404 réponses à ce sujet

[MIA115]

JaimasOfRaxis wrote...
I understand that Bryan's commenting on a thread generally invites a barrage of posts like "How did this slip past QA testing," and I sympathize, but the simple fact of the matter is that it's because of how ME3 is right now. There's a lot in ME3 that shows very questionable design choices (seriously, how could anyone not see the Krysae being an issue) and minimal testing (the barrage of bugs in Retaliation for almost every class), so one is going to get posts like that whether one likes it or not, and it should not be a deterrant from having productive discourse.

I would just like to point out that the sheer mass of the playerbase is going to be able to find a lot more bugs/glitches/exploits/OP/stuff than is possible with much fewer poeple in the company. It really boils down to tens of thousands of people putting in a good portion of their days playing and occasionally finding things compared to somewhere in the range of 20-30 (guesstimate) QA guys putting in a 40 hour work week while actively looking for things that have gone wrong.

[ValorOfArms777]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

JaimasOfRaxis wrote...
I understand that Bryan's commenting on a thread generally invites a barrage of posts like "How did this slip past QA testing," and I sympathize, but the simple fact of the matter is that it's because of how ME3 is right now. There's a lot in ME3 that shows very questionable design choices (seriously, how could anyone not see the Krysae being an issue) and minimal testing (the barrage of bugs in Retaliation for almost every class), so one is going to get posts like that whether one likes it or not, and it should not be a deterrant from having productive discourse.

There is a certain degree of "what is acceptable" when you get down to a time crunch situation it becomes a question of what is worth it to fix and what is not. Well there might exist bugs like you have mentioned in the Retaliation the question of is there anything that would instantly cause the pack to stop from shipping, one could say that the kits are usable (and people do use them) so it is not a stop ship scenario. Furthermore in that regard it is not a QA problem (which is another problem), the automatic assumption that anything is a bug is simply the fault of a QA missing it. There is a process (I am not directing this at you) called bug triage, where essentially decisions are made about whether bugs are to be fixed or not. 

What you determine to be a stop ship bug and what I determine to be a stop ship bug can be vastly different, as it is a matter of prespective and we are not always going to see eye to eye. In the end though it is a decision that is not going to necessarly be a popular one.

At this time I am going to advocate again to those that haven't to watch the Extra Credits Episode "So you want to be a producer".

The statement of uncaring is one that is an easy blanket to hide behind, because it is one that is very easy to make and examples to show otherwise are just exceptions. Perception, although it may be grounded or not, are one that is very very hard to shake. Case and point this multiplayer, the perception was for a long time that it was about the stupidest decision that would ever be done to the franchise. This perception has changed (mostly through the demo) but the simple fact no matter it is what was said the perception was still there.

I have a few words here

do your best to all of you whom work on this just note most ARs are a tad under the line and are too vaugly close to SMG grade damage wise

and the power creep of guns has left soem powers under the line meaning most powers have been a tad lesser than gun use which can be kinda sad

I do not expect dramatic fixes at all it has to be doen slowly cause of constraints etc. and the way the EA/BW order head off to say what you can and can't do all things have to check mark like a democracy and I know it

the guns I question atm are (this does not directly lead to dmg potentials persay but soemthing off kilter for usages of their alignment of difficulty and such along with "general" usability

