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

[WG]
[WG]
WG Staff
7,143 posts
4,562 battles
Před 10 minutami ColonelPete řekl/a:

There is also the Clan Supertest, which involves some Unicum Clans.

that is that CST members, what I mentioned :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RODS]
Players
1,886 posts
7,825 battles
5 hours ago, OldSchoolFrankie said:

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

If you have an high skill level OP ship good players and unicums will have 70-90% winrate in it

At the same time the unskilled players and noobs will have a 10-30% winrate in it

Spreadsheet says  overall winrate is 50% so perfectly balanced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,760 posts
15,913 battles
7 minutes ago, Ronchabale said:

If you have an high skill level OP ship good players and unicums will have 70-90% winrate in it

At the same time the unskilled players and noobs will have a 10-30% winrate in it

Spreadsheet says  overall winrate is 50% so perfectly balanced

So Königsberg and Fuso are "OP"?

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,760 posts
15,913 battles
7 minutes ago, Ronchabale said:

Since when are they "new" ships ?

So new ships can be "OP" even when they worse than non-"OP" old ships? Interesting. Did not know that there are different criteria for "OPness".

What are the criteria for old ships?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RODS]
Players
1,886 posts
7,825 battles
4 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

So new ships can be "OP" even when they worse than non-"OP" old ships? Interesting. Did not know that there are different criteria for "OPness".

What are the criteria for old ships?

PC:d (power creeped) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,421 posts
10,132 battles
5 minutes ago, Ronchabale said:

If you have an high skill level OP ship good players and unicums will have 70-90% winrate in it

At the same time the unskilled players and noobs will have a 10-30% winrate in it

Spreadsheet says  overall winrate is 50% so perfectly balanced

 

I wish it would work like that.....

Unfortunately thats not the Case.

 

Because Spreadsheet doesnt weight Playerskill.

 

For your Theory to Work.

The 5% Unicums would need to have the same weight as the 50-60% of Casuals that just Play for Fun.

 

 

Thats the Problem.

Because what happens is this.

 

You have 1 Unicum for 19 others.

So 10.000 Players.

You got 500 Unicums.

 

Now the following happens.

 

The Power WG wants for a Ship is placeholder value (cuz its several different values) between 900 and 1100 Points

 

Now we got 3 Ships.

A, B and C.

 

Ship A

the 9500 Players average on  950 Points. The Unicums average on 1200 Points.

 

Thus is fine for most of us.

Thats how it should be.

 

Spreadsheet however will go by total Average.

That Total Average is 962.

Because 500 People out of 10k dont have that much weight.

Still.

Spreadsheet Says fine.

So here it works :)

 

Ship B

The 9500 Average on 1050 Points.

The Unicums get to 1250.

 

Now. Good Players will Realize.

Thats a Ship with good Base Stats.

But its not really useful for anything.

Its easy to Play. But cant Carry Games.

 

Spreadsheet will put it on 1060.

Stillfine. Nothing to See here.

Even tough the Ship will be a Portqueen for most good Players.

 

 

And then we got Ship C.

The Ship which breaks the System.

The Smolensk, Kremlin, Smaland and CVs etc.

 

The 9500 will Average on 800 because the Ship is highly Specialized and cant show Broadside.

But the Unicums go to Town with it.

Reachin an Average of 1800.

 

Its Obvious to any Good Player that something is going wrong here.

Very wrong.

 

Bur what does Spreadsheet say ?

9500 with an Average of 800

Vs

500 with Average of 1800

Total Average ?

Its 850.

Yep.

850......

 

So Spreadaheet Says.

This Ship needs a Buff.

Its underperforming.

And so these Ships get Buff till the total Average goes towards the desired 1000 Points area.

 

Ofcourse.

At this Point the Averages are still just around 850-900 and the Unicums start going for the 2000 Points level.

 

But the Average then is around the desired area and Spreadsheet says Great.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,760 posts
15,913 battles
3 minutes ago, Ronchabale said:

PC:d (power creeped) ?

When the old ships are better, they are not powercrept. DM is one of the oldest ships in game and still one of the strongest tech tree cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RODS]
Players
1,886 posts
7,825 battles
5 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

When the old ships are better, they are not powercrept. DM is one of the oldest ships in game and still one of the strongest tech tree cruisers.

