Danielle Aurorel, Dear Dragon We Got Your Cookies [Nom], Desolation (EU).
“Life’s a journey, not a destination.”
“Life’s a journey, not a destination.”
What Colin said
1 2
That means it is an assumption by Vayne, and not actual (or factual) knowledge.
Exactly, as I said at the start, he’s just making kitten up.
Assuming things is not (always) nonsense. If you disagree with someone’s assumptions, you can challenge them by giving arguments why they are based on unsound reasoning.
For example, I am assuming that Vayne is not a time travelling dolphin from the year 4149. I have no way of knowing this for a fact about Vayne (or anyone on this forum), but am I making stuff up just by assuming that you are all non-time travelling humans using computers (or phones)?
The same goes for Vayne’s assumption. I tend to accept the assumption that the compass was working well enough in ArenaNet’s testing environment for it to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the update. Because I believe ArenaNet’s posts where they explain their “When It’s Ready” policy of talking about future content.
You can challenge Vayne’s assumption by refusing any of the premises I gave or alluded to, or even any that I forgot to mention. For example:
- You can claim that ArenaNet’s testing procedures are insufficient.
- You can refuse to believe ArenaNet’s explanation for why the “When It’s Ready” policy exists.
- You can claim that ArenaNet does things entirely differently than how Vayne is assuming it to be.However, you need to back up your own claims as well, because they are also based on assumptions. (E.g. how much time and effort is reasonable for ArenaNet to put into testing, why ArenaNet’s explanations of their “When It’s Ready” policy would be unreliable, or what would be a more plausible way for how ArenaNet is really doing things.) And your assumptions can also be attacked if they are not strong enough.
This is how intelligent debate works. Simply saying: “Nuh-uh!” does not win an argument.
you are making a kittenumption, especially if your goal is to pinpoint where something went wrong.
obviously it is not true that the QA succeeded, so assuming that that the QA must have worked correctly because that what QA is for, is kittenumption.
in fact the other assumption is more likely.
- QA’s job is to make sure no unknown bugs are delivered in release
- Unknown bugs are delivered in release
therefore, for some unknown reason it is a fair assumption that QA is failing some facet of their job.
so assuming it must have been working in the test environment or QA would have caught it, is a kittenumption. Not saying its not possible, but you have no reason to logically believe QA couldnt have made a mistake, when we know there was a mistake made
I don’t find it hard to believe that bugs could appear when the patch went live that didn’t show up in tests, I have to deal with the same thing all the time at work.
For example we just started using an updated version of our database. I was one of the people who tested it and I know for a fact bugs appeared in the ‘live’ version that weren’t in the test one. In fact I can run them side by side, the live version on my real desktop and the test version on a virtual desktop, do the exact same steps in both and get different results.
I don’t yet know why, but I know it can and does happen. And this is much simpler software than GW2.
That question’s been answered. He has a friend who follows the Chinese version updates and stuff: this one.
No, it wasn’t answered and keeps being ignored. How does he know anything about what happens on the test server? Not the chinese servers, the test servers.
You know all those preview videos people like Wooden Potatoes and Dulfy posted the day before the patch hit? How do you think they made them?
Since I assume none of them have access to time machines the only logical explanation (and the one given when they’ve been asked) is that they were given access to the test server so they could preview the new content in advance.
Which means all those videos were created on the test server and Vayne, you, me or anyone else can see how the new stuff worked on the test server just by watching the videos.
the bugs were present in the test videos. Much of the info people were talking about early was in the videos, like the level lock requirements, the lockouts of vistas/mining/etc I believe i heard some one mentioning being pointed to diessa plateau in one of the preview updates.
So, yeah, if they were on test accounts, its likely all of these things were there. And the things that were not, and related to managing existing data, means they have a poor test environment. How can you test how old data interacts if you delete and create new data with every build.
yes some things slip through the cracks, but no, its highly likely that these things are poorly tested. whether it be design of the testing environment, number of testers, or effeciecy of testers. Its likely that Wooden potatoes and others were told that some of the issues would be dealt with in a newer build, so they will generally ignore things they find buggy
the probably need a ptr.
2) I am shocked how many of these errors are not discovered in a “test server” environment before going live.
Don’t be shocked!
Lots of games have test servers and their patches always have bugs. I played the big dog for 13 months. It had a PTR. During that time there were several updates. Every single one of them broke the game, requiring additional downtime beyond the normal 5 hour outage. Sometimes, the downtime was 3 to 4 times the 5 hour outage. There were also, usually, 2-3 other hot fixes later in the week.
I believe the ‘Diessa Plateau’ incident mentioned was from a reviewer that played on the live servers…magicalmike. His video was released Sept. 10th. So, I’m afraid that isn’t a very good example.
It is unreasonable for any QA department to demand a 100% result rate of finding bugs (because that would require an astronomical amount of both time and money). Thus, there must be a trade-off for time and costs. So a compromise must be found. ArenaNet decided on a ratio of time-and-money versus quality of bug-finding. The compass exhibits a bug. It is likely that the QA department did not encounter or identify the bug during testing. The bug slipped through the cracks. A certain amount of bugs that slip through the cracks is unavoidable, and they can get fixed by patches afterwards.