Snipers-Inscisor (Feels like a cruddy AR with a hip minus),Krysae (Pretty sad atm),Raptor (way lesser than a mattock)
ARs-Avenger (DMG ptoential is blithering sad),Phaeston (Nearly outmatched by SMG factors and other rapid guns), Vindicator (Horridly under mattock in use), Striker (Just does not have umph in use in adjustments atm), Collector Assault Rifle (Maybe a headshot bonus? maybe mroe damage maybe both?), Geth Plasma Rifle (It needs some eitehr clip boostign past 100 or damage I really would love it to say 120 or 140 clip hold making it ultra unqiue amogn guns), Revanate (it's damage potential and kick as a LMG makes it a meh LMG it's a limbo weapon atm out done by quite a few things in usablility)
SMGs-Shuriken (Most burst weaposn have a tiny innate meh this has the least though),Hornet (...this gun is weird it just feels so off plus it suffers burst syndrom of not being very keen of it's difficulty grade)
Shotguns-Katana (It's pretty okay for a common but as in usual use it just seem lacking as a shotgun even for a starter gun),Scimitar (...this gun just lacks any pazaz alone real versatile usability etc. sure 8 shtos that take forever to really do any ample truthful usable force at least a Diciplehas force behidn it this isn't even proven highly useful for silver still and yeah sure weight down nice but... it's real issue is the fact it's still just a downer of a useable "blast out")
Pistols-They seem pretty happy atm though I don't like the paladins setup cause 3 shots is just so casual of msot guns....it get boring quick and feels like antoehr similarity gun if it was jsut move back to 4 shtos and lessen down damage... that make sense not a ton of guns have 4 shots...

Modifié par ValorOfArms777, 05 février 2013 - 05:10 .

[Bryan Johnson]

rlucht wrote...

I believe all (or at least most of us) understand that bug fixing and testing are processes limited by resources. That said I think what upsets people most is that the tremendous amount of resources that go into bringing out a patch were poured out essentially to deal with one issue.

Hopefully things such as evolutions of characters literally doing nothing, looking at you tech detonation bonuses, are worth fixing or at least creating an alternative evolution for the power.

It all depends on the resources that one would have available, generally patches (regardless of scope) involve QA time and money. Of course depending on the scale programming/designers/qa increase as the size increases. So the variable equation is more Programming*x + Designers*x + QA*x + Cost + QA = Patch resources. 

So if you are say limited in programming resources available then the scale of such a thing is limited, think of it more as a rate determining step. 

[Bryan Johnson]

ValorOfArms777 wrote...

Bryan Johnson wrote...

JaimasOfRaxis wrote...
I understand that Bryan's commenting on a thread generally invites a barrage of posts like "How did this slip past QA testing," and I sympathize, but the simple fact of the matter is that it's because of how ME3 is right now. There's a lot in ME3 that shows very questionable design choices (seriously, how could anyone not see the Krysae being an issue) and minimal testing (the barrage of bugs in Retaliation for almost every class), so one is going to get posts like that whether one likes it or not, and it should not be a deterrant from having productive discourse.

There is a certain degree of "what is acceptable" when you get down to a time crunch situation it becomes a question of what is worth it to fix and what is not. Well there might exist bugs like you have mentioned in the Retaliation the question of is there anything that would instantly cause the pack to stop from shipping, one could say that the kits are usable (and people do use them) so it is not a stop ship scenario. Furthermore in that regard it is not a QA problem (which is another problem), the automatic assumption that anything is a bug is simply the fault of a QA missing it. There is a process (I am not directing this at you) called bug triage, where essentially decisions are made about whether bugs are to be fixed or not. 

What you determine to be a stop ship bug and what I determine to be a stop ship bug can be vastly different, as it is a matter of prespective and we are not always going to see eye to eye. In the end though it is a decision that is not going to necessarly be a popular one.

At this time I am going to advocate again to those that haven't to watch the Extra Credits Episode "So you want to be a producer".

The statement of uncaring is one that is an easy blanket to hide behind, because it is one that is very easy to make and examples to show otherwise are just exceptions. Perception, although it may be grounded or not, are one that is very very hard to shake. Case and point this multiplayer, the perception was for a long time that it was about the stupidest decision that would ever be done to the franchise. This perception has changed (mostly through the demo) but the simple fact no matter it is what was said the perception was still there.

I have a few words here

do your best to all of you whom work on this just noste

most ARs are a tad under the line and are too vaugly close to SMG grade

and the power creep of guns has left soem powers under the line meaning most powers have been a tad lesser than gun use which can be kinda sad

I do nto expect dramatic fixes at all it has to be doen slowly cause of constraints etc. and the way the EA/BW order head off to say what you can and can't do all things have to check mark like a democracy and I know it

the guns I question atm are (thsi does not directly lead to dmg potentials persay but soemthing off kilter for usages of their alignment of difficulty and such alogn with "genral" usability

Snipers-Inscisor,Krysae,Raptor
ARs-Avenger,Phaeston, Vindicator, Striker, Collector Assault Rifle, Geth Plasma Rifle, Revanate
SMGs-Shuriken,Hornet
Shotguns-Katana,Scimitar
Pistols-They seem pretty happy atm though I don't liek the paladins un unqiue setup 

I do wish the paladin was back at 4 shots with a tad less dmg  cause we have like a TON of 3 shot weapons...it's really kinda gettin old now 

You are strickly speaking in terms of balance and although some guns (I agree) are under powered, they do not have to be gold viable (the usual metric people use). To be fair the majority of players do not even play gold, so those weapons might be perfectly acceptable on the lower (more popular difficulties). For example strictly speaking I (personally) think the Hornet is horribly under powered, yet I know people that can make that gun sing. Yet I think of that list the Striker and CAR are quite good guns on gold.

Modifié par Bryan Johnson, 05 février 2013 - 05:03 .

[Lucky]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

It all depends on the resources that one would have available, generally patches (regardless of scope) involve QA time and money. Of course depending on the scale programming/designers/qa increase as the size increases. So the variable equation is more Programming*x + Designers*x + QA*x + Cost + QA = Patch resources. 

So if you are say limited in programming resources available then the scale of such a thing is limited, think of it more as a rate determining step. 

That makes sense, I still can't find it in me to me happy about this last patch, but what you say does make sense. Thank you for being willing to discuss and for being part of bringing us such a great game.

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

I see Striker used well on gold all the time. PC though... Not as common for glitching.

Lots to read and think about, good thread and posts, and Bryan thank you for hour frankness.

[Lucky]

Sorry for the double post, my beef with the CAR is simply its weight. It doesn't pack nearly the firepower in my opinion to be so close in weight to the harrier. Besides that its a great gun. Just a quick two cents.

[JaimasOfRaxis]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

It all depends on the resources that one would have available, generally patches (regardless of scope) involve QA time and money. Of course depending on the scale programming/designers/qa increase as the size increases. So the variable equation is more Programming*x + Designers*x + QA*x + Cost + QA = Patch resources. 

So if you are say limited in programming resources available then the scale of such a thing is limited, think of it more as a rate determining step. 

An interesting and accurate bit of info, but there is a corollary I'd like to add: there's a lot of things compounding the problems we have already. Dealing with bugs and such is bad already, but literally every update we've had thus far has hinted at being, at best, rushed, and at worst, extremely rushed.

I used to work in the industry. I've seen people get fired for QA failures smaller than the Collector PS3 Crash.

It's one thing to have one reproducable bug to fix, but when you have like eight and then twelve more pop up in an update, that probably has seriously hamstrung things. One has to wonder how much easier things would have been had proper time and resources been allotted to iron out problems from earlier iterations, so as to prevent the dev team from having to deal with them now. Whilst it's impossible to say how much of this is stuff that could/could not have been prevented, it's an interesting thought to entertain, since it certainly would have made the balance team's job a heck of a lot easier.

[ValorOfArms777]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

ValorOfArms777 wrote...

Bryan Johnson wrote...

JaimasOfRaxis wrote...
I understand that Bryan's commenting on a thread generally invites a barrage of posts like "How did this slip past QA testing," and I sympathize, but the simple fact of the matter is that it's because of how ME3 is right now. There's a lot in ME3 that shows very questionable design choices (seriously, how could anyone not see the Krysae being an issue) and minimal testing (the barrage of bugs in Retaliation for almost every class), so one is going to get posts like that whether one likes it or not, and it should not be a deterrant from having productive discourse.

There is a certain degree of "what is acceptable" when you get down to a time crunch situation it becomes a question of what is worth it to fix and what is not. Well there might exist bugs like you have mentioned in the Retaliation the question of is there anything that would instantly cause the pack to stop from shipping, one could say that the kits are usable (and people do use them) so it is not a stop ship scenario. Furthermore in that regard it is not a QA problem (which is another problem), the automatic assumption that anything is a bug is simply the fault of a QA missing it. There is a process (I am not directing this at you) called bug triage, where essentially decisions are made about whether bugs are to be fixed or not. 

