Rivianchief Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 and how exactly are you able to prove this? let me get this straight. we are supposed to assume that bioware isn't telling us the truth, but we are also supposed to assume that you, some random nobody is? you sure you aren't spouting more forum BS, like turrets giving valor, and all the other nonsense that shows up? No but he seems to live more in reality like you do....Not everything (specially companies) someone says is true. Do you believe everything you see on TV as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vizzaltalik Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Bringing it down would free up resources currently involved in non-improvement tasks so those resources could be put to use on actual improvement. Rethinking the server distribution of players and merging servers where necessary made easier by bringing it down. Less complaints about the game being down "now and then". Create more interest in the game and an assurance to players that they are doing whatever they can to fix this and are not afraid to take drastic steps to do so. Is that enough or should I go on? You've never done development work have you? More resources does not directly equate to faster development. It can, but you quickly hit diminishing returns and then you reach a point where you actually slow development instead of speeding it up. Just because doing something would free up resources it doesn't mean said resources have the expertise to do anything that would help, nor does it mean there is something for them to do that is not already being accomplished in the most efficient manner possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inarai Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) You've never done development work have you? More resources does not directly equate to faster development. It can, but you quickly hit diminishing returns and then you reach a point where you actually slow development instead of speeding it up. It's worth pointing out that bringing down the servers would reduce their resources - specifically, their information. Edited January 20, 2012 by Inarai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knewt Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I love how people have this skewed notion of the kinds of testing that are possible. Some issues will never come up until you hit live. You cannot create true live circumstances in testing - it's an actual impossibility. I understand that. You don't see me screaming about frame rate issues or game stuttering in places like the fleet. Certain issues are very difficult to replicate until the servers are under sufficient load. I know it is difficult to replicate that load in testing environments. It's a reality of the IT world. Now, let's look at two examples that didn't get fixed until after there was a **** storm from the live game: 1. Ilum 1.1 - The game breaking bug was you didn't die when you entered an enemy base. All they had to do was add that to the testing list and have an intern try to enter the enemy base. There is no reason that bug made it to live. 2. Slicing 1.0 - There were tons of reports around the Internet about how lucrative slicing was in late beta. Simple excel simulations would have shown the earning potential per hour of slicing. They still went live with it. Another example of bad testing protocols. These two issues were easily avoided. They either didn't listen to their testers (slicing) or didn't do enough testing after making changes (Ilum). In both cases, Bioware is to blame for the issue and it is a disturbing trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeywyn Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I would disagree, world PvP should be the MAIN form of PvP and the meaningless cage fights they call warzones should be side games, nothing more. The main difference between open world and scenario pvp is that scenarios make sure that there are the same number of people on each side. Why would anybody who is genuinely interested in fair and challenging pvp prefer zerging / camping / ganking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inarai Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 The main difference between open world and scenario pvp is that scenarios make sure that there are the same number of people on each side. Why would anybody who is genuinely interested in fair and challenging pvp prefer zerging / camping / ganking? People who want WPvP to take the prime spot aren't referring to that, but more objective based approaches and so on. And "fairness" doesn't exist - and a tactically balance case doesn't really require numerical equivalency. A smart group can render superior numbers a non-factor or even a stark disadvantage with the right tactics (see: using the right AoE. Imagine dropping 30 sticky grenades onto a group of 80 people. You will take out an entire section of that group). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phaedrynn Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) The main difference between open world and scenario pvp is that scenarios make sure that there are the same number of people on each side. Why would anybody who is genuinely interested in fair and challenging pvp prefer zerging / camping / ganking? Fair? How do you define "fair"? Even numbers? That doesn't equate to fair. Same gear? Still doesn't mean it's fair. The idea that 'fairness' can be forced in any **meaningful** form of PvP (PvP that affects the game, not PvP where everything just resets when you are done) is absurd. PvP is all about stacking the odds in your favor as much as possible, it always has been. Fairness is an illusion. I don't play MMOs for 'esports' (laugh). If that is what I wanted, I would be playing an FPS/RTS game. I play MMOs for factional dominance, not personal back slapping. As far as equal numbers go, I wish I still had some old DAoC vids of 8-mans destroying 40+ man zergs. Edited January 20, 2012 by Phaedrynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanzoV Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Some people never want to see the positive. Some men just want to watch the world burn - Alfred, The Dark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TehPenGu Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 They didn't: - Give everyone a free year of game time. - Give the loudest complainers gold-plated speeders that boost movement speed by 250%. - Give those complainers each 500k credits. - Tell everyone that they are failures and rolled out a game that's still in the Alpha stage. - Bring world peace I hate it when games dont bring world peace. But then again, can't really rely on anyone but 'merica to do that can we! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazorous Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Bringing it down would free up resources currently involved in non-improvement tasks so those resources could be put to use on actual improvement. Rethinking the server distribution of players and merging servers where necessary made easier by bringing it down. Less complaints about the game being down "now and then". Create more interest in the game and an assurance to players that they are doing whatever they can to fix this and are not afraid to take drastic steps to do so. Is that enough or should I go on? No, you should stop. Please don't offer any software development related advice if you have absolutely no idea how it works. Furthermore, you also have no idea how businesses work in this industry. By shutting everything down, you are effectively reducing resources. Did you forget resources also include "Revenue", and "Player Feedback". Just because they didn't address your feedback/concern right away, doesn't mean it's not being considered. And by not having any revenue during their down time, you some how expect that they will magically have the funds to cover all their employees, especially those doing nothing? Say good bye to the CS reps that won't have anything to do for several months, if not more. It's also absurd to think two weeks is enough time to revamp the engine to your specific interests. That demonstrates little to no knowledge in software development. So just stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inarai Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 (edited) Bringing it down would free up resources currently involved in non-improvement tasks so those resources could be put to use on actual improvement. Actually, no. The resources it would free up cannot be used for any kind of improvement. The skillsets required for running the servers isn't relevant to developing patches. This is like saying you should move your windshield wiper fluid to your gas tank because you're low one fuel - at best, it's not going to do anything and at worst it's going to do a whole lot of harm. When you're talking about specialized people (which in this arena is 100% of the time) you cannot simply move people around to different kinds of tasks completely and expect positive results - you don't get your artists to start coding, you don't get the engine code guy to to server maintenance, you don't get the server guy to do content development. This isn't just a matter of practice or what they're paid for, it's a matter of the skillset that they have. Anyone who does have a skillset that relates to both server stuff and patching and so forth is already going to be on the patch team - that's where their skillset is needed. There isn't a resource freed up by pulling the servers that can actually go towards making any kinds of improvement. For, say, a construction metaphor: You don't pull your carpenters from woodwork and hand them welding torches. And if you do, you should be fired. Preferably with said welding torches. Also, on a related point: How is not having information from the live environment supposed to help? That's the opposite of useful in any case, but especially so in the case of a metrics driven development process like the one used here - there's a reason the testing program ran in excess of a year. Edited January 20, 2012 by Inarai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowleyz Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) Bummer /thread Edited January 21, 2012 by Crowleyz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowleyz Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 And by not having any revenue during their down time, you some how expect that they will magically have the funds to cover all their employees, especially those doing nothing? You fail to realize that this isn't George's Homemade Games we're talking about it here. It's EA. This is a company with revenues in the billions. So yes, I DO expect them to magically have the resources to make that possible. By following your logic, no game company could ever make anything new, or any other company for that matter. Since while they are making something new, they do not receive revenues, and revenues is apparently the only place money comes from, money is and money goes to. The only thing I love more than faulty logic is backcrap-shoot-me-in-the-head-because-it-would-hurt-less-than-reading-this-nonsense-logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crowleyz Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) Just because doing something would free up resources it doesn't mean said resources have the expertise to do anything that would help, Hi, you clearly missed the part where I didn't say "Oh they could put the people moderating the forums to work on fixing the code harhar". nor does it mean there is something for them to do that is not already being accomplished in the most efficient manner possible. Nor does it mean it wouldn't help. So if I got this straight, it's ok for you to base your opinions on nothing, but it's not ok for me to base my opinion on something. Gotcha! Edited January 21, 2012 by Crowleyz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WereMops Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 (edited) Where is the cool down graphic fix? Where is a single response to all the threads about it? If you've checked the dev tracker you'd known. http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?p=1945576#edit1945576 We hear