It´s counterpart Zao is in a different position tho (sadly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_I_]
Players
1,287 posts
21,278 battles
6 hours ago, OldSchoolFrankie said:

How u test new ships? 

On live server. Characteristics are rolled with dice. Later ships have a factor multiplied in.

 

The more recent the ship, the higher the factor.

Ships from RU faction get another 10% on top. 

 

WG refers to this factor as "Balans".

Evil tongues would refer to it as "power creep"

 

Disclaimer: This post may contain sarcasm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_I_]
Players
1,287 posts
21,278 battles
35 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

When the old ships are better, they are not powercrept. DM is one of the oldest ships in game and still one of the strongest tech tree cruisers.

One of a few indeed. How about the rest of the oldies? 

 

Zao is mentioned. Yamato holds out because it can wreck you at long range, which avoids most of the HE spam and is the boring meta anyways. Montana with crap plating and useless AA? Shima and gearing considered amazing still? I'm sure gearings DefAA will scare away the rocketplanes like in RTS times.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,038 posts
4,258 battles
1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

they rarely listen.

Exactly. And of course they will listen less when all they "collect" is feedback from testers without any external pressure and spotlight that was created by the CCs who actually have a coverage that testers do not have. Using bold font to support your standpoint does not help. Developing the meta and ship iterations was a helpful insight for players to follow up on the development. Again, the dev blog has a limited user base. No spotlight. No big coverage. You fail to understand the freedom that was given was a positive thing for the community. No matter how hard you cherry pick and try to defend this decision. "CC" consists of the word "Contributor". Spotlights on the iterations were a contribution towards the community. And every single considerable CC criticized this decision too. You defending it instead of openly voting for a more transparent and optimized process that enables the participation of community representatives and their view on iterations nothing but proofs your limited view on things. For the community nothing was won. Only WG profits by having silenced criticism in advance and indirectly censoring and / or restricting content about their products. In the end you are allowed to have a more limited view on freedom of press and opinion and that includes one's right to shill of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,760 posts
15,913 battles
6 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

Exactly. And of course they will listen less when all they "collect" is feedback from testers without any external pressure and spotlight that was created by the CCs who actually have a coverage that testers do not have. Using bold font to support your standpoint does not help. Developing the meta and ship iterations was a helpful insight for players to follow up on the development. Again, the dev blog has a limited user base. No spotlight. No big coverage. You fail to understand the freedom that was given was a positive thing for the community. No matter how hard you cherry pick and try to defend this decision. "CC" consists of the word "Contributor". Spotlights on the iterations were a contribution towards the community. And every single considerable CC criticized this decision too. You defending it instead of openly voting for a more transparent and optimized process that enables the participation of community representatives and their view on iterations nothing but proofs your limited view on things. For the community nothing was won. Only WG profits by having silenced criticism in advance and indirectly censoring and / or restricting content about their products. In the end you are allowed to have a more limited view on freedom of press and opinion and that includes one's right to shill of course.

  • they still get the pressure from the playerbase
  • the upcoming ships are still discussed in videos
  • the NDA did not change that
  • the fact remains that you do not understand how product development works
  • your lack of understanding makes you lash out, reminds me of the reaction of some religious fanatics, when their word view is threatened by people who are just telling the truth :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,038 posts
4,258 battles
25 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

they still get the pressure from the playerbase

Reviewing a final product is another thing than reviewing iterations of a product during its development. I support the latter.

25 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

the upcoming ships are still discussed in videos

It is quite obvious that there are reviews on final ships. This was never part of the discussion.

25 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

the NDA did not change that 

The NDA did not change reviews on final products, but restricts reviews of iterations of products during their development. I support the latter.

25 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

the fact remains that you do not understand how product development works 

25 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

your lack of understanding makes you lash out, reminds me of the reaction of some religious fanatics, when their word view is threatened by people who are just telling the truth

Both of these statements do not apply any weight to your standpoint. The change from allowing to restricting reviews of iterations of products during their development does not have anything to do with "how product development works". The latter is simply not wished anymore, because it has caused turmoil that WG was not able to handle properly.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,760 posts
15,913 battles
41 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

Reviewing a final product is another thing than reviewing iterations of a product during its development. I support the latter.

It is quite obvious that there are reviews on final ships. This was never part of the discussion.