What you determine to be a stop ship bug and what I determine to be a stop ship bug can be vastly different, as it is a matter of prespective and we are not always going to see eye to eye. In the end though it is a decision that is not going to necessarly be a popular one.

At this time I am going to advocate again to those that haven't to watch the Extra Credits Episode "So you want to be a producer".

The statement of uncaring is one that is an easy blanket to hide behind, because it is one that is very easy to make and examples to show otherwise are just exceptions. Perception, although it may be grounded or not, are one that is very very hard to shake. Case and point this multiplayer, the perception was for a long time that it was about the stupidest decision that would ever be done to the franchise. This perception has changed (mostly through the demo) but the simple fact no matter it is what was said the perception was still there.

I have a few words here

do your best to all of you whom work on this just noste

most ARs are a tad under the line and are too vaugly close to SMG grade

and the power creep of guns has left soem powers under the line meaning most powers have been a tad lesser than gun use which can be kinda sad

I do nto expect dramatic fixes at all it has to be doen slowly cause of constraints etc. and the way the EA/BW order head off to say what you can and can't do all things have to check mark like a democracy and I know it

the guns I question atm are (thsi does not directly lead to dmg potentials persay but soemthing off kilter for usages of their alignment of difficulty and such alogn with "genral" usability

Snipers-Inscisor,Krysae,Raptor
ARs-Avenger,Phaeston, Vindicator, Striker, Collector Assault Rifle, Geth Plasma Rifle, Revanate
SMGs-Shuriken,Hornet
Shotguns-Katana,Scimitar
Pistols-They seem pretty happy atm though I don't liek the paladins un unqiue setup 

I do wish the paladin was back at 4 shots with a tad less dmg  cause we have like a TON of 3 shot weapons...it's really kinda gettin old now 

You are strickly speaking in terms of balance and although some guns (I agree) are under powered, they do not have to be gold viable (the usual metric people use). To be fair the majority of players do not even play gold, so those weapons might be perfectly acceptable on the lower (more popular difficulties). For example strictly speaking I (personally) think the Hornet is horribly under powered, yet I know people that can make that gun sing. Yet I think of that list the Striker and CAR are quite good guns on gold.

secondary note

I didn't say I can't use all these guns on gold I mean I cna even make a GPR able to I also edited a small opinion to them cause I also wish each gun had unqiue feels some guns lack this feel on soem isntantces.. Paladin is one, GPR with 100 in hold feels liek a wittled down percision typhoon or GPSMG if it had a nicer bigger clip over damage like 120 or 140 thsi would add more uniqueness to it without overall blasting it's outputs across the spasm

I am aware that soem "Godl grades" are also really mesured in silver grade but some guns like we both agree on are under power and just...needing a new hitn of spark...Krysae..paladin..GPR and striker and even the CAR need new sparks IMHO but I cna't change thse and I don't claim you can either persay 

just remmber I appreciate what you try for us some guns jsut chasity the same general mark as other guns which is resulting in a confliction of unqueness and usages too at times, I don't spto GPR often cause even on silver they trend to lack a flare and umph that says "use me isntead of "me" cause a GPSMG hold sexaclty 100 to is lighter and can nail shtos many times faster with more damage which make sif a much mroe viable choice period anyways

and though allot of players play silver I noticed that it's cause the trend is that peopel use silver as a pratice ground at times and is the middle ground cause bronze players evolve to silver and gold players use silver to test articles Including me, this is why I noticed silver is most commonplace there is about a ratio of true gold players there testing or goofing, a ratio of people movign up their ladder and the ratio still in silver latter moving to maybe gold

Modifié par ValorOfArms777, 05 février 2013 - 05:19 .

[Ryu Connor]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

"I feel it is a task still worth facing" that depends on what the role it is that you decide to play, my role is to report issues to our team internally, I feel I do that. Furthermore the time that I post is normally during my off hours, so I do not believe I should be faulted for what I choose to respond/not respond to (as I sometimes am). 

