Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
OldSchoolFrankie

@WG: How u test new ships?

94 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
1,041 posts
4,289 battles
2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

How are they relevant for the finished product? Do you want to explain to a paying customer why feature x of version 1 did not make to the final product?

You are again trying to bypass the actual problem. Applying an entirely non-public NDA is another thing than optimizing the communicating with the public whenever problems occur with a current status quo. There are tons of ways to actually allow for public content, but better moderate and regulate the information stream by a completely transparent organization of testing phases and fixed iterations of gathering public feedback.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
71 posts
1,650 battles

Okay, I have some info of how they do this in WOT, not sure will this apply to WOWS.

First they select a tank or blueprint in history, or fragmented data and make up the rest with the image they want that they think will fit in the game.

 

The stats are made up by a programme, yes, programme, not human. It is based on an algorithm developed by WeeGee that analysis all the in game (tanks) counterparts and depends on what the new-tank dev wants (brawler, sniper, mobile support) , it will auto generate the stats, then the edges are roughed out manually to make it less weird. 
 

If it’s deemed okay (not to outrageous and will sell) it enters internal test and super test. Then feed back good goes to public test.

 

I’ll repeat again, this only applies to tanks, I am not sure about ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,041 posts
4,289 battles
4 minutes ago, mcboernester said:

I just simply now better

Well played. Well, at least you have tried to. No better way to express where you are coming from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,793 posts
15,918 battles
1 minute ago, Von_Pruss said:

You are again trying to bypass the actual problem. Applying an entirely non-public NDA is another thing than optimizing the communicating with the public whenever problems occur with a current status quo. There are tons of ways to actually allow for public content, but better moderate and regulate the information stream by a completely transparent organization of testing phases and fixed iterations of gathering public feedback.

You cannot manage the information stream without rules. That is what they are doing.

People are allowed to say what they want about the finished product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
5,312 posts
9,647 battles
4 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

Applying an entirely non-public NDA is another thing than optimizing the communicating with the public

There is nothing to communicate with the public about testing! Period. No company will do that.

Wargaming can and will test stuff internally without ever informing everyone outside their testers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,041 posts
4,289 battles
4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

They do not give out the results of their internal tests either, unless it is product ending...

And car companies are allowed to let the public test their products on private ground.

You can keep on comparing with completely irrelevant markets for this scenario. Even if they were comparable, it does not change the facts. A product with only fantasy variables does not have to follow laws, serves no other purpose than equalizing fun and monetization in an engaging and / or addicting manner. The reasons medical and car manufacturing companies do not perform open tests are those products have to be finished and leave close to zero doubts for their release in a certain market in accordance to the current knowledge of research and science. All legal, safety and medical hurdles have been taken at that point, so no one can complain or sue. In fantasy products, the terms research and science are not defined by humanity and the purpose of its development, but only by annual goals. Nothing else. Of course it is more convenient for WG to not have players commenting and boycotting in advance. The reasons for all of this are entirely clear, no matter what WG tells active testers. And it simply is the first best argument to say there were "work in progress videos every 5 minutes which were then immediately outdated and that caused a lot of trouble." Of course it did. You only need to check the powercreep, the overall balance issues and the ships that were released since the non-public NDA. Nobody can be that blind and everyone is stating those issues. And even if those were not only caused by WG having more space to move freely, such an approach still supports their ambition, which has proven to be bad enough for the game already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,041 posts
4,289 battles
20 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

You cannot manage the information stream without rules. That is what they are doing.

People are allowed to say what they want about the finished product.

They chose their very own way of communicating with the community, yes. The WG way. You are again missing the base of discussion. It is not about if, but about the how.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,041 posts
4,289 battles
17 minutes ago, principat121 said:

There is nothing to communicate with the public about testing! Period. No company will do that.

Wargaming can and will test stuff internally without ever informing everyone outside their testers.

It quite well worked before, but against WG's ambitions. Of course there is a lot to communicate with the community about testing. They only had to regulate the information stream. Instead, they have shut it down entirely. You can type "period" as often as you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,041 posts
4,289 battles
27 minutes ago, Silver_Firebote said:

Okay, I have some info of how they do this in WOT, not sure will this apply to WOWS.

First they select a tank or blueprint in history, or fragmented data and make up the rest with the image they want that they think will fit in the game.

 

The stats are made up by a programme, yes, programme, not human. It is based on an algorithm developed by WeeGee that analysis all the in game (tanks) counterparts and depends on what the new-tank dev wants (brawler, sniper, mobile support) , it will auto generate the stats, then the edges are roughed out manually to make it less weird. 
 

If it’s deemed okay (not to outrageous and will sell) it enters internal test and super test. Then feed back good goes to public test.

 

I’ll repeat again, this only applies to tanks, I am not sure about ships. 

Apparently the WG shills do not want to comment on optimizing something, but defending the status quo and WG's decisions. There are always the same people for this job jumping on to the threads. ^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,793 posts
15,918 battles
9 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

You can keep on comparing with completely irrelevant markets for this scenario. Even if they were comparable, it does not change the facts. A product with only fantasy variables does not have to follow laws, serves no other purpose than equalizing fun and monetization in an engaging and / or addicting manner. The reasons medical and car manufacturing companies do not perform open tests are those products have to be finished and leave close to zero doubts for their release in a certain market in accordance to the current knowledge of research and science.

So a WoWs ship performing badly in the tests does not not create doubts in the customer? Interesting...

10 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

They chose their very own way of communicating with the community, yes. The WG way. You are again missing the base of discussion. It is not about if, but about the how.

The rules are about the how.

9 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

It quite well worked before, but against WG's ambitions. Of course there is a lot to communicate with the community about testing. They only had to regulate the information stream. Instead, they have shut it down entirely. You can type "period" as often as you want.

As I already told you: It did not prevent screw ups by WG. And the information stream is not shut down, that is what the Dev Blogs are for. And they work well. For the people who keep informed, there were no surprises with finished products.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,815 posts
4,431 battles
1 hour ago, OldSchoolFrankie said:

Thank you.

 

Who are this Supertesters? What qualifications do these Supertesters have? How can a ship like the Austin get through the testing process?

Supertesters do NOT test ship performance. They test the technical behavior. Guns turning, smokescreen working, firing angles, texture/model alignment issues etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,815 posts
4,431 battles
1 hour ago, albin322 said:

austin is not that good you know. sure when you have the perfect location and can use your insane dps sure. but if you are forced to tank eaven the slightest you will feel the pain.

that sounds an awful lot like Smolensk ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,041 posts
4,289 battles
3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

So a WoWs ship performing badly in the tests does not not create doubts in the customer? Interesting...

So how often since then ships were more underperforming than overperforming? Exactly.

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

The rules are about the how.

Nope. CCs are not allowed to comment on work in progress ships anymore to step-by-step communicate with the community, this is about the if.

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

As I already told you: It did not prevent screw ups by WG. And the information stream is not shut down, that is what the Dev Blogs are for. And they work well. For the people who keep informed, there were no surprises with finished products.

The majority of players watches streams and videos by CCs. They do not visit the forums, reddit or dev blogs. And this exactly is the problem. It is surprising that people like you pick the argument "The majority of players does not visit the forums" when people complain in the forums, but now you use this argument for the opposite position. It is not working.

 

Again just check the numerous balancing issues, questionable lines and ships, lack of focus on most important issues. This was just another step to silence turmoil in advance. With proper communication, certain ships abd balancing decisions since then would have never surfaced, because their level of misbalancing and supportance of powercreep was far too obvious.

 

It is quite funny that the usual forum shills have nothing better to do than defending the current approach, when the majority of content outside of their sacred forum heaven is stating the obvious and numerous issues with the game. Surely more and more NDAs will solve this problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,237 posts
21,192 battles
4 hours ago, OldSchoolFrankie said:

How u test new ships? How does such a test work? Can you please explain the process to me?

 

giphy.gif

 

If the above method results in base XP > 50 the ship is good to go.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG]
[WG]
WG Staff
7,182 posts
4,567 battles
Před 4 hodinami OldSchoolFrankie řekl/a:

How u test new ships? How does such a test work? Can you please explain the process to me?

Details would be under NDA, but I can tell you, that there is initial internal testing which gives initial data. Than there is testing of those on Supertest, after that sometimes on Public Test and the last one is on live server by all testing groups.

