Suggestions for Development and testing

[Puma]

8 minutes ago, Captain Fabulous said:

You're clearly thinking of someone else because I did nothing of the sort. All I did was remind people the things they were repeatedly asking for ad nauseum weren't going to happen. Or that things they claimed didn't work actually worked just fine. Not because it was my opinion but because we were told by the devs they weren't going to change. My frustration came from those who ignored it and kept blathering on even after they were asked by multiple people to stop repeating the same things over and over and over again.

And here we are with y'all STILL complaining about how you were ignored, the system is broken, blah blah blah.

I mean, you know people can actually still go read the thread, right?  Except, of course, all your posts that the devs deleted and said were the problem. 
 
*shrug* 

[Puma]

4 hours ago, Bionic_Flea said:

I didn't have time to test the Storm blast changes before now, although I did try to follow the feedback threads.

 

But I did roll a storm/storm corr last night and got him to just shy of 30 running DFBs and the TFC task forces.  It seems to be about middle of the road to me.  It does not appear to be "OMG it's terrible" or "OMG it's the best" at least the way I am playing it.

 

Regarding testing in general: I sympathize with folks who tried something out, voiced concerns, and those concerns weren't addressed.  I have certainly been in that group before and it's not pleasant.  But I also realize that just because things don't change the way I want them to doesn't necessarily mean that I was ignored.  Rather, the devs may disagree or may want to see it in the wild with many players trying out crazy combos before seeing whether a change really needs to be made.

 

I have also been one whose suggestions have been taken a time or two and been accused of being some kind of insider or teacher's pet or something.  *Shrug*  As my wife tells me, I'm always wrong so I should just get used to it.  But I prefer to rage, rage against the dying of the light.

First off, HI FLEA!!!! 

 

 Second, I think what you're going to find is that any combo that requires an active secondary becomes a problem.  For Storm Cell and Cat 5 to actually work at even close to full potential you have to be amping them up with your main attacks.  When you're using your secondary attacks, Storm Cell's procs aren't being triggered.  So using secondary powers automatically reduces the damage of your two main primary powers.  Plus you have issues with lock out, accuracy, etc, on Storm Cell.  It makes the set unenjoyable outside of a few secondaries that allow for more passive play (obviously, in some people's opinion since this is subjective).  Storm Secondary essentially covers this up, because once you launch Tornado, Freezing Rain, and Lighting cloud you can just constantly focus on your primary set, so it will perform at its most optimal state (which, as you say, is still  just middling).  But pair it with an active secondary and suddenly Storm Cell is doing FAR less damage debuffing, and Hurricane is slower to amp up and does less damage.   Also, at higher levels, Storm Cell is really going to struggle with harder to hit targets because it's a pseudo-pet with 1.0 accuracy.

 

It can work. And it is a BEAUTIFUL set.  I'm going to try out a Storm Blast/Devices Blaster and see if I can get some better results since Devices is a passive secondary for the most part and I can focus on keeping Storm Blast optimized as gun drone and caltrops help boost its damage output. But I don't think a good set should be restricted to just a few secondary sets or penalize you for wanting your secondary to be an active part of your play. 

Anyway...I'm off topic.  This will probably be my last post and I'll just say, I think the Devs should be open to looking at refining the testing process.  You can keep deadlines, scope restrictions, etc. That doesn't have to change.   But perhaps bring them from Alpha to Beta here earlier, to give more time for a wider set of feedback.  Or come up with an Alpha 2.0 here that allows feedback before it gets to Beta for debugging, which still is open to a general pop that can give more feedback. And I really cant stress enough the benefit of actually engaging players before you start big projects and listening to their suggestions and ideas about your vision for that project.  You just need to do it non-publicly to avoid the chaos and flame wars some players like to engage in. 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Puma

[Captain Fabulous]

12 minutes ago, Puma said:

This is hilarious coming from you.  You were LITERALLY attacking several of us pointing out the very demonstrable, numericly backed problems this set faced because you said it was fine and wanted it out right away. That's not my take, that's your words.   -YOU- were the only one demanding the set be what you want. You literally had your posts deleted for being off topic by attacking others.  None of my posts got deleted. And as I posted above, the very first thread on the testing page says that ARE open to changes.  If that's not correct, that needs to be changed.  

Also...I'm hardly a "rando".  I've been with this community, in all its forms, probably longer than you have.  

Again, confusing me with someone else because I never said anything of the sort. I tested the set at a variety of different levels and enhancement configurations and had no issues with it. And I responded to those who incessantly complained about how every part of the set was broken by telling them it wasn't. Because I actually tested it. I stopped posting and deleted my own posts because I had it up to my eyeballs with the constant whining about how no one was paying attention to the changes you were demanding.