You may disagree, but there is a certain infinity of when I post things tend to go off topic (less so now that I post more frequently) mind you. But given that threads will turn there entire focus towards what I say, then it almost becomes an obligation that I am to respond. 

Your example of text chat does state that it got a little heated, but didn't burn permanately. I would imagine jumping from issue to issue might also create such heat and although they might not last long, it certainly would be a constant game of out of the fire and into the firing pan. 

Furthermore I am not of a hive mind, I can not possibly be able to follow up on every single issue. While I may be the one who reports issues, I am not necessarly the who follows up on them and finds out their status whether it is investigation/WNF (Will not Fix)/Being fixed etc. Doing so would be outside of the role with which I have been placed in, and thus make me less of an effective employee.

You posting on your own time is a gift.  I don't expect you to make that sacrifice nor do I expect you're beholden to us.  Nor do I hope that I gave that impression.

I understand what you mean about feeling an obligation, not being omnipotent, and facing a from the fire into the frying pan situations.  I understand you can't do your job and act as community liaison too.  I'm not going to trivialize that, tell you how to feel, or any other jerk like outcome.

My last post was in part a compliment and if didn't come across that way, then I failed utterly in intent.

[JaimasOfRaxis]

rlucht wrote...

Sorry for the double post, my beef with the CAR is simply its weight. It doesn't pack nearly the firepower in my opinion to be so close in weight to the harrier. Besides that its a great gun. Just a quick two cents.

I brought this up in the thread earlier, but it's the power-to-size ratio that kills the CAR and most of the other "rapid fire" rifles. The Collector Rifle is out-performed by the Tempest against armored targets - a weapon which is uncommon, and weighs one-third as much. The Locust reliably out-damages the Geth Pulse Rifle in its intended role (rapid headshots) and has comparable firepower to the Phaeston in terms of damage when body shotting. And that one's with no mods!

The general problem with Full-Auto ARs is the power-to-size issue. They need to either be stronger or lighter to compare favorably to SMGs (the former being the better choice). The Revenant is perhaps the only exception, as what it needs is an accuracy buff more than anything, with a slight damage boost (no more than five or so) as a secondary.

[Bryan Johnson]

JaimasOfRaxis wrote...

Bryan Johnson wrote...

It all depends on the resources that one would have available, generally patches (regardless of scope) involve QA time and money. Of course depending on the scale programming/designers/qa increase as the size increases. So the variable equation is more Programming*x + Designers*x + QA*x + Cost + QA = Patch resources. 

So if you are say limited in programming resources available then the scale of such a thing is limited, think of it more as a rate determining step. 

An interesting and accurate bit of info, but there is a corollary I'd like to add: there's a lot of things compounding the problems we have already. Dealing with bugs and such is bad already, but literally every update we've had thus far has hinted at being, at best, rushed, and at worst, extremely rushed.

I used to work in the industry. I've seen people get fired for QA failures smaller than the Collector PS3 Crash.

It's one thing to have one reproducable bug to fix, but when you have like eight and then twelve more pop up in an update, that probably has seriously hamstrung things. One has to wonder how much easier things would have been had proper time and resources been allotted to iron out problems from earlier iterations, so as to prevent the dev team from having to deal with them now. Whilst it's impossible to say how much of this is stuff that could/could not have been prevented, it's an interesting thought to entertain, since it certainly would have made the balance team's job a heck of a lot easier.

Please I am curious to hear what the 8-12 issues that came up in the last 2 updates that happened.
I will give you shadow strike for 1.04
I will give you character cards/acolyte in 1.05
I will even give you some strangeness with shieldgate in 1.04

Edit: Keep in mind I dont have my bug database on me at home, I am merely asking because I am curious what was broken in your mind by those patches because there is those that think things that were broken by patches really existed in the ship version of the game.

Modifié par Bryan Johnson, 05 février 2013 - 05:31 .

[ValorOfArms777]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

JaimasOfRaxis wrote...

