very invested in this game. That we have to wait months in between balance changes due to manpower issues is ridiculous.

Balance changes are tied to Pages/Issues. Pages are not cranked out like crazy and take their time. You would have to essentially try to take over Homecoming to change that. Thankfully, it does seem that Pages are coming a smidge faster given they're getting feature-locked/focused! As for how you can join? The Future Volunteer threads in the Developer's Corner. They, however, do not pick people willy-nilly. Devs, as far as I've noticed, are carefully picked. So the fact there are 3 devs for powers means they aren't just stockpiling people for it.

It's not a manpower issue and if it had been, you'd see them lean more into adding to their team.

 

6 hours ago, Wravis said:

What sets have the devs made that are actually good and used after the initial surge of excitement?

Given that they've only made Electrical Affinity, Seismic Blast, Symphony Control, and now Storm Blast? I'd say all of them. Used means even a few people play them, but perhaps we differ in definitions. Subjectivity is fun like that! Of those, I think the least played by my experience is Seismic but your experience differs from that.

 

 

7 hours ago, Puma said:

B:  Savage Melee was not finished by Paragon Studios.  It was tested and finished by people in this community, and went through several major changes as we did.  And the set is much better for it. 

Back in 2013 by entirely different developers. We do not have the exact same developers as SCORE/The Secret Server. Apples to Oranges.

 

 

6 hours ago, Wravis said:

we're told the alpha testers know better and to just take what we're given.

Anyone saying that those testing in the 'alpha' environment knows better is letting their presence in the tester discord get to their head. Which is a hilarious thought given it's no super secret cabal type of thing.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Shadeknight

[Rigged]

2 hours ago, Shadeknight said:

Balance changes are tied to Pages/Issues.

 

Is the Homecoming team really, really committed to this? The reason I ask is because it feels like it would be a LOT easier to test and implement balance changes than create new content (which is what the Pages are really for, right?). I am not asking for new mechanics: I am asking for tweaking numbers on underperforming sets, especially those with very large discrepancies.

Entire ATs have languished neglected while balance changes, though lovely, come out at a snails pace. We have multiple months in between pages where we could be testing out balance changes. Consider what we could have done from Oct 2022 until earlier this month when the Page 6 content arrived on the beta server. That was five months! A whole page's worth of balance changes could have been tested and made.

Just to clarify here: I am fine with the release pace of new powersets. I don't expect much in that direction because that requires professional skills to implement, specifically a team of people who can create art, animation, and code. I have no problem with the new HC-exclusive powersets, even if I never play them because they are available only to ATs I have little interest in playing (Controls/Buff/Ranged) and I already have concepts in mind for the rare characters I make in those ATs. What I am concerned about is the pace of balance changes. If indeed this set underperforms (even if I personally am not invested in Storm Blast either way), it would be better not to make people wait months for tweaks.

 

--------------------------

 

But if we want to discuss new content:

 

 

2 hours ago, Shadeknight said:

It's not a manpower issue and if it had been, you'd see them lean more into adding to their team.

 

If this is indeed true, then no one should rightly say, "The Homecoming devs are a small team doing this in their free time and cannot be compared to a paid dev team".

 

But we do. We say this literally all the time, and rightly so. This is absolutely a manpower issue. If the devs want to maintain quality of content, they can pick and choose what is officially added from the morass of unofficial mods produced by Sturgeon's Law. But we, the community, needs to be taught how to try. I cannot imagine it is easy to add a new armor model into COH, compared to the relative ease of say, Skyrim (a game so easy to mod even *I* could rig and import a public domain armor model into my game). Please show us how. At the same time I am sure there is a ton of tedious, boring, but simple things that we could do (for example, editing weapon textures for color customization, porting alternate animations to identical powers, adding a No-FX option to every armor power) which would be a complete waste of a skilled dev's time. A paid dev team cannot crowdsource labor because of community reaction against spec work, but a private server preserving a fan-favorite game can. Teach the community to edit and mod the game, and then filter what meets the standards to publish. Then find the ones that persistently meet those standards, and recruit them.

 

Look, let me elaborate here: I am pretty damn sure that, even though most of us have not a single clue how to add or import an armor model into the game, if there was a tutorial, we would do it for the one model or thing we care about. For instance, I am pretty sure that someone would work out how to add/edit the Sybil outfit in a way that actually works if only so they can have their character even less-dressed than currently possible. Someone is going to add in a whole bunch of animal heads solely they can play their furry species of choice. In many mods, it starts with one person making a barely functioning but popular mod that another person "fixes" so that it works better. Some of those people would continue making or porting more things. That's how modding communities grow.