And in the end, after 27 pages of non-stop complaining about every damned thing what did it get you? Virtually nothing. Storm Cell still moves slowly, Cat 5 is still not a nuke. Endurance costs didn't change, and Jet Stream is still a repel. As we all tried to tell you. After which WE got scolded for replying to your nonsense.

[Puma]

1 hour ago, Captain Fabulous said:

 I stopped posting and deleted my own posts because I had it up to my eyeballs with the constant whining about how no one was paying attention to the changes you were demanding.
 

Evidence that you're just being dishonest: 

 In that post I say "the Devs have been listening" and making tweaks and changes.  I am not "whining about how no one was paying attention to my demands.  I

In fact, I posted THIS post also, thanking the Devs for the changes they DID make to duration and VFX on Storm Cell.  Booper, specifically, was amazing at going back and forth with our concerns to the Devs.
 

We were doing EXACTLY what the Forums said we should be doing, and while you KEEP SAYING that it was brought here pretty much ready to go and we were only supposed to look for bug fixes, we were told by Booper the exact opposite, and also that you really should stop commenting about how annoying our ideas were to you.

 

And I quote: "The set does not come to Brainstorm ready to go. We don't do business that way. We are always looking at the feedback and trying to find ways to improve on the set that keeps balance in a good spot. This is a good place to get fresh eyes on a subject in hopes of identifying concerns that were overlooked during the internal development phase and closed beta phase.

 

For example, a few days ago I pitched an idea to address a concern that I felt had a lot of merit. A 90s cooldown on Storm Cell may be too harsh on a low level character (where enhancement slots and other sources of recharge buffs are very limited). The overwhelming response was a 40s fixed cooldown was not desirable, so I didn't pursue that option. But that is still an example where we are listening to the feedback from both test servers and trying to find solutions to problems that we agree need to be addressed."

And lets not pretend you ALSO weren't repeatedly asking for the things you wanted, which were VFX changes.
 

Edited April 26, 2023 by Puma

[Ruin Mage]

6 hours ago, Wravis said:

And yet it's always the same few cheer leaders who come in to these threads and talk like they are the/an authority on the subject.

You can just say 'you' instead of this roundabout way of referring to me.

I only speak from experience of being in the Tester discord & having been a part of testing for previous pages. Though hard to believe the Devs are very communicative there. I and others have picked their brains. I'm not an absolute authority and never claim to be, but I always speak from an experienced point of view of what I know and have seen. I am hardly a cheer leader because I don't have pom poms or a skirt! I also don't believe the devs can do no wrong - which is sort of in line with being a 'cheer leader' from experience.

 

 

6 hours ago, Wravis said:

They don't have much experience with the things being discussed.

I have experience in seeing what sets I have seen and played with on a singular Shard in limited content, but I also never said that what I say is fact. Experiences are often subjective and I've never claimed otherwise. I don't spout, once, that what I experience is universal. Maybe you're more active than me PVE-wise and see a different thing than I do. That's entirely possible and realistic.

 

 

6 hours ago, Wravis said:

Their opinions are also subjective.

Yes, and I've never claimed otherwise in word or tone. My opinions are just that. Just like yours, Wravis.

 

[Wravis]

17 minutes ago, Shadeknight said:

You can just say 'you' instead of this roundabout way of referring to me.

I only speak from experience of being in the Tester discord & having been a part of testing for previous pages. Though hard to believe the Devs are very communicative there. I and others have picked their brains. I'm not an absolute authority and never claim to be, but I always speak from an experienced point of view of what I know and have seen. I am hardly a cheer leader because I don't have pom poms or a skirt! I also don't believe the devs can do no wrong - which is sort of in line with being a 'cheer leader' from experience.
 

Yes, and I've never claimed otherwise in word or tone. My opinions are just that. Just like yours, Wravis.

1) It wasn't just about you. You just provided a good example.

2)

Quote

Also don't be like me and go to bat for them every time someone says something bad about them.

Your post. I don't know how to quote multiple times with cited sources. 🙃

3) It is your tone though, even if you don't mean it to be. When you post lengthy breakdown responses to everything people say in a thread, that's the tone you set. And you must be aware of it, because you jokingly call yourself the forum cop.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Wravis

[EmperorSteele]

2 hours ago, Puma said:

Please cite where I every said anything that implies this. 

 

 Because I most decidedly did not.  

 

The whole part lamenting how small, tiny, and limited the alpha and beta testing segements are, and then suggesting that the playerbase be polled concerning ideas before the devs ever do anything? In the first post of the thread? It sure SOUNDS like you want more cooks in the kitchen, ready to Yay or Nay ideas in their infancy.