your feedback and are working on adjustments to increase the readability of the cooldown UI in an upcoming patch. -- Georg Edited January 21, 2012 by WereMops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthKhaos Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Actually what they did was simply handle system poorly. They gave me cake. It's not a lie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inarai Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) You fail to realize that this isn't George's Homemade Games we're talking about it here. It's EA. This is a company with revenues in the billions. So yes, I DO expect them to magically have the resources to make that possible. Aside from the fact that this would lead to EA's board not investing that money (because the project isn't making money)? EA has a lot of resources, but they also have a wide number of things demanding those resources. Going back for more money AFTER LAUNCH when the current revenues of your project on just a moment to moment scale (money in at that moment versus money out at the moment) are that far in the red is not going to work. Besides that, EA's money can't replace the non-fiscal resources gained from having the servers live, like the knowledge that comes in from metrics on the live population, player feedback, testing performed by clever players because they choose to do so, and so forth. Basically, pulling down the servers would be the absolute worst move to make. The only time to do that is when you somehow came in under-budget (and thus still have original development money to spend on this) and the game is fundamentally broken for all of or the vast majority of the population. And if you somehow think that's the case, you're becoming the new example for me to use whenever I should have cause to explain the blind detractor to people. Or, for that matter, even when I don't have cause - when the example's that good, the knowledge just needs to be spread. Edited January 22, 2012 by Inarai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EternalFinality Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 They didn't roll back the valor gains. Ilum still sucks. They never admitted they screwed up - only that "players were exploiting." Ilum still sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darthdoll Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Lol, a bunch of ignorant posts against Bioware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AugustBurnt Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I'm curious... What would shutting the game down do? Bioware actively works on updates, fixes, and what have you whether the game is running or not. I also doubt they could fix the engine in two weeks not to mention whatever is wrong with the end game. Though I do enjoy seeing such blanket arguments crop up everywhere. Also Mass Effect 3 and SWTOR is handled by two different teams at two different studios. Trying to use logical arguments with a trolltard? I admire your determination but it will never work they are forever ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzKnc Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 (edited) and how exactly are you able to prove this? let me get this straight. we are supposed to assume that bioware isn't telling us the truth, but we are also supposed to assume that you, some random nobody is? you sure you aren't spouting more forum BS, like turrets giving valor, and all the other nonsense that shows up? There's still many battlemasters around that you can see, and if you were actually following the "pvp scene", of whatever server you're on, before that ilum abomination patch, you KNOW that only like 1% of them are legit. random nobody:1 bw:0 i guess? Edited January 22, 2012 by AzKnc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trilella Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 You know what bothers me about the whole Ilum Killing people respawning at the medcenter over and over Exploit. Even some people in my own guild do not think it was an Exploit. They consider it all fine and dandy to spawn camp and slaughter you before you can even move. I just do not understand how some people think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tronics Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 But how are they going to know if somethings fixed or broken without people playing the game? It's not that simple I'm afraid;) you obviously dont work at a job where you actually fix things that are broken. Taking the system totally offline would give them time to actually fix things without having to waste resources maintaining the system will its running. It would also give them a break from all the raging ppl telling all their other friends to quit too. I can garauntee a person that heard 'we are taking down the game for an extended period to fix it' would be more willing to wait than a person playing the same broken features everyday while all they get is 'we're aware of the issue and investigating it.' And even if ME3 is made by a different BW local studio they all answer to the same boss somewhere and its all part of the BW bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsmspiffs Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 No they didn't. They did not remove Valor from anybody. They merely stated in damage control mode last night that they would - and they didn't. Nobody lost a single point of Valor. Please provide proof to back up that assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xsmspiffs Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 1. Ilum 1.1 - The game breaking bug was you didn't die when you entered an enemy base. All they had to do was add that to the testing list and have an intern try to enter the enemy base. There is no reason that bug made it to live. It happened when the server was under load. If people would go and create/level characters on the Public Test Server, and yes I am in the process of doing so, then that could have been caught. Rather than complain about testers not testing things you can actually help out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts