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

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?

OK here's the extended breakdown of KHTF's last mission, with a team that decided to help me out. Many thanks to all of you who decided to hang around with me while we tried various things out. All testers had at least 36 months under their belt and have run KHTF hundreds of times each. At least half of the teammates have participated in closed beta, that I know of.

1) No changes were noted in the TF from previous issues for all other missions. Task force was set at even (no -/+ conditions) and was a full team of 8 players. No one disconnected or mapserved at any point during the Task Force. *edit: mission door for last mission had moved? It is now non statically bound to a single door?

2) Katie's Spirit, when rescued, does NOT follow the rescuer. This is with no stealth powers activated. I observed the rescuer from a distance and the rest of the team was near the entrance.

3) Katie refused to move at all, regardless of whether the rescuer was flying or running/jumping. She went through her lost dialog when the rescuer went too far away, and got her reacquired dialog when she returned. She had not moved at all from her original spawn point.

4) She started moving again once the first ambush made its way close to her. She then subsequently attacked the mobs and would temporarily follow the rescuer until no more attackers were around.

5) She stopped moving again once aggro had dissipated. No amount of cajoling or vet tping would make her follow the team or rescuer.

6) Mobs that didn't aggro on her or her rescuer wouldn't seem to snap her out of her stuck state. IE, I tried 'feeding' her a mob that was pushed using hurricane over towards Katie.

7) Mobs that aggro'd on Katie or her rescuer were the only thing that made her move. If a mob was a fair distance away but still trying to attack her or the rescuer, she would then follow the rescuer for a short distance or attack the ambusher.

*This was likely the reason why she followed me for a time in the initial report. If the ambush is still trying to attack the rescuer, but the rescuer is flying out of reach, Katie will keep following the rescuer until the mob gives up or is defeated. It is likely the ambushing mob was defeated while I had Katie out of reach from subsequent ambushes, in which case she stopped and could not be led again.

8) Katie's friends, Jessica etc., seemed to have the same problem that Katie's spirit had, in that they stopped following when aggro was lost.

9) We were able to eventually finish the mission by immobilizing the ambushes and pushing them towards the exit, thus luring Katie to the door. Using -kb immobs was the only effective way to prevent Katie's kb powers from spreading the mobs around.

10) If Katie cannot follow the mobs without being under aggro conditions, most teams will not be able to finish the Task Force. Even tanks with taunt may not find the Task Force finishable since Katie's hurricane and gale tend to scatter mobs everywhere instead of a focused direction towards the exit.

11) The entire TF is unbalanced now because controllers get access to their full secondary set (level 40). It was ridiculously easy to finish the first mission, where it used to pose some modicum of challenge. Since the team was highly experienced, the toons were likely equipped above average and the players were able to finish everything without difficulty (excepting the last mission). Most had commented that the TF felt too easy now, especially the Mary MacComber portion.

*sent to Castle but also post here since many people seem to have difficulties checking out the TF for themselves.

Yes... I know that I oversimplified the issue. As have the previous arguers.

Just as I can't possibly know what or how things happened in the programming, neither can you. It just seems odd that you are unwilling to NOT fault the Devs directly. Not being able to predict EVERY possible consequence of an action, does NOT equate to incompetence.

P.S. Ergo = Therefore. Also, while we are being nitpicky, the period goes inside the quotation marks.

This is also the reason why Castle said that if he had his druthers, there would be a diminishing returns mechanic for PvE as well as PvP. But he noted the time commitment and the... fallout... for doing such a thing makes it a no starter.

However, I'd be willing to bet that if the stuff that Repeat Offenders do became so common place that it would turn the game into City of Repeat Offenders (with huge numbers flocking to such a practice like they did to AE farms), well, the Devs would find the fortitude to put their foot down on this and we'd be looking at DR in PvE.

Leveraging mechanics to break the design is something any game designer tries to prevent, and if they fail to prevent it, try to correct it.

You keep talking about changes to glowies or bugs with the glowies and it really impacts the potential usefulness/value of the discussion. THE MAPS CHANGED! Just like any other item, glowies are positioned with a coordinate system in 3 dimensions. The maps were changed, intentionally or not, and the glowie coordinates caused them to be inaccessible. This is not a glowie issue. Multiple missions (FOUR) in the TF now have different maps. Are we all on the same page now?

Whereas you would seem to believe that in no possible scenario listed they have at least some of the blame.

In my arguments, there is expected a modicum of competence or failing that humanity. Perhaps it was missed?

You also seem to imply that incompetence is avoidable and if so, something I would fail to agree with. Unless it be deliberate incompetence.