[Ruin Mage]

19 minutes ago, Wravis said:

you must be aware of it, because you jokingly call yourself the forum cop.

That comes from someone calling me one months and months ago. I've just stuck with it because of the perception I create about me.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Wravis said:

I don't know how to quote multiple times with cited sources.

If its two very different posts, you have to copy your post to a clipboard and go back to that post. Otherwise you have to do as I think you did.

 

[Rudra]

28 minutes ago, Wravis said:

2)

Quote

Also don't be like me and go to bat for them every time someone says something bad about them.

Your post. I don't know how to quote multiple times with cited sources. 🙃

A few options to do this. First option, just click at start or end of what you want to quote and then drag to highlight it. Instead of doing a CTRL+C or anything else, use the "Quote Selection" 'button' that pops up when you are done highlighting. It still shows who you are quoting. Or second option, just click the "Quote" button for the post you want to quote sections of, edit the quoted post down to just what you want to quote, post your comment to it, and then do it all over again to get to the next section you want to quote.

[Rudra]

17 minutes ago, Shadeknight said:

44 minutes ago, Wravis said:

I don't know how to quote multiple times with cited sources.

If its two very different posts, you have to copy your post to a clipboard and go back to that post. Otherwise you have to do as I think you did.

If trying to quote from multiple posts in a thread, the person can just either click at start or end of the desired section, drag to highlight, and then click "Quote Selection" for each separate post to be quoted, or just keep clicking "Quote" for each separate post to be quoted and editing down to the desired sections to respond. If trying to quote across multiple pages of a thread, then the "+" button lets the person retain all quotes to be added into their post in the order added (via the pluses).

[Luminara]

[TheZag]

4 minutes ago, Luminara said:

 

U know when Luminara busts out the popcorn ostrich in the suggestions forum that the topic is probably 1 or 2 posts away from getting locked.  😛

 

[Zect]

On 4/26/2023 at 5:23 AM, Puma said:

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.

 

MMO players are kids: they will never vote to have less candy, even if it rots their teeth. Putting development decisions to a vote will also merely result in a tyranny of the majority, where only the dominant meta (and powersets that jive with it) ever get development effort. Terrible idea - let's all hope it won't ever happen.

 

I'm so thrilled that Cat 5 isn't a standard "click 2 buttons and delete all non-bosses" nuke, and such an unconventional idea would never have been brought to life were it put to a vote. Players would've chosen the familiar over the innovative, the meta-friendly over the meta-breaking. I think Homecoming team has performed superbly this time round and I applaud their efforts to bring us something different and varied, because that's how you get replay value out of the game, not killing council or PI radios 5% faster,

 

Finally, since the popularity of homecoming's homebrew sets was criticized: popularity and usage rates are a terrible metric to judge a set's success by (though it's certainly one that creators of all kinds can't help but value). Different powersets appeal to different playstyles. This means that a powerset that is only liked by a few players is still an asset as it brings enjoyment to a group of players who otherwise would not engage with the game at all, therefore, giving the game a larger audience than otherwise. There's a reason Baskin-robbins has 31 flavors on sale, with the associated logistical headache, instead of only selling peanut butter chocolate.

 

Overall, I approve strongly of homecoming team's very measured approach to development, and this includes wisely not overtuning sets on release because compensating nerfs are very difficult to push through. It would've been real easy for them to just make "Fire blast, but with 50% more dps", and it would've been the most popular set ever. Instead, we get art. Maybe there is a God after all.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Zect

[Rigged]

5 hours ago, Rudra said:

So I have to ask, and I apologize for insinuation here, but are you reading the dev responses?

 

The devs responded while I was typing a post and I did not see them before I posted it. Once I did, I stopped pursuing that because even though I did not agree with them I do not want to argue with people who are contributing their time for free for a private server I am playing on.

[Rigged]

4 hours ago, Puma said:

I mean, you know people can actually still go read the thread, right?  Except, of course, all your posts that the devs deleted and said were the problem. 

 

3 hours ago, Puma said:

Evidence that you're just being dishonest: 

 

Hot damn. I admit I wasn't actually interested in the Storm Call debate, but this guy just brought out the receipts.

 

[Player-1]

Hi all, I want to shed some light on our process to clear some of the confusion, as well as touch on a few of the misconceptions that have popped up.

 

 

Firstly, at a high level our pipeline on the Powers side resembles:

 

Step 1) 

Pitching internally to other Developers and workshopping very basic versions of powers to get a working model. This can be as simple as "We have not touched Powerset A in a while, it may be due for an update" or as complex as "We found a new way to create a graphic effect, AND we can use new technology to grant powers to a pet..." to create something brand new. At this stage we can get a feel for what is or is not worth putting on the table for a release based on the complexities and resources involved. Using this last Page as a reference, we had the bandwidth to not only create a brand new Blast Powerset, but also touch up all the others as we could work on both items at once very easily as compared to working on a new Armor Powerset while also trying to juggle Blast updates. Many ideas are stuck at this stage to this day due to various circumstances or needing other dominoes to fall internally. 

 

Step 2)

Once a change is in a workable state internally, we release it to the Alpha testers in a closed environment. It is here where we often make the biggest changes and often end up rolling things back. A change can pass internal scrutiny, but when there are more eyes on it there are naturally new things that will be discovered. For example, we had changes to Archery that needed to be rolled back during Alpha due to bug reports that would take more resources than we could allocate for the time. The goal at this stage is to find anything major and address it before adding in more testers to the mix.

 

Step 3)

Next step is Beta where we release to an even wider audience. At this stage, the major aspects of a release are meant to be polished and it is a rarity that we would make drastic changes. We are mainly looking for any last bugs or altering "dials" for the most part such as a power doing a bit more damage, recharging faster, or so on. The next step from here once all is well would be a Live Release, so we want to utilize a larger number of testers to find anything that has sifted through the prior steps in order to deliver as polished a final product as possible. 

 

 

This process can always see improvements. I do not speak for the other developers, but I for one like the idea of having more polls or forms for feedback as it can be useful for hitting specific questions, though that would require more resources to create and sort through them, as well as coordination with delivering them to testers. "Too Many Cooks" can be a real challenge when it comes to subjective opinions, and even something like a poll can end up with the majority being disappointed where out of options A, B, and C, B wins with 40% to the dismay of the 60% split between A and C.

 

We all love City of Heroes. Those of us who choose to participate in the Forums, on Discord, and especially in Beta and Alpha testing are often the most passionate players as they take time out of playing the game to gush about it with their friends! That said, unfortunately there need to be steps in place to try and filter all the feedback in ways that are actionable by the Development team such as closed Alpha testing that you need to opt into and keep on the down low compared to more open Beta testing that anyone can help with. 

 

 

 

 

 

This leads to the second topic: Anyone can bring valuable feedback to the table, anyone can steer the direction of certain changes, but not everyone. Simply due to logistics, we cannot action on every cool idea that comes up nor can we have an infinite team of people working on the game. The best way to get your ideas heard and actioned on is to provide sound backing to them via context and evidence, and by showcasing that you can work well with others. Storm Blast was created by 5 members of the Development team with various degrees of input and stress testing, across different disciplines of design. This would not be possible without good coordination and an objective approach to the work at hand where even something like tweaking the duration of a DoT would need another round of testing before it hit Alpha Testers.

 

Hours upon Hours of time is spent on even the smaller changes, I believe with the Blast Powersets alone I had put in about 50 hours into just running statistics on the tweaks compared to the live versions, let alone actually playing them alongside juggling home life, work, and other items in the page such as Storm Blast! This was due to us having specific goals in mind when it comes to how the Powersets perform relative to one another, there are far too many other variables at play which is what we look to the Alpha and Beta tests for as otherwise it is impossible to cover every angle. 

 

When it comes to that feedback, we really look for specifics and context as anecdotal evidence can point to an issue but it is often on shaky ground. Looking at the statement "I don't see Seismic Blast characters" as an example piece of feedback does not tell us much on it's own aside from one player's observation. This statement could have some supporting evidence behind it though such as if the player also noted: "Out of 10 days, I was on 20 8-man teams and I observed Powersets ABC, but not D or E when looking at the 40 Ranged Archetypes observed across these teams" then it would carry much more weight.

 

They could even go above and beyond and bring up context of what may be causing the observed pattern:

1. From the public server status page (https://forums.homecomingservers.com/server-status/), at any given moment we can average 2000 players online.
2. We can assume that among the 2000, all 15 Archetypes are represented equally with about 133 players per Archetype. 
3. Four of them can use Seismic Blast, bringing the portion up to 532 players / 2000 = about 27%
4.  Of that 27%, there is a 1/14 chance that a player is using Seismic Blast if we assume all are played equally.
5. This translates to a 1.9% chance that a player you run into will be using Seismic Blast. 
6. These odds are likely higher in practice due to the distribution of Archetypes, if you only see those who can use Blast Powersets that is a 1/14 or 7.1% chance to see any particular set.
7. The fact that I saw no Seismic Blast Characters across 40 Ranged Archetypes leads me to believe it may not be a popular choice.

This would be something I would personally pay close attention to given the player showed they went out of their way to investigate and provide objective feedback that showed their work.