Bryan Johnson wrote...

It all depends on the resources that one would have available, generally patches (regardless of scope) involve QA time and money. Of course depending on the scale programming/designers/qa increase as the size increases. So the variable equation is more Programming*x + Designers*x + QA*x + Cost + QA = Patch resources. 

So if you are say limited in programming resources available then the scale of such a thing is limited, think of it more as a rate determining step. 

An interesting and accurate bit of info, but there is a corollary I'd like to add: there's a lot of things compounding the problems we have already. Dealing with bugs and such is bad already, but literally every update we've had thus far has hinted at being, at best, rushed, and at worst, extremely rushed.

I used to work in the industry. I've seen people get fired for QA failures smaller than the Collector PS3 Crash.

It's one thing to have one reproducable bug to fix, but when you have like eight and then twelve more pop up in an update, that probably has seriously hamstrung things. One has to wonder how much easier things would have been had proper time and resources been allotted to iron out problems from earlier iterations, so as to prevent the dev team from having to deal with them now. Whilst it's impossible to say how much of this is stuff that could/could not have been prevented, it's an interesting thought to entertain, since it certainly would have made the balance team's job a heck of a lot easier.

Please I am curious to hear what the 8-12 issues that came up in the last 2 updates that happened.
I will give you shadow strike for 1.04
I will give you character cards/acolyte in 1.05
I will even give you some strangeness with shieldgate in 1.04

I find that some glitches are improbable of the current momment to fix like atlas glitch.. my only solution to atlas glitch is to maybe say impliment it like the Asari infiltrator glitch fix around cause it is like a x2-x3 dmg just like a headshot dmg bosot the atlas HP to like hgiehr grade levels equal to greater HP so they become a litteral tank with a weakness spot of "hitting the driver" the whoel SS on atlas thing I cna live without...if only draggons had reduced HP and a small shield on them though to counter act this lack fo shields to steal, though I rather of had ramart mechs than darn dragoons in the first place

Modifié par ValorOfArms777, 05 février 2013 - 05:23 .

[Shadohz]

Bryan have you guys ever just thought about doing a customer-facing bug report?

You know where you list out what bugs you WON'T fix, what you currently addressing, what patch/release version certain bugs were fixed on, current bug status, etc.

[ValorOfArms777]

Shadohz wrote...

Bryan have you guys ever just thought about doing a customer-facing bug report?

You know where you list out what bugs you WON'T fix, what you currently addressing, what patch/release version certain bugs were fixed on, current bug status, etc.

I don't think they can publicly display it..honestly or well most of it...

Modifié par ValorOfArms777, 05 février 2013 - 05:26 .

[Bryan Johnson]

Shadohz wrote...

Bryan have you guys ever just thought about doing a customer-facing bug report?

You know where you list out what bugs you WON'T fix, what you currently addressing, what patch/release version certain bugs were fixed on, current bug status, etc.

When information is duplicated it is very difficult to ensure everything is up to date on both circumstances, furthermore a "slip-up" in the public facing bug report might cause outrage. What I mean is if something is said to be fixed, and then it is determined that is something that will not be done.

[Shadohz]

ValorOfArms777 wrote...

Shadohz wrote...

Bryan have you guys ever just thought about doing a customer-facing bug report?

You know where you list out what bugs you WON'T fix, what you currently addressing, what patch/release version certain bugs were fixed on, current bug status, etc.

I don't think they can publicly display it..honestly or well most of it...

Companies do it all the time. it's not that you list out EVERY bug, but hot issue items that are resolved/resolvable.

[KiraTsukasa]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

I will even give you some strangeness with shieldgate in 1.04

I give credit to that issue to the host controlling who lives and who dies and when, due to the vanguard glitch fix. Too much information going between host and clients and causing more lag than normal and thus killing people off when they shouldn't be, or at least when they think they shouldn't be.

[Shadohz]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

Shadohz wrote...

Bryan have you guys ever just thought about doing a customer-facing bug report?

You know where you list out what bugs you WON'T fix, what you currently addressing, what patch/release version certain bugs were fixed on, current bug status, etc.