All those provide data with results, by different players, in different conditions etc.

Also testers can fill survey with their thoughts about those ships and both are important for evaluation for possible changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SVX]
Players
1,394 posts
16,766 battles
13 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

that sounds an awful lot like Smolensk ....

na you dont have smoke screen. and you have basicly atlanta hull! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
443 posts
15,675 battles
9 minutes ago, YabbaCoe said:

Details would be under NDA, but I can tell you, that there is initial internal testing which gives initial data. Than there is testing of those on Supertest, after that sometimes on Public Test and the last one is on live server by all testing groups.

All those provide data with results, by different players, in different conditions etc.

Also testers can fill survey with their thoughts about those ships and both are important for evaluation for possible changes. 

Okay. Can u at least tell me who test the performance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,751 posts
16,773 battles
5 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

 futurama_PNG93.pngIs this an undercover reeeeeeAustinOP-thread?

 

Just now, OldSchoolFrankie said:

Kind of. I've wanted to ask the question for a long time and the Austin was actually the trigger.

 

Or did you just watch this video by any chance:

 

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
3,250 posts
10,770 battles

Zzzzzzzz people create their opinion based on the biased video's of CCs alone these days... Flambass could have done the same in a Zao. Maybe he even picked the best game to make his "point". No wonder Wargaming did what they did with the NDA.

 

Played a few rounds of Austin myself and as a Light Cruiser aficionado I wasnt blown of my socks. Its fun, yes. But far from OP. If this ship is OP then radar Mino is OP^infinite.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,751 posts
16,773 battles
3 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Played a few rounds of Austin myself and as a Light Cruiser aficionado I wasnt blown of my socks. Its fun, yes. But far from OP. If this ship is OP then radar Mino is OP^infinite.

 

Bought it too and I think most of the other CCs are actually underestimating the potential of this ship. 

 

But Flambass is just over exaggerating to create drama, like Flamu. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,793 posts
15,918 battles
39 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

So how often since then ships were more underperforming than overperforming? Exactly.

Nope. CCs are not allowed to comment on work in progress ships anymore to step-by-step communicate with the community, this is about the if.

The majority of players watches streams and videos by CCs. They do not visit the forums, reddit or dev blogs. And this exactly is the problem. It is surprising that people like you pick the argument "The majority of players does not visit the forums" when people complain in the forums, but now you use this argument for the opposite position. It is not working.

 

Again just check the numerous balancing issues, questionable lines and ships, lack of focus on most important issues. This was just another step to silence turmoil in advance. With proper communication, certain ships abd balancing decisions since then would have never surfaced, because their level of misbalancing and supportance of powercreep was far too obvious.

 

It is quite funny that the usual forum shills have nothing better to do than defending the current approach, when the majority of content outside of their sacred forum heaven is stating the obvious and numerous issues with the game. Surely more and more NDAs will solve this problem.

  • I cannot tell you exactly, but the UK CA were quite underwhelming, as were the US BB split, the Strasbourg, Hizen and a few more.
  • But they can post about the finished product and you can inform yourself in the Dev Blog.
  • When people do not inform themselves, that is their personal problem.
  • How often do I need to repeat that WG did not listen to every feedback in the past? Did you expect that to change? SERIOUSLY!?
  • Which ship/line do you think could have been prevented/changed without the NDA?
  • I suggest to read the feedback on the DevBlog more often before throwing around accusations. WG GETS the feedback in ADVANCE, they rarely listen.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
5,312 posts
9,647 battles
28 minutes ago, OldSchoolFrankie said:

Kind of. I've wanted to ask the question for a long time and the Austin was actually the trigger.

Keep in mind: The testers does not decide about any changes! Even if every single Supertester say that a ship is underperforming, WG can still nerf this ship, because of reasons.

 

You mix up testing and balancing decisions here. You cannot blame testers for UP or OP ships. The testing provides just the data base for the balans department. But what they actually do depents on many more factors than just testing results.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG]
[WG]
WG Staff
7,182 posts
4,567 battles
Před 50 minutami OldSchoolFrankie řekl/a:

Okay. Can u at least tell me who test the performance?

WG employees, CCs, Privateers, Moderators, Supertesters, CST members, modders... I hope I haven't forget any of those groups

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×