QA/User Consultations

[UKFatGuy77]

Hiya,

 

I've just been thinking and while I have a whole host of suggestions and questions...I can't help but think that all of them seem blindingly obvious (even without hindsight).

For example...the 0.23 introduced both element degradation *AND* schematics. Both are huge changes and both affect the other...Surely anyone with even a modicum of sense could see that essentially resetting everyone's industrial capacity and then requiring them to replace the elements on their ships....elements they can not longer make....is going to cause a huge backlash among the community. When you pair that with the number of ways common control bugs and glitches can trash your ship through no fault of your own...then 0.23 seems insane.

 

Now, I've worked on the development of new systems in the past and thus I know its very easy to overlook really obvious problems when you're too close to a project.

The way we got around this was by getting a few bog basic users involved and instead of trying to wow them with our It wonders we just showed them the projects 'bare arse' along with all its warts. They then asked the really dumb questions we'd never even considered......That process didn't catch everything but it did help a hell of a lot and even let to some pretty wazzy ideas and systems.

 

I expect this is technically what a QA team are supposed to do but ours focused more on the systems adherence to regulatory guidance rather than the impact and overall usability of the system. So....in conclusion get some users involved. Ones less interested in wowing a crowd and more interested in basic quality of life and transition management.....After all bringing schematics in a month or two before element degradation would have gone a lot smoother and probably caused a lot fewer complaints and rage quits.

 

Thats all for now

 

TTFN

UKFatguy

[blazemonger]

The biggest "problem" for NQ/DU is that the game is really still knee deep in Alpha, if not pre-Alpha, development wise, while NQ is trying to sell the game as if it's in beta and attaching conditions to it that really hinder their ability to progress development at a normal pace. There is no hard facts as to why but IMO the most reasonable motivation for this is that NQ needs the revenue as their investor provided budget has run out about a year ago.

 

NQ seems to have built their development cycle on keeping everything internally and patching in many big changes at once in quarterly patches. The interesting bit right now is that the list of what is to come in 2021 is longer than what they have put into the game in the past 3 years prior to beta. They continue to over promise and I fear under deliver because of that.

 

Here's the list of what they say they wil be bringing to the game leading up to a release end of 2021 (so reasonable, this all need to be done within the next 8-10 months)

 

Quote

Mission system
New textures/assets
More graphic improvements
Org Wallets
PVP revamp
Power/Energy management
Asteroid mining
Territory Warfare
Mining units
Vertex editor
New solar system
Improved biomes
Stargates

 

Bug fixing, stabilization, optimizing and polish of all features for release end of 2021

 

I just do not see how they will be able to get that done unless they go crunch mode for the full year which for an inexperienced developer like NQ can only end badly. I'd really like to see them slow down, add an extra year to development towards "release" and properly lay out and manage their roadmap. But I expect they would not be able to do this financially.

[UKFatGuy77]

Agreed.

Although, I'm obviously not familiar with their current system framework etc but its often easier to implement new things once you have a basic framework in place so I suppose it could be possible.

That said I'd prefer them to get the basic game working and make it robust enough to build on. Yes people want new things to do in game...lets face it at the moment there's building stuff, mining and kinda shooting...not a whole host of activities to keep everyone busy. So I can see an issue with player retention. But I suppose a lot of the players have lasted 3 years so far, so waiting a little longer isn't likely to scare them away....especially if the end result is really good

 

If i were king of the world i'd just try to tackle one thing at a time. Patch it in, wait for the inevitable bugs then fix them. Next project....

So far it just seems that there is a lot of silly and easily avoidable mistakes being made. For example, Putting in schematics *before* org wallets is just plain lunacy.

Implementing territory warfare with a barely functional PvP setup and shonky flight controls is again a bit silly.

Match that with the fact that without resources respawning there isn't really any point to fighting over territory at all the whole project becomes pointless. Why would i claim a tile and spend money doing it if I can just raid any unclaimed tile I choose and even if i did claim a tile the resources are finite....Its expenditure without gain?