When information is duplicated it is very difficult to ensure everything is up to date on both circumstances, furthermore a "slip-up" in the public facing bug report might cause outrage. What I mean is if something is said to be fixed, and then it is determined that is something that will not be done.

Understood.

[staindgrey]

Sorry. I wanted the missile glitch fixed first.

I am ****ing tired of trying to find Platinum matches now that most of my friends list stopped playing, and only finding either Box of Shame matches or missile glitchers. The lack of drive within the community to actually accomplish anything at the higher difficulties has all but killed my desire to do so myself.

There are a lot of issues in the game. A lot of them. But the fact that they chose the missile glitch first is hardly the worst thing in the world to happen. I'd actually have put that at the top of the to-do list myself.

[Shadohz]

staindgrey wrote...

Sorry. I wanted the missile glitch fixed first.

I am ****ing tired of trying to find Platinum matches now that most of my friends list stopped playing, and only finding either Box of Shame matches or missile glitchers. The lack of drive within the community to actually accomplish anything at the higher difficulties has all but killed my desire to do so myself.

There are a lot of issues in the game. A lot of them. But the fact that they chose the missile glitch first is hardly the worst thing in the world to happen. I'd actually have put that at the top of the to-do list myself.

You know what I would've done? Completely taken missile out of the game and replaced it with 'aerial strike'. If you can't switch to the weapon then you can't abuse it.

[JaimasOfRaxis]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

Please I am curious to hear what the 8-12 issues that came up in the last 2 updates that happened.
I will give you shadow strike for 1.04
I will give you character cards/acolyte in 1.05
I will even give you some strangeness with shieldgate in 1.04

Edit: Keep in mind I dont have my bug database on me at home, I am merely asking because I am curious what was broken in your mind by those patches because there is those that think things that were broken by patches really existed in the ship version of the game.

I wasn't being literal for that example, but I'll elaborate irregardless. To writ, we had things like Phantoms synckilling despite being disarmed, magnet hands, the vanguard glitch, ULM not working, and the negative ammo glitch going into Resurgence, just to name a few.

Patch 1 hits and now we have bugged Geth Rocket Troopers and Hunters, the emergence of the Missile Glitch (it existed before this, but the patch (and Resurgence thereafter) are when it really started going head-over-teakettle), and the entire Krysae debacle to fix on top of these. It's manifest, where the Devs are still trying to (for the sake of the argument in question) still trying to piece together what the deuce is causing the first batch of bugs, and now they have a lot more. Throw in Resurgence, and now you have the disappearing Pizza bug (for example).

Modifié par JaimasOfRaxis, 05 février 2013 - 05:54 .

[vonSlash]

Bryan Johnson wrote...
You are strickly speaking in terms of balance and although some guns (I agree) are under powered, they do not have to be gold viable (the usual metric people use). To be fair the majority of players do not even play gold, so those weapons might be perfectly acceptable on the lower (more popular difficulties). For example strictly speaking I (personally) think the Hornet is horribly under powered, yet I know people that can make that gun sing. Yet I think of that list the Striker and CAR are quite good guns on gold.

Forgive the upcoming bad pun, but why shouldn't Gold viability be the gold standard for all weapons, save perhaps the commons? Uncommon (and Rare) weapons require a moderate-(to-high) amount of time, effort, or cash investment to rank up, and most of them don't have higher rare (or ultra-rare) analogues to replace them as players fill their manifest. Take the Incisor, for example. There's nothing else remotely like it in the rare or ultra-rare categories (and therefore no Gold-viable replacement available to people who've invested more time or money), but it can't perform up to par even in a Gold match where the map and faction are pre-selected to suit the gun's strengths.

In essence, why can't all uncommon (and rare) weapons that are both evidently underpowered in the hands of most players and lack rare (or ultra-rare) replacements (replacements being guns that fill the same role and have a similar feel, but are of a higher rarity) be buffed to the point of being Gold-viable at rank X?

[Bryan Johnson]

JaimasOfRaxis wrote...

Bryan Johnson wrote...