 

Consistently paying attention to detail, clearly communicating your points, and working with others to support your feedback in a similar objective manner will provide excellent material for the Development Team to work off of. Diving in to subjective arguments with one another is an excellent way to cloud feedback and make it more difficult to actually test and make changes for other players and Developers alike.

 

Please remember that we are all working on this game out of passion for it. Passion can be an incredible fuel source for vitriol, but also for greatness. Keep in mind that there are certain realities that cannot always be readily communicated due to forces out of our control, but for what we can control there are methods that can get better results than others. Let's all keep improving.

 

 

[Puma]

2 hours ago, EmperorSteele said:

 

The whole part lamenting how small, tiny, and limited the alpha and beta testing segements are, and then suggesting that the playerbase be polled concerning ideas before the devs ever do anything? In the first post of the thread? It sure SOUNDS like you want more cooks in the kitchen, ready to Yay or Nay ideas in their infancy.

That is NOT what you accused me of saying, though.  You accused me of  wanting " to emulate thunderspy's "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach"  

 

Saying that more people should have input before something is released to help catch problems and refine the design has nothing to do with "throwing everything at the wall."  In point of fact, it's the exact opposite. It's making sure only things that really are the most efficient, desired, and polished they can be are tossed at the wall. 

[@Ghost]

6 minutes ago, Player-1 said:

Step 3)

Next step is Beta where we release to an even wider audience. At this stage, the major aspects of a release are meant to be polished and it is a rarity that we would make drastic changes. We are mainly looking for any last bugs or altering "dials" for the most part such as a power doing a bit more damage, recharging faster, or so on. The next step from here once all is well would be a Live Release, so we want to utilize a larger number of testers to find anything that has sifted through the prior steps in order to deliver as polished a final product as possible.

 

I waffled on making a post about this, but since it's brought up and outlined a bit more clearly-- this is absolutely the sort of thing that should be pinned and precede the feedback threads. There's a lot of space that gets eaten by pie-in-the-sky suggestions for late game revisions, and it's never clearly stated what sort of feedback the devs are actually after. It's been implied major changes won't happen (unless they do, like Aim) and I think having clears labels with an emphasis on in-game testing would put people in the right direction. It often feels like there's a lack of direction aside from "no, we don't want this type of feedback" like with what happened during the Aim/Beanbag changes where it was suddenly a closed book.

 

In fact, iirc @Cobalt Arachne proposed a discussion a while back over changing the name of those threads to more clearly emphasize what's being asked of testers.

[Puma]

11 minutes ago, Player-1 said:

Hi all, I want to shed some light on our process to clear some of the confusion, as well as touch on a few of the misconceptions that have popped up.

 

 

Firstly, at a high level our pipeline on the Powers side resembles:

 

Step 1) 

Pitching internally to other Developers and workshopping very basic versions of powers to get a working model. This can be as simple as "We have not touched Powerset A in a while, it may be due for an update" or as complex as "We found a new way to create a graphic effect, AND we can use new technology to grant powers to a pet..." to create something brand new. At this stage we can get a feel for what is or is not worth putting on the table for a release based on the complexities and resources involved. Using this last Page as a reference, we had the bandwidth to not only create a brand new Blast Powerset, but also touch up all the others as we could work on both items at once very easily as compared to working on a new Armor Powerset while also trying to juggle Blast updates. Many ideas are stuck at this stage to this day due to various circumstances or needing other dominoes to fall internally. 

 

Step 2)

Once a change is in a workable state internally, we release it to the Alpha testers in a closed environment. It is here where we often make the biggest changes and often end up rolling things back. A change can pass internal scrutiny, but when there are more eyes on it there are naturally new things that will be discovered. For example, we had changes to Archery that needed to be rolled back during Alpha due to bug reports that would take more resources than we could allocate for the time. The goal at this stage is to find anything major and address it before adding in more testers to the mix.

 

Step 3)

Next step is Beta where we release to an even wider audience. At this stage, the major aspects of a release are meant to be polished and it is a rarity that we would make drastic changes. We are mainly looking for any last bugs or altering "dials" for the most part such as a power doing a bit more damage, recharging faster, or so on. The next step from here once all is well would be a Live Release, so we want to utilize a larger number of testers to find anything that has sifted through the prior steps in order to deliver as polished a final product as possible. 

 

 

This process can always see improvements. I do not speak for the other developers, but I for one like the idea of having more polls or forms for feedback as it can be useful for hitting specific questions, though that would require more resources to create and sort through them, as well as coordination with delivering them to testers. "Too Many Cooks" can be a real challenge when it comes to subjective opinions, and even something like a poll can end up with the majority being disappointed where out of options A, B, and C, B wins with 40% to the dismay of the 60% split between A and C.