The NDA did not change reviews on final products, but restricts reviews of iterations of products during their development. I support the latter.

Both of these statements do not apply any weight to your standpoint. The change from allowing to restricting reviews of iterations of products during their development does not have anything to do with "how product development works". The latter is simply not wished anymore, because it has caused turmoil that WG was not able to handle properly.

  • I was not talking about final ships, ships are discussed months in advance of their release
  • but it is "how product development works", it is common practice, worldwide, just look at the security measures in the product development of big companies
  • and your lack of understanding makes you lash out instead of countering with arguments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,038 posts
4,258 battles
Just now, ColonelPete said:

but it is "how product development works", it is common practice, worldwide, just look at the security measures in the product development of big companies

Common practice elsewhere is no argument for this particular discussion. WG allowed for iterational reviews and then they forbid them. If they never would have been allowed in the first place, your argument would make a slight sense. But WG did and failed handling it. Could they have organized iterational reviews better before forbiddig them? Of course! There are tons of ways and structural and organizational measurements WG could have taken to establish a proper handling of iterational reviews before they chose to forbid them. But that is not the point of the discussion. 

Just now, ColonelPete said:

and your lack of understanding makes you lash out instead of countering with arguments

Again, you are making no valid argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
[WGP2W]
Players
418 posts
19,739 battles
8 hours ago, OldSchoolFrankie said:

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

Test participants St and cst -> only solo games taken into account. When you see a division of test ships this game will not taken into account.

 

comparison between average damage and winrate for testers playing the ships compared to their regular ships and compared to similar ships of the testers.

 

Survey for tester about specific psychological factors. 

 

Changes and next test round.

 

It's explained on the videos when they invited all cc to peterburg and announced the rb

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,760 posts
15,913 battles
46 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

Common practice elsewhere is no argument for this particular discussion. WG allowed for iterational reviews and then they forbid them. If they never would have been allowed in the first place, your argument would make a slight sense. But WG did and failed handling it.

No, they found out that it does not work how they hoped and that there is a good reason other companies do what they are doing.

 

Economic history is full of failed product launches. Some of these products were improved later and became pretty decent, but never recovered from the initial bad publicity. That is why companies avoid bad publicty about a product the consumer does not know yet, because it is extremly hard to get rid of a bad reputation later.

A ship that performs badly in Testversion 1 can be improved later in Version 2 and 3, but the bad performance stays in the mind of the players and endangers sales.

And when it happens the other way around, people accuse you of false advertising, since there are videos of the ship performing much better than the sales version. It happened a few times.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,038 posts
4,258 battles
6 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Economic history is full of failed product launches. Some of these products were improved later and became pretty decent, but never recovered from the initial bad publicity.

Again, your comparisons are invalid due to the reason that updating physical products and reworking them costs billions, takes years and would cause instant bancruptcy in most cases, while updating a handful of variables of a virtual product does not.

8 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

A ship that performs badly in Testversion 1 can be improved later in Version 2 and 3, but the bad performance stays in the mind of the players and endangers sales.

You fail to see that the majority of outrages about WIP ships were not caused because these ships were underpowered, but how WG even came up with the idea of testing and / or honestly concerning the release of such ships and / or ship characteristics in the first place.

 

Additionally, you seem to forget that powercreep and releasig new, better and next meta ships, that might be as op as the current meta and balancing limits allow for, are the most fundamental business concepts of a free to play MMO game. That still does not mean it is mandatory to restrict iterational reviews.

 

You are free to defend the limitations caused by a non-public NDA compared to a free and healthy communication and handling of iterational reviews. As stated before, I support the latter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,760 posts
15,913 battles
8 minutes ago, Von_Pruss said:

Again, your comparisons are invalid due to the reason that updating physical products and reworking them costs billions, takes years and would cause instant bancruptcy in most cases, while updating a handful of variables of a virtual product does not.

You fail to see that the majority of outrages about WIP ships were not caused because these ships were underpowered, but how WG even came up with the idea of testing and / or honestly concerning the release of such ships and / or ship characteristics in the first place.

 

Additionally, you seem to forget that powercreep and releasig new, better and next meta ships, that might be as op as the current meta and balancing limits allow for, are the most fundamental business concepts of a free to play MMO game. That still does not mean it is mandatory to restrict iterational reviews.

