A Rant About i16 (undocumented changes to TFs lead to bugs...big surprise)

Do you understand what a bug is?

And as I've previously said, them telling you anything about what they changed is pointless, since the root cause of a problem could easily be unrelated (or at least merely tangentially related) to what was actually changed.

You two are just completely missing the points tonight. Geez. Neither one of you obviously came in here looking for reasonable discussion. Have your rant and have fun.

You mean like the afore-mentioned change to the last map of the Numina TF?

You mean like the afore-mentioned change to the last map of the Numina TF?

Edit: To be clear, no we don't know it was an intentional change. But to claim that it must not be because the devs never make unannounced, intentional changes is clearly false.

My interpretation of that quote is the area of the intentional change is undocumented to the persons testing said changes. CoX is simply too vast a program to say in effect, "Hey guys, we changed some things we didn't tell you about. Please test them."

That simple. The stuff they put in the Beta Release Notes were no doubt heavily tested (even if the devs at times prefer to ignore the resulting feedback of such testing).

The things that are undocumented (to the testers), but intentional suffer a very inversely proportional chance of testing and thus discovery of issues.

The intent to change map behavior and/or glowie positioning (to say nothing of the AI - "Hey guys, hostage AI changed, can you test?") *is* intentional, in all probability. Should Castle come on and say that there were no changes to directly related systems to maps and/or glowie placement (for fruit-basket points, Castle could also say that no change that was done was ever thought to impact either of those areas) executed then I will immediately apologize and say I'm wrong. And that being the case, then it means that they had no clue that some subsystem change would affect them.

And that'd mean that they need to improve their own internal documentation but incompetence does not necessarily follow.

I'll not address the patch/release notes issue because I think it could be improved regardless.

Come back to me when you've got word that the change was intentional. Also thanks for overlooking the fact that I'm well-willing to criticize them for changes that don't make it into the patch notes, I just don't assign motives for why they happen.

To reiterate, it's regrettable that undocumented changes occasionally slip through, and it's something to be avoided for sure, but it's not something the devs are purposefully doing. Why is it so difficult to assume that the reason why it wasn't documented was because the devs were never aware of it?

fwiw, I didn't overlook the fact and I think it's something we can all agree on.

My position, which appears contrary to yours (please tell me if I'm wrong), is that someone in all likelihood made a deliberate, intentional change to a system that impacts say, glowie placement.

Note that I don't say definitively as I can't speak as to others' thoughts, but I can tell you from experience that the effects of such changes can and often do have unexpected results.

One thing that will point the way to which it is will be the speed in which it is rectified.

In a way, it's a no-win for the devs. Either they admit that they made a change that negatively impacts us without warning (which in effect is what the forearmed bit I referred to above means - we know, it isn't a surprise, thus we shrug our shoulders and move on) or they honestly didn't think that that system was impacted, which implies incompetence.

Which is also, incidently, why I think Castle's second post is very surprising to me. And very encouraging.

That's whereabouts where I stand as well, actually, though I'm leaning more towards "someone accidentally saved one map file over another".

The bulk of my criticisms have been aimed squarely at the reactions seen in this thread, many of which appear to be ready to vilify the devs over a simple bug. Or at least demand a new level of refinement in the beta testing process that just isn't feasible, or some cases literally impossible.

Let's keep in mind that the game is five years old, and the folks working on it aren't necessarily the same ones who designed the original code. If you've read any of BABs' posts, you've seen how quirks and glitches can spiderweb outward unexpectedly in a system.

What I find much more realistic (though do not necessarily believe is true, mind you), is that if, for example, a change was made to glowies when someone altered the system, they then checked a handful of missions (or mocked up a few testbed ones) to make sure nothing exploded due to their changes, and then simply overlooked how their change broke three particular missions.

The expectation wraps back around to the two impossible ideals expressed earlier in the thread that either the devs should check every single iteration of anything ever to ensure bugs don't crop up when they make a change, or that they should meticulously map out a delicate spiderweb of systems and code and simply just know what will affect what, always, at all times.

Because I consider it unlikely because of the nature of the change and its apparent localization to the TF. Because I consider it unlikely because their is contrary precedent. Because I only give benefit of a doubt so often, and their track record for documenting intentional change is terrible.

Here's some examples for you, all from this issue, that are a bit harder for you to dismiss than the Numina end map.

Do you think all the following are unintentional?

• "Chance for Build Up" procs now have a status icon in your buff tray.
• Terrain that was for a long time very angular is now in many instances smooth again.
• Taunt when wielding a weapon and a shield now has a new animation.
• Arctic Air now leaves a visual indicator on foes when it confuses them.
• Characters no longer appear to have spasms while playing teleport animations.
• Using the difficulty NPCs no longer costs inf.

The devs make changes without telling anyone all the time.

Please quote the expression of that ideal stated here in this thread.

Both of the ones I highlighted were mentioned by BABs as being things that were fixed. Likely, they didn't make it into the patch notes due to lack of relevance or because of their scope. The former affected terrain game-wide, the latter was a part of a laundry list of animation bugs fixed by BABs.

Moreover, and perhaps I'm simply being pedantic, I consider changelogs and patch notes to be two separate, if similar, beasts. I'll fully agree that we could use a better listing of changes, but I could also understand well why some things don't always end up on them.

Not to mention that there are many different links in the chain that could cause exclusions from the notes. I recall the occasional note being in dispute because QA couldn't replicate it.

A possibility I don't discount.

I think we may quibble over whether or not such things are possible, but I'd without reservation saying that Castle's second post is very much an unexpected positive way of dealing with it, at least as pertains to the KHTF.

I'd just like someone to say the same regarding the Hess/glowie thing.

'cause I don't think for a second that they expected Hess to behave as it is now, "Woah, that's unexpected" is at the least honest.

And ultimately, honest means you trust your players. And it's a way for us to trust the devs.

People are funny.

I can empathize were that the case. Again, honest disclosure would mean that we are treated as partners, rather than subscribers.

I'd prefer to be the former, rather than the latter. Especially since the former implies a longer-term view.

I don't discount it as a possibility. I do think that if it were the case, it would be negligent on the part of either the individual programmer and/or their supervisor to not pass that on to the public relations devs or community reps so they could pass it on to we, the beta testers. Failing that, it's a failure of leadership to allow such information flow to exist.

I daresay it isn't possible to relate *areas* of change to the populace, unless the circumstances I stated above exist, in which case I'd expect no fruit basket for the developer or manager in charge. And as a fall-back position, a mea culpa is surprisingly honest and well-received because at the end of the day, we're all human and I'm more suspicious of people who make no mistakes than those that do.

And again, if it was an under-the-hood change, not meant to display any outward alteration, why disseminate that information to the beta testers at all? Especially since, as I stressed in my example, there was no flaw or bug to be seen?

This methodology is flawed, because you're asking the devs to say "hey, we changed glowies" and let the populace test for bugs. Whether they test internally or with our help, it matters little since there's a lot of freakin' glowies in the game. Finding a needle in a haystack that large just isn't feasible.

Great!

Why weren't they in the release notes, as potentially they could cause bugs?

It may help to clarify terms. I think of changelogs as being the specific changes to specific issues that are internal documents detailing to fellow devs what happened.

I view patch notes as a summary overview of the *nature* of said changes, meant for the general public.

Also, in terms of potential, there is no difference between minor and major changes. Impact impacts, the scale of the effect being not necessarily dependent on the scale of the change.

If so, then that's a failure of leadership. It's that simple.

In the case of your specific example, to which I replied, glowie-placement potentially impacts more systems than just 3 paper missions.

Even if you don't buy that argument (which I can understand if you don't), then you also must consider risk-reward metrics.

How taxing is it to ask testers to try a variety of missions/tfs and report back unexpected behavior from the system you altered?

Little effort from the testers but potentially big rewards if they find something.

Also, human nature being what it is, doing so means that you've done your due-diligence and thus people affected if it goes Live are much more forgiving had you done so.

A cardinal error is to believe that programming exists in a non-human vacuum.

As players, we get one formal list, which is referred to as patch notes. We don't get to see change logs, as I take you to mean them. Those same notes in beta form are what are given to testers to guide their investigation of the beta versions of the game. I think it's hard to argue that they'd reduce the probability of untested changes if they strove to include more of the changes that they know about in those notes.

Maybe this wasn't a change they knew about. I just don't think it looks like a good candidate for that, and it's not like they never fail to document things they do know about. (On the nature of the change, you seem very focused on "glowies." there are three distinct problems with the TF - the glowie in the wall is only one of them.)

On the patch note/change log distinction... In the enterprise software world, I find the two terms are used largely synonymously, even to technical audiences. However, the term patch note seems used much more frequently.

Arguably, very. Considering pressures to finalize issues and close out code branches, and the need to keep testers focused on issues they know need testing for sure, at least.

I'm not saying that a proactive approach to bug finding/fixing would be a bad thing, but I also think it would be naive to assume it wouldn't have its own flaws.

So due to time pressures they should not ask people to test things because they might not have time to fix uncovered problems before deadlines arrive.

Result, the system goes live with defects which the users find, costing the developers credibility with their user community.

Where I work, doing that costs the team money after year-end reviews.

No. Due to time pressures they should not ask people to test things which have been confirmed as working or are assumed to be properly working. This is an extension of my example a few posts back.

Given the choice, do you tell people to smash up Power Customization to iron out all the bugs and oversights in your new system, or do you send them on a wild goose chase because "glowies might've changed maybe even though we don't think they did"?

This.

You're arguing on behalf of the devs that it's better to rush updates by not soliciting informed testing?

Were a dev to run through three example missions, as dictated in your example, and consider it tested, they should be fired for gross incompetence and the persons responsible for hiring said developer lose points on their annual review.

Given the scope of open Beta testers, yes, without hesitation you mention it as something that changed. To not do if you knowingly impacted the system is incompetent.

Let's say that the dev referred it to their manager as a change that they only tested with 3 random missions. A competent manager passes that on until it's made aware to the testers.

Open Beta is supposed to be the safety net, both due to timing and to scale.

Does saying in the release notes: "Known issue, Hess is borked, go do a Sister Psyche instead" really constitute an undue burden upon a competent staff?

So, to repeat, do you honestly expect them or us, to chew through every single mission in the game with a glowie in it?

Anything less than that would've potentially let the bug go live anyway, and this thread would've been created either way.

Hopefully there is a two for one special so that they can pass one on to you also.

It boggles the mind how people in this thread keep saying the same things to each other, hearing what they want, and then regurgitating the original argument anyway!

Let me break it down:
The Hess TF is different now than it was on live before i16.
This difference makes it annoying and uncompletable.
The Beta Testers (nor Live Players) were never told about this change.

Now we have two choices:
— Therefore, the Devs changed it deliberately, and didn't tell anyone. WRONG
— Therefore, the Devs must have changed something, that messed up the TF, and since I have no idea how their system works for calling maps, or placing glowies... I think it is safe to say they didn't mean to. After all, why would they deliberately mess up a TF and not say anything? RIGHT

Argumentum ad bifurification.

--Therefore the Devs changed something and didn't have a clue of the ramifications, which denotates incompetence. RIGHT

--Therefore, the Devs changed the maps and hoped no one would notice. RIGHT

etc.

Hint: The word you're looking for is "ergo".