 

We all love City of Heroes. Those of us who choose to participate in the Forums, on Discord, and especially in Beta and Alpha testing are often the most passionate players as they take time out of playing the game to gush about it with their friends! That said, unfortunately there need to be steps in place to try and filter all the feedback in ways that are actionable by the Development team such as closed Alpha testing that you need to opt into and keep on the down low compared to more open Beta testing that anyone can help with. 

 

 

 

 

 

This leads to the second topic: Anyone can bring valuable feedback to the table, anyone can steer the direction of certain changes, but not everyone. Simply due to logistics, we cannot action on every cool idea that comes up nor can we have an infinite team of people working on the game. The best way to get your ideas heard and actioned on is to provide sound backing to them via context and evidence, and by showcasing that you can work well with others. Storm Blast was created by 5 members of the Development team with various degrees of input and stress testing, across different disciplines of design. This would not be possible without good coordination and an objective approach to the work at hand where even something like tweaking the duration of a DoT would need another round of testing before it hit Alpha Testers.

 

Hours upon Hours of time is spent on even the smaller changes, I believe with the Blast Powersets alone I had put in about 50 hours into just running statistics on the tweaks compared to the live versions, let alone actually playing them alongside juggling home life, work, and other items in the page such as Storm Blast! This was due to us having specific goals in mind when it comes to how the Powersets perform relative to one another, there are far too many other variables at play which is what we look to the Alpha and Beta tests for as otherwise it is impossible to cover every angle. 

 

When it comes to that feedback, we really look for specifics and context as anecdotal evidence can point to an issue but it is often on shaky ground. Looking at the statement "I don't see Seismic Blast characters" as an example piece of feedback does not tell us much on it's own aside from one player's observation. This statement could have some supporting evidence behind it though such as if the player also noted: "Out of 10 days, I was on 20 8-man teams and I observed Powersets ABC, but not D or E when looking at the 40 Ranged Archetypes observed across these teams" then it would carry much more weight.

 

They could even go above and beyond and bring up context of what may be causing the observed pattern:

1. From the public server status page (https://forums.homecomingservers.com/server-status/), at any given moment we can average 2000 players online.
2. We can assume that among the 2000, all 15 Archetypes are represented equally with about 133 players per Archetype. 
3. Four of them can use Seismic Blast, bringing the portion up to 532 players / 2000 = about 27%
4.  Of that 27%, there is a 1/14 chance that a player is using Seismic Blast if we assume all are played equally.
5. This translates to a 1.9% chance that a player you run into will be using Seismic Blast. 
6. These odds are likely higher in practice due to the distribution of Archetypes, if you only see those who can use Blast Powersets that is a 1/14 or 7.1% chance to see any particular set.
7. The fact that I saw no Seismic Blast Characters across 40 Ranged Archetypes leads me to believe it may not be a popular choice.

This would be something I would personally pay close attention to given the player showed they went out of their way to investigate and provide objective feedback that showed their work.

 

Consistently paying attention to detail, clearly communicating your points, and working with others to support your feedback in a similar objective manner will provide excellent material for the Development Team to work off of. Diving in to subjective arguments with one another is an excellent way to cloud feedback and make it more difficult to actually test and make changes for other players and Developers alike.

 

Please remember that we are all working on this game out of passion for it. Passion can be an incredible fuel source for vitriol, but also for greatness. Keep in mind that there are certain realities that cannot always be readily communicated due to forces out of our control, but for what we can control there are methods that can get better results than others. Let's all keep improving.

 

 

Thank you for this response and explanation.  I have a few responses, that are in no way meant as contradictions to anything you say, but things to consider for the context of this discussion.
 
 Polling:  You can very easily use multiple free, simple to use polling applications that would allow for ranked choice voting, ratings, and even leave some blank feedback slots for concerns that can accommodate thousands of responses.  These do NOT need to show ANY results of the polling to the people taking them, so no one would have any idea what the results were, how close they were, etc., and the Devs could, with a web browser scan across an easy to read page, examine the results from several different angles.  Google Forms takes about 10 minutes to set up and a simple link can be made public that allows anyone to answer it. It's not scientific polling, but it would allow for a fairly useful gauge of interest, etc.  If any of the Devs are interested I would be fully open to meeting over Zoom or something and helping show you your options and how to use them.   Just food for thought.

Feedback: I totally hear you and agree, which is why I try to qualify statements like I did about seismic, etc.  I feel that most of the actual feedback in the Storm Blast Focused Feedback thread didn't just use anecdotes, but tried to use numbers, causes, etc.  I know I personally even tried rerolling with different secondary sets and archetypes to see if some concerns were specific to my first go round.   Most of the people I saw did the same.  Maybe we could find a way to try and more forcefully cut down on the meta-posts that were about other posts, not feedback, more strictly.  I mean, sometimes posts about the ideas of other posts is also valid feedback, so it's tricky, but I do think there was a lot of good feedback lost in the bickering. 

On Dev investment:  For the record, I do really recognize this and appreciate it. It's actually my primary reason for the push for polling before development really gets going and for clearly explaining timelines to testers.  As a creator, I can fully relate to the intellectual commitment and emotional investment you get as you work on a project.   When it's out for testing and suddenly someone wants major changes, that can be frustrating and absolutely outside of the vision you've spent hours upon hours on.  But...that doesn't mean it's the wrong change.  More eyes are usually better.  Not more cooks, but more tasters, if you need a bad analogy.  Getting some feedback ahead of time, and having a little more time with more people testing where the set still has the ability to be "reshaped" in real ways is probably a good idea for the Devs, too. It takes some of the pressure off of them, and in my experience, has you putting out a product that, if it isn't better, is more comforting because you know it wasn't just your baby being tossed out. It was the best everyone could come up with. And again, I just want to reiterate, I'm not saying that as if you all aren't already trying to have that mindset.  As a tester this time, my experience was different than in the past, and frustrating for me, personally, though, so I thought I'd share some ideas for improvement.   

 

But seriously, thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful response. 

[Number Six]

20 minutes ago, Puma said:

These do NOT need to show ANY results of the polling to the people taking them, so no one would have any idea what the results were, how close they were, etc., and the Devs could, with a web browser scan across an easy to read page, examine the results from several different angles.

 

Let's be honest for a second, if we took a poll, did not release the results of that poll, and then made changes based on the supposed results of that poll that no one can verify, would it change anything at all?

[biostem]

I wouldn't want a set's performance to be based on popular opinion.  That being said, I do think that if a large chunk of those testing said set(s) provided similar feedback, then that should be looked into.

Edited April 27, 2023 by biostem

[Rudra]

3 minutes ago, Number Six said:

 

Let's be honest for a second, if we took a poll, did not release the results of that poll, and then made changes based on the supposed results of that poll that no one can verify, would it change anything at all?

Here's a better question:

 

If you devs took a poll from the players, the players could not see how the poll progressed, and you devs did not release the results of the poll and made changes, would anyone believe you or blindly accept that the implemented change was actually requested and not just being shoved down the player base's throats with the poll as a plausibly deniable smokescreen? Going through the threads on these forums, there are instances where people don't believe when actual proof is presented, so I can't see mystery polls with no reported results going over well.

[Wravis]

1 hour ago, Number Six said:

 

Let's be honest for a second, if we took a poll, did not release the results of that poll, and then made changes based on the supposed results of that poll that no one can verify, would it change anything at all?

It'd change the power set to suck less probably.

But no one would be happier.

[Luminara]

On 4/25/2023 at 5:23 PM, Puma said:

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.

Well, I participated in betas as early as Issue 5, and I can say with authority that nothing you said is reflective of either Cryptic or Paragon's approach.  They didn't ask players how to proceed, they didn't solicit suggestions, they didn't throw the doors open and invite players to help them design things.  Nor could they, as they were always working two to three Issues ahead and kept their work secret.  By the time something went to the test server, it was essentially done, and only altered if they felt it was warranted.

 

Case in point: Trick Arrows.  This is directly from my Issue 11 TA guide, the Trick Arrows Enchiridion.

 

Quote

The powerset was, ironically, deemed to be too good for its own good. Whether this was due to the actual values of the powers or simply an unfortunate outcome of having 8 TA defenders all working in concert, the developers determined that some changes would be necessary. At that point in time, 4 of the powers were location-targeted, which was deemed to be a bit too much "juggling" (having to switch between location-targeted and critter-targeted), so Glue Arrow and Poison Gas Arrow were changed to critter-targeted, leaving only two location-targeted powers (Oil Slick Arrow and Disruption Arrow). In addition, the recharge rates of most of the powers were increased significantly, making them impossible, for all intents and purposes, to "perma" (to keep them active at all times). Acid Arrow's damage component had a self-stacking effect, leading to an impressive amount of damage from a power that was intended to be a debuff, so that was also reduced and the stacking eliminated. The -Recharge in Poison Gas Arrow and Entangling Arrow were also removed because the set was stated to have "too many -Recharge effects", although the -Recharge was eventually returned to Entangling Arrow. Poison Gas Arrow's Sleep was horrendously broken, limited to a single target and occurring so rarely that some TA players never even saw it happen (those who did could count on one hand the number of times a critter was Slept throughout 50 levels of play).

By the end of the Issue 5 beta period, Trick Arrow had become a pale shadow of its original incarnation. It was an admittedly difficult powerset to play when it finally made the transition to the live servers. In addition to numerous bugs that hadn't quite been ironed out, there wasn't really much that TA could do that any other debuff/control set couldn't do as well or better. Glue Arrow, for example, had a 2 minute recharge, absolutely horrid for lower level play and only tolerable when it could be 6-slotted with Recharge Reduction SOs.

 

There was no discussion, there were no compromises offered, there wasn't any poll or focused feedback thread to bounce ideas back and forth between players and developers, TA went to the test server, with no announcement that it was even being created until it hit that test server, then it was beaten into the ground with a nerf bat the size of the Washington Monument and pushed to the live servers without a single adjustment based on player testing and input.  They didn't even fix the bugs, or redress oversights, like Flash Arrow's hit check.

 

They didn't listen to anyone.  I don't say that out of anger or because I'm harboring resentment, I say it because I witnessed and, in time, understood their design and development process.  By the time something went to the test server, it already had 8-12 months of work put into it and the people who'd worked on it were up to their ears in three other projects in various stages of completion.  They didn't have the time for a month of back-and-forth with players, or the interest in making radical changes at the last second, based purely on player feedback and opinion.  They worked that way from the day Emmert took over as lead to the second the servers were turned off, and they did it because that was the only way they could work without falling behind.

 

The HC team also has a work schedule.  The HC team also has multiple other projects they're working on.  The HC team also has deadlines to meet.  And every time a beta is dragged on for weeks after it should have gone live, by people throwing tantrums and demanding changes based solely on the patch notes, people jumping into the feedback threads to bicker and dick-wave over pointless bullshit that isn't even relevant to the thread, people acting like drama queens because they're convinced that their feedback is the only feedback that matters, the HC team falls further behind.  And since they're doing all of this in their spare time, as a hobby, that's means they're forced to spend even less time with their family and friends, or playing the game they're working so hard to maintain and grow.

And now you want them to start working by committee.  Let three thousand people collectively tell them what to work on and how to do it.  People who are disinterested in participating in the pre-beta stages, and people who are so goddamn full of themselves that they'll start threads to complain about their voices not being heard every time the HC team doesn't consult them when they do anything, and people who are so fucking clueless that they think the developers whip things up the night before a beta is launched.

 

[Rigged]

31 minutes ago, Number Six said:

Let's be honest for a second, if we took a poll, did not release the results of that poll, and then made changes based on the supposed results of that poll that no one can verify, would it change anything at all?

 

With respect, don't you want additional information from the community that you can statistically measure? I am not a game developer but in my line of work I love polling and analytics. Polls provide much clearer, less emotionally charged feedback unmarred by the petty bickering of a forum. This suggestion was mostly to reduce or dampen the negative response when you decide not to follow the polling.

 

1 hour ago, Player-1 said:

and even something like a poll can end up with the majority being disappointed where out of options A, B, and C, B wins with 40% to the dismay of the 60% split between A and C.

 

I think this is what Puma was trying to address - say A and C are very similar but the vote is split and hence lose the poll - you as devs can use your judgement to apply what you feel is the majority opinion, or forget it altogether for what you think would work best. A poll with hidden results is not a bad idea. The point is to prevent people from pointing at the results itself and claiming "The devs defied the will of the players". I think, in the very least, a disclaimer at the start of the poll explaining that you will use your judgement to decide which options are best to implement and not blindly follow results would put it in a better perspective. You will not be able to avoid criticism from the die-hard-hate-everything-you-do types, but it really feels like a whole bunch of the less prickly posters on the feedback thread might be mollified.

 

So yes, I honestly do think it would "change anything at all."

 

13 hours ago, Number Six said:

Just look at how absolutely insane people got over Aim not being added to Assault Rifle, and that's something that was never even live for a second, just considered.

 

Another consideration: I was thrilled when I saw Aim being added to AR in the beta and was disappointed when that was removed. I am more than willing to accept this and am not too concerned with the reasons, but please do consider that part of the reason people get so attached to releases on the open beta is because of how it is currently being handled - most of the time, when something hits the open beta it feels like it is on the verge of release. If the open beta has a history of rapid-fire testing that gets walked back or changed, people would be so much more likely to understand it is not set in stone.

A lot about this is managing people's expectations, which - I promise I mean no offence here - could be improved at least a little. I myself have no stake in the Storm Call balance (apologies, but I have low interest in blast sets that do not involve a weapon), but part of the negative reaction so far seems to be that people have very different expectations on what feedback you wanted compared to what you intended.