 

You are free to defend the limitations caused by a non-public NDA compared to a free and healthy communication and handling of iterational reviews. As stated before, I support the latter. 

I am talking about marketing, not reworking products. Products got reworked and the companies could easily afford it, but when nobody buys the product, because of bad reputation, it is still a waste.

And you fail to see that I gave two examples.

 

Look at the examples of balanced ships from the past year and the communities reaction to them. Then you know why we have power creep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,038 posts
4,258 battles
1 minute ago, ColonelPete said:

And you fail to see that I gave two examples.

WG does not market ships in advance and then realize they would need to be reworked. Marketing physical products costs millions. Creating some screenshots or teaser videos does not. Ships like Belfast or GC were released despite the outrage for reasons. The examples are endless. I am not saying iterational reviews are preventing powercreep or would define the meta. But I support them as necessary communication strategy. Everyone allowing to promote the game should have the right to criticize it at any given point in the depth they want to highlight paths of decisions, which often enough turned out to be questionable.

 

The example of false advertising does not apply, since there might have been some voices raised, but it does not change the fact that users have agreed to the T&C which allows for any desired update or rework if necessary, maybe apart from premiums, and in this case, work in progress videos of CCs are no official advertising.

 

I also do not say every CC has correctly executed his rights. Again, this does not indicate the necessity of restricting iterational reviews once and for all without a certain compromise.

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Look at the examples of balanced ships from the past year and the communities reaction to them. Then you know why we have power creep.

It is the same in any free to play MMO game. And, again, no reason to forbid iterational reviews whatsoever. Forbidding iterational reviews especially plays into WG's hands and not the community's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
44 posts
11,678 battles
18 hours 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. 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.

I've worked in software development for 33 years. Started with Ocean then onto Psygnosis. We used to have playtesters who would work under an nda too... 

 

You seem to have little clue about how the software industry and industry in general works. You do however seem a bit bitter the you are not involved in testing. 

 

Also this whole thread seems to of been a straw man setup just to have a go at wg over Austin. A ship I doubt you or the op have. A ship I'm certain you've seen a certain cc play. 

 

In other words, I think both you and the op are just screaming because you watched a video. 

 

Even when a tester trys to talk to you you just attack with the normal bitter rants. 

 

Play the game and stay out of business related discussion you have no clue about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
31,760 posts
15,913 battles
11 hours ago, Von_Pruss said:

WG does not market ships in advance and then realize they would need to be reworked. Marketing physical products costs millions. Creating some screenshots or teaser videos does not. Ships like Belfast or GC were released despite the outrage for reasons. The examples are endless. I am not saying iterational reviews are preventing powercreep or would define the meta. But I support them as necessary communication strategy. Everyone allowing to promote the game should have the right to criticize it at any given point in the depth they want to highlight paths of decisions, which often enough turned out to be questionable.

 

The example of false advertising does not apply, since there might have been some voices raised, but it does not change the fact that users have agreed to the T&C which allows for any desired update or rework if necessary, maybe apart from premiums, and in this case, work in progress videos of CCs are no official advertising.

 

I also do not say every CC has correctly executed his rights. Again, this does not indicate the necessity of restricting iterational reviews once and for all without a certain compromise.

It is the same in any free to play MMO game. And, again, no reason to forbid iterational reviews whatsoever. Forbidding iterational reviews especially plays into WG's hands and not the community's.

As soon as you give out ships for an open test or even mention a new product, it is marketing. And you a free to ask software companies what they spend on marketing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,038 posts
4,258 battles
1 minute ago, _Capt_Biggles_ said:

You seem to have little clue about how the software industry and industry in general works. You do however seem a bit bitter the you are not involved in testing.

You too are entirely missing the point. WG first allowed for iterational reviews and then they forbid them. And I think the open communication approach could have been optimized before making the decision to restrict CCs from releasing iterational reviews. Also, this opinion does not have anything to do with me being a tester or not. The discussion about iterational reviews has nothing to do with testers, but CCs releasing content about development iterations.

1 minute ago, _Capt_Biggles_ said:

In other words, I think both you and the op are just screaming because you watched a video.

With not one word I have mentioned Austin in this thread, nor am I "screaming" about this ship, nor do I think she is out of placed. The reviews about her are mixed, but quite clear and that usually suggests that a ship is around the balanced category.

Share this post


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

×