 

Consider also that a single person losing their laptop essentially put everything on hold for months. Doesn't it feel like there could be a bit more open contribution rather than strictly restricting contribution to people who have professional experience? A whole chunk of top (and I mean TOP) game modders are amateurs, because quite frankly video game professionals do not have much time to work on a game for free. Look, I am not discounting the immense contribution the HC devs make to our community. But this is why I am asking whether we can help. The content release process is so long that devs have come and gone in between issues. It really feels like the community needs to be allowed to join in and replace them.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Rigged

[Puma]

3 hours ago, Shadeknight said:

Given that they've only made Electrical Affinity, Seismic Blast, Symphony Control, and now Storm Blast? I'd say all of them. Used means even a few people play them, but perhaps we differ in definitions. Subjectivity is fun like that! Of those, I think the least played by my experience is Seismic but your experience differs from that.

Back in 2013 by entirely different developers. We do not have the exact same developers as SCORE/The Secret Server. Apples to Oranges.
 

 Then a: Out of  3 previous sets, only one gets regularly played.  That's not a great record (though we have no actual data on this so we can't know for sure)
b: IF that's true, then these developers should be taking a page from those ones.  This system is serious flawed, for the reasons I pointed out.  

[Ruin Mage]

 I'm starting to get the entitlement itch, but I hope that's just a bad rash.
 

50 minutes ago, Rigged said:

Is the Homecoming team really, really committed to this?

That's a question to ask the developers. It's likely that Faultline would have the answer. Given how that's how its worked? Yeah, probably committed to it at three? four? years of HC being up.

 

 

50 minutes ago, Rigged said:

Entire ATs have languished neglected while balance changes, though lovely, come out at a snails pace. We have multiple months in between pages where we could be testing out balance changes. Consider what we could have done from Oct 2022 until earlier this month when the Page 6 content arrived on the beta server. That was five months! A whole page's worth of balance changes could have been tested and made.

They cannot push patches without Faultline, and giving the power to push changes/patches to anyone else is likely a non-starter due to what that could cascade into. Also, there is the whole Testing Phase where they're most definitely still ironing out everything. Open Beta is where the final shapes are being made. The final touches with a chance for Going Back to the Drawing Board. Which has happened with a proposed Dark Consumption change, Eagle's Claw change, and the AE Changes sort of.
 

 

50 minutes ago, Rigged said:

This is absolutely a manpower issue

A manpower issue only by the hand that they are not going to suddenly fill the team with ten+ people per part of the game. It takes time to ensure someone can be trusted, that they are learning the tools, and that they are following (this is a hypothesis THIS IS A HYPOTHESIS COMING UP) some sort of pipeline that the Devs may have in their own corner. It's not an easily solvable issue by bringing out more people.

Pages are also becoming less massive. They're becoming feature-locked and thus avoid the prior SUPER lengthy waits between them. I point back to how big of a gap there used to be. Five and Six have come out much faster than prior pages, but also had deadlines and feature-lock due to reasons that include IRL.

 

 

50 minutes ago, Rigged said:

Doesn't it feel like there could be a bit more open contribution rather than strictly restricting contribution to people who have professional experience?

Sort of. Maybe.

One can contribute costume pieces/patterns. However, anything beyond that is a whole other can of worms. See, there's this thing called people are petty bitches. On the drop of a hat, HC could have a very annoying situation where someone contributes. Only that person then tries to use their contribution to have some sort of say in development. HC disagrees with what that person wants. So that person loses their mind and starts a stink about how HC stole from them. While this becomes more of an issue for GMs, its still a headache that can and should be avoided. How? Careful vetting and choosing how to approach contributions.

Now anyone can post their credentials or whatever in the Future Volunteer threads. The devs can, in time, check those out and maybe pick up one or two people every so often. Every blue moon. It still takes time to see the fruition of that being done. I'm like 99% certain it took several weeks for the new arc creators to figure out what stuff does what.
 

 

50 minutes ago, Rigged said:

Teach the community to edit and mod the game, and then filter what meets the standards to publish.

Costume Edits are vastly different than Sound Modding, but sure this isn't a half-bad idea. A very small reminder that COH is notoriously spaghetti coded that they'd need to have elaborate sections explaining errors or jank-ness. Which takes time to make images for, write out, and then put into a neat format. Maybe.
 

 

50 minutes ago, Rigged said:

The content release process is so long that devs have come and gone in between issues. It really feels like the community needs to be allowed to join in and replace them.

Fun Fact: No one is being barred from joining!

One. Piecemeal. Who was a content developer. We then gained Caretaker in due time. I believe we've even gained a Dev with a Z name I can't remember. We also gained two devs for story - whose arcs were just released. Neat-o. We're just not gaining any new Power devs quickly, but I imagine powers is a whole other can of worms. You have sets that are so beloved that people will self-sabotage it in feedback (I look at Assault Rifle) despite being made better. You have sets that if you so much as tweak? you'll get an eighty page feedback thread (Hasn't happened yet, but boy we gamers are passionate!) -- though I'm getting a little off track.