Players who demand zero bugs upon release of an update are unreasonable, because some bugs are so unexpected that they are unavoidable. What is reasonable, however, is for players to expect that any bugs that do appear can be fixed later, within a reasonable timeframe.
(What is a “reasonable timeframe” depends on the severity of the bug. A client crash bug must be fixed very quickly. An in-game marker that provides misleading information can get a little more time than that. An event with an unintended difficulty level has a longer timeframe. A minor typo in an item description has very low priority.)
These are my assumptions. I challenge you to challenge them.
I believe the ‘Diessa Plateau’ incident mentioned was from a reviewer that played on the live servers…magicalmike. His video was released Sept. 10th. So, I’m afraid that isn’t a very good example.
nah the magical mike incident was diessa plateau to snowden to frost gorge.
the review i vaguely remember was the guy saying offhandly im not going to go there. However i dont remember specifics so maybe im wrong on that specific case.
However, the level requirements for unlock were shown, as well as the locking of various functionalities, and certain things not showing up on the map, in Wooden potatoes video.
So yeah, a lot of the “bugs” were in the test environment. With that as what we have seen, i wouldnt assume that the arrow was working perfectly, its more likely that it, like other things reported as bugs was in the system.
It is unreasonable for any QA department to demand a 100% result rate of finding bugs (because that would require an astronomical amount of both time and money). Thus, there must be a trade-off for time and costs. So a compromise must be found. ArenaNet decided on a ratio of time-and-money versus quality of bug-finding. The compass exhibits a bug. It is likely that the QA department did not encounter or identify the bug during testing. The bug slipped through the cracks. A certain amount of bugs that slip through the cracks is unavoidable, and they can get fixed by patches afterwards.
Players who demand zero bugs upon release of an update are unreasonable, because some bugs are so unexpected that they are unavoidable. What is reasonable, however, is for players to expect that any bugs that do appear can be fixed later, within a reasonable timeframe.
(What is a “reasonable timeframe” depends on the severity of the bug. A client crash bug must be fixed very quickly. An in-game marker that provides misleading information can get a little more time than that. An event with an unintended difficulty level has a longer timeframe. A minor typo in an item description has very low priority.)These are my assumptions. I challenge you to challenge them.
QA is imperfect, i never debated that, but the assumption that these mistakes werent in the test version is a kittenumption.
The question is, is the amount of time/effort/design of their QA systems giving them the type of QA they expect/need. If not, what methods can be done to improve the effeciency of these systems.
I was simply saying that i would not assume that the problem didnt happen in the QA phase, not that it could not have happened elsewhere, but it wouldnt be a starting assumption.
Hoping Colin may read this thread. Below are my 2 cents to the devs on what went wrong.
I. QA: Many threads have already called for better QA, test server. That’s your biggest problem it seems.
II. World Immersion:
1) All the locked skill boxes are an eye sore. They tell players they are missing some key skills they will need. When they had these skills before, seeing the locks innately causes an irritation in their mood.
2) The game used to present an instant immersion with beautiful game world with the golden icons for reward on the right edge that gave people a feeling they are in a fantasy world with an air of magical growth for their characters. Now the leveling reward is too in-in-face, with a square box that knocks player out of immersion. The box blocks the view of the world. It makes them feel they are playing a poor-grade game rather than the once sophisticated fantasy environment.
Suggestion: People play mmorpg for immersion. Keep a hard inspection on how you are presenting your beautiful world to the players, and how you may inadvertently destroy all the work that went into world building. This happened to LOTRO. Their splash screen store intrusion drove away much of their player base.
III: Lack of QA may have caused things such as Copper-Fed salvage tool no longer being able to be used on lower level characters. When you have a sale on the tool along with a sale on character slots, you need to be aware that you will have many customers buying both so that their new characters will have an easy time growing up. Then, in a week’s time, they find out Copper-Fed salvage tool have been nerfed to be only usable for level 15 and over. Great PR. :P
Dong things like this kills your player trust. The life blood of your revenue is the gem store. Don’t kill it.
(edited by BlueOcean.5380)
Much respect, Vayne. I’ve been flailing in futility trying to get some of this across in my own way in all these negative threads but I have been largely ignored. So thanks much. I’ve come to really respect almost everything you put on these forums. The more I read them the more level headed I feel you are. So, thank you. =)
Same here, Vayne. Thanks for this post, and your other ones.
Man…you guys…I don’t even know how to respond to this.
You think maybe we get get like some white knight icons to put by our names? lol
Well your post won’t be deleted….. I’m the Dark Knight
Buy To Play Guild Wars 2 2012-2015 – RIP
Unlucky since launch, RNG isn’t random
PugLife SoloQ
Unlucky since launch, RNG isn’t random
PugLife SoloQ
1 2