Please I am curious to hear what the 8-12 issues that came up in the last 2 updates that happened.
I will give you shadow strike for 1.04
I will give you character cards/acolyte in 1.05
I will even give you some strangeness with shieldgate in 1.04

Edit: Keep in mind I dont have my bug database on me at home, I am merely asking because I am curious what was broken in your mind by those patches because there is those that think things that were broken by patches really existed in the ship version of the game.

I wasn't being literal for that example, but I'll elaborate irregardless. To writ, we had things like Phantoms synckilling despite being disarmed, magnet hands, the vanguard glitch, ULM not working, and the negative ammo glitch going into Resurgence, just to name a few.

Patch 1 hits and now we have bugged Geth Rocket Troopers and Hunters, the emergence of the Missile Glitch (it existed before this, but the patch (and Resurgence thereafter) are when it really started going head-over-teakettle), and the entire Krysae debacle to fix on top of these. It's manifest, where the Devs are still trying to (for the sake of the argument in question) still trying to piece together what the deuce is causing the first batch of bugs, and now they have a lot more. Throw in Resurgence, and now you have the disappearing Pizza bug (for example).

Your example was that the last updates have missed critical issues, which I was most concerned about since I was the QA on those (A bit of selfishness, especially since you were insinuating that I should lose my job).

Vanguard glitch, there was some people that never saw it, it was also something that had multiple causes. Furthermore it had a QA bounty on it, some finds reliable reproduction steps they actually won a prize for it. (someone did because one of the ways to repro it was fixed).

If by bugged Geth Rocket Troopers you are speaking of the rocket double tap, I can assure you that was in base game.

The missile glitch existed since ship what you saw was the propogation of the internet at work, as soon as one person found it and propogated to others is when it took off not the patch itself. Unless you are attempting to indicate that we made it worse by introducing the striker/krysae.

You do not delay DLC while you investigate bugs they are done in parrallel. 

Once again ill bring up the point.

Would you honestly consider any (outside of vanguard glitch because yes I agree that was important) to be a stop ship bug. Please explain why, because another large factor for a QA is bug advocacy. 

Modifié par Bryan Johnson, 05 février 2013 - 06:10 .

[Ryu Connor]

JaimasOfRaxis wrote...

I wasn't being literal for that example, but I'll elaborate irregardless. To writ, we had things like Phantoms synckilling despite being disarmed, magnet hands, the vanguard glitch, ULM not working, and the negative ammo glitch going into Resurgence, just to name a few.

Patch 1 hits and now we have bugged Geth Rocket Troopers and Hunters, the emergence of the Missile Glitch (it existed before this, but the patch (and Resurgence thereafter) are when it really started going head-over-teakettle), and the entire Krysae debacle to fix on top of these. It's manifest, where the Devs are still trying to (for the sake of the argument in question) still trying to piece together what the deuce is causing the first batch of bugs, and now they have a lot more. Throw in Resurgence, and now you have the disappearing Pizza bug (for example).

When factoring character bugs there might be twelve there.

Warp + Incendiary ammo bug.
Shield Boost stuck character bug.
Annihilation Field visual bug. 
Quarian Marksman Health bug.
Incinerate Freeze Combo bug.
Paladin centered tech explosions bug.
Snap Freeze Tech Combo bug.
Shadow Strike Atlas bug.
Sticky grenade audio loudness bug.
Huntress Tactical Cloak weapon damage bug.
Drell Assassin Tactical Cloak + Recon mine bug.
The new weapon mods that add weight don't add weight to the non-DLC weapons bug.

All these various little bugs means those who don't read the forums essentially end up wasting points in skills and have the class hampered silently by others.  I don't really consider ignorance bliss.

That hits twelve.  I probably could think of more if I sat here a bit longer.  Some are brand new, some are slightly old, some are shipping.

These start off nickel and dime.  It's easy to say, "Eh, we can let that one slip by to get the product out the door."

We've reached the point that there are so many little items that they cumulatively represent a big problem.

Modifié par Ryu Connor, 05 février 2013 - 06:23 .