Joining the Development Team is not a snap of the finger movement. Put yourself forward and be patient. No one is getting paid for this last I checked. Also don't be like me and go to bat for them every time someone says something bad about them.

 

 

28 minutes ago, Puma said:

This system is serious flawed

Sure, it could be said to be flawed. However, the solutions I've seen are not the greatest. The community doesn't need to be polled, enlightened, or brought up to speed - though we'll disagree here. The fact we have what communication we do get (especially after certain pages) is a blessing. Now, if I had any say in the matter and thank god I don't, I'd see more value in a loose roadmap of 'here is what we have in mind, but no time frame or promises'. A sort of 'whats currently on our minds or whats coming' without time commitments. A sort of way to tell the community that x, y, and z are heard but certain things come first.

Could split it based on area. Content, Power, QOL/General Stuff. This, I recognize, is a form of being brought up to speed - but it's one that does work a whole ton better than polls. I don't believe polls in any shape or form to be the best method. They're manipulable and a horrible way of showing anything valid. Plus not everyone goes to the forums. Nor does everyone go to the Discord. There's no real easy solution here as I type this out.

But that's just an idea that is also probably not anything great. It's an idea that's far better than 'The power devs should poll the community because a vocal minority want more of a say'. Which is what this reads like over a power set, but again there's bias in play so maybe I'm wrong.



 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Shadeknight

[EmperorSteele]

I think the problem with OPs suggestions are that they fall into a "too many cooks" situation. Letting people whos only contribution would be reactionary opinions aid in development would be a TERRIBLE idea.

 

And while I'm very aware of Power Creep and the need to keep it under control, the powers devs do seem to lean towards being a bit too cautious. 

 

But either way, I think the HC devs are doing a good enough job that we don't need to emulate thunderspy's "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach, as OP seems to want.

[Ruin Mage]

9 minutes ago, EmperorSteele said:

the powers devs do seem to lean towards being a bit too cautious. 

I mean, they're cautious and observant with access to data we don't have.

I don't know if they could afford to lean back on the cautiousness. Maybe they could try for a page! By nerfing Fire Blast.

[Faultline]

As Shade indicated, the deadline was set by me because starting today I have a series of appointments for a ton of immigration-related paperwork that are very time intensive and I'm unlikely to be able to give COH the required attention for the next few weeks; small patches is fine to fix issues, but the big page publish definitely needed to be yesterday.

[Number Six]

14 hours ago, Shadeknight said:

The standards of a paid company do not need to be upheld by 3 (so far as I know) volunteers doing the Power Development.

 

3 with public personas and thick enough skin to put up with the abuse that gets heaped on them.

 

6 total who specifically work on powers.

 

That's a separate group from the 6 who work on writing, missions, and content development.

 

The art team is another separate group, it mostly borrows talent from the other teams at the moment. It could use a few more people dedicated to it and is something we're working on.

 

I'm not in any of those groups since I focus mostly on coding engine features and technical upgrades to the backend, with some part-time help from a couple of others.

 

Then there's @Faultline who mostly focuses on project management and integration work since even with guidance, developers are constantly stepping on each others toes and making conflicting changes that have to be sorted out.

 

So a lot of the thread is already based on a faulty premise.

[Ruin Mage]

3 minutes ago, Number Six said:

6 total who specifically work on powers.

Oh huh, neat information.

 

[Number Six]

And as for storm blast, I agree with the team's consensus that while it's early days, we're pretty happy with the performance of the set in practice so far.

 

It's not top DPS in every situation, and in no universe should it be. It does decent damage and is fun to play.

 

A set that's fun to play despite not being the best at absolutely everything and not slavishly used automatically by min/maxers is every build is in absolutely no way a failure in our book.

[Number Six]

16 minutes ago, Faultline said:

As Shade indicated, the deadline was set by me because starting today I have a series of appointments for a ton of immigration-related paperwork that are very time intensive and I'm unlikely to be able to give COH the required attention for the next few weeks; small patches is fine to fix issues, but the big page publish definitely needed to be yesterday.

 

You don't need to give people an excuse. Sure there are other issues that would make testing more difficult (though not impossible, once we were in open beta we have others who can absolutely run the merging and build process if you got hit by a truck, even if they normally prefer not to). But even if there weren't, setting deadlines and sticking to them is a Very Good Thing.

 

If there's one thing we've learned about the development team that has been assembled from the community and is continuing to grow, it's that scope creep can be a real problem, and if we want to get more than 2 major releases out a year, we need to set goals and deadlines and reasonable standards, and not get caught up in trying to make everything perfect before release.