How good of you to point out a typo. I thank you and will cherish the notion that my mistake was not one of reason but rather a mere lack of keyboard skill.

Your logic is sorely lacking. Over the lifetime of the game, the devs have made literally THOUSANDS of deliberate changes without telling anyone. So, to further your position, you *ASSUME* that did not occur in this particular situation? You don't know. Your declarations of RIGHT and WRONG are just little dots on the screen, conveying no useful information.

I do question the accuracy of such a question, given that it took a Repeat Offender sort showing the devs how it was possible for them to believe it possible.

Do you think the merit rewards were slanted towards what Repeat Offenders can accomplish versus the majority of non-Repeat Offender groups trying the Eden Trial?

Positron?

Dr. Q?

Katie?

ITF?

LGTF?

(As a hint, regardless of how you answer, the Repeat Offender sort benefit over the non-Repeat Offender sort)

I do not at all disagree with you here, although I hasten to point out that the manner of such a correction is relevent.

As an example, note the suposed (but not officially happening ergo they did not) punishments that could in theory have been meted out to persons who had the misfortune of leveling in MA faster than the devs though appropriate versus the dev changes to the game as a result of super-sidekicking.

Hypothetically, one is vulgar; the other inspired.

Ironblade, I'd ask that you not attempt to bring logic into this thread.

Anonymous negative reputation placed.

Clearly you weren't on the same page to begin with. We were discussing a theoretical cause for the bug. It was a hypothetical example and nothing more. I'm well aware that it's not the entirety of the real issue.

(Of course, even having read the other thread cited, I'm still plenty shaky as to the extent of the bug, since it's about as vague as this one.)

As opposed to you correcting something that wasn't actually wrong?

You are right, I don't know for sure... but I think it is safer to assume that they didn't know than that they did. That whole innocent until proven guilty thing.

Also, is blindly maintaining the converse of my contention somehow better and more logical? (I am not accusing you of anything directly, just asking the question.)

My apologies. I wasn't aware that your post listing explanations and analysis of events was meant to be taken as nonsensical.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I can provide details, if needed. I ran the TF the other day to see what was wrong with it.

No, and that wasn't my intent. I just generally dive in when I see someone making what appears to be statements of fact when they really aren't. This is a noble calling.

You and your pack of exploiters better keep your dirty paws off my woman

That's the point.

There's a frequent thing some people do on the internet (and probably elsewhere, but I notice it on forums). When someone vigorously defends a position that isn't on a topic of life-and-death magnitude, other people have a tendency to think that vigorous defense means the person is making a bigger deal out of the issue than is warranted.

When you post something, and other posters come along and decry what you said or claim it untrue, failing to respond risks lending credence to their argument in the eyes of other readers. It's like the old parable of letting the madman give sermons in the marketplace - if no one challenges what he says, some people may start to believe it.

No one here is saying anything being discussed is the end of the world. This is a video game - there are infinitely more important things in the world. However, some of us like this game, and when it's broken when it seems it needn't be so often, that's frustrating. Just because we don't want to let that issue be buried under dissenting views doesn't mean we think it's "the end of the world".

Which makes nothing discussed an "exploit". The above is a discussion of game balance. Given his druthers, Castle would modify how the game is balanced. That does not in any way, form or fashion make playing the game as balanced an exploit.

Perhaps, but until then playing the game the way RO does would not be an exploit. Nor would having played the game that way become an exploit retroactively after such a balance change.

... (← Hyperlink)

I think it's more you (general "you" for those that share this viewpoint) are assigning malicious intent to the devs for the changes, rather than them making a simple mistake.

The position specific to me is that they have been making very conceptually similar "simple mistakes" for a long time. They've made some improvements over the years certainly, but still break things too often for my tastes. I'd like to have seen those mistakes result in better continuous improvement, so that such bugs surface less with each release.

I know I'm biased. I work in an environment with a very high bar for software correctness. Of course, it's not a game environment, and when my team's system doesn't work right, its other people in the enterprise who come asking why. I can imagine that has a far different dynamic from an MMO shop where players get mad about bugs in game.

But just because I would love to see a higher bar doesn't mean I am trying to vilify devs individually or collectively (and I acknowledge you weren't accusing me of such specifically). I just wish the results made it look like they had a higher bar.

Pretty much this.

Funny thing is the folks in the drops testing thread aren't assigning malicious intent to the devs in that thread. Interesting how different people react to different situations.

I agree. However, it's impossible to release any issue with 100% no new bugs. I know you're not saying this, but I think some folks might be reaching for an impossible standard.

With that said maybe it's time for them to review how beta tests are conducted.