Again though the automated mining thingies will likely have to be deployed on a claimed tile. If they give too little resources they aren't going to be worth the investment and if they give too much to put miners out of business.....which is currently a 3rd of the game.....personally i'd address other activities first because getting that balance right is going to be hellishly difficult.

Additionally, the moment territory warfare becomes a thing then I expect all the small orgs, individual miners and general peaceful folk are going to get hammered on all the PvP planets by a minority of PvP players who are then going to put down auto-miners and put said miners out of business.....given that lots of Industry/mining types aren't into PvP they are just going to leave the game.....after all what's the point in playing if you can't do what you want to do and all your buildings and factories etc have been blown up or stolen. Their only alternative will be to join some PvP MegaCorp (just like EVE Online) and become a slave.

 

I just don't want this game to run into all the major problems EVE Online had....Unfortunately, so far DU almost seems to be actively *TRYING* to make all the same mistakes and encouraging all the worst aspects of EVE online with none of the  mitigating factors.

[fiddlybits]

23 minutes ago, UKFatGuy77 said:

Match that with the fact that without resources respawning there isn't really any point to fighting over territory at all the whole project becomes pointless. Why would i claim a tile and spend money doing it if I can just raid any unclaimed tile I choose and even if i did claim a tile the resources are finite....Its expenditure without gain?

This is something I hope will be covered in an AMA or at least previewed in the planned public test server. The current minable resources aren't really worth fighting over. Most ores are readily available and the tiles that have mega-nodes or high value ore can be mined out fast enough to greatly reduce their value before another group takes over. I've heard that tiles may be tied to power generation some how, is that the planned resource that will encourage territory warfare?

[blazemonger]

 

A big issue I see coming is with Energy management. NQ has no plans at all to actually create and deliver elements that provide power outside of maybe batteries (for which models and textures are actually in the  elements library) . How these would charge is as of yet a mystery.

They plan to "implement" energy by adding a likely ransom value to tiles which makes them capable of sustaining a defined capacity of power consumption. I have a feeling that NQ thinks this will trigger both trading of tiles as big industry may currently be located on tiles not supporting it once energy goes in and/or sees this as a perfect reason to start wars and fight over tiles. That they are once more will be spanning the cart before the horse with this should be obvious. 

 

If you plan to implement energy like this you should do so BEFORE you start the game and players start building and settling their bases and homes. It is the exact same situation as they triggered with the industry changes, they implement the end of the loop first without providing the gameplay in the back of it which would feed into it. Overall  it's upside down game design which simply wil not work. And one can only imagine the riots when big orgs find themselves on the exact tiles which provide ample energy for their needs.. that would be just too much of a coincidence.

NQ has painted themselves in a corner and their general very short term decision making based on their financial needs will really become a problem here as changes like these really only work well if they are accompanied by .. a wipe..

But NQ will continue to try and squirm their way through this and will likely be forced (as they were with the Industry changes) to dial back the mechanic, no matter how reasonable it may be on it's own, because of how much they are limiting their ability to actually design and build the game. Several ideas were posted and discussed by the community pre "beta" but NQ never bothered to take notice and just dabbles along in their own mud pit trying to reinvent the wheel time and time again. The Idea of energy resources on a tile is a solution which is low cost in dev time and resources as it is basically just adding data to the database. problem is, the backend is stretched enough as it is and NQ  seems unable to rework it so that it gets more breathing space as it has been an issue since the start of beta and all NQ has done is nerf the game to reduce the load on the backend, sacrificing many aspects of gameplay.

 

At the same time, there is indicators all over the game that NQ is using different code for the same functions in different places and has made some weird choices in some of these cases. A good example is that reducing crafting time in the nanoformer actually does not reduce crafting time , it actually makes time go faster. So instead of simply adding a multiplier to the time required for an action based on the talent level, they actually apply a multiplier to the time itself where the time passing should be a constant, not a variable.

 

Most of these would not be an issue if NQ acknowledged they are actually still knee deep in Alpha and would have left their option to wipe open when needed instead of when there would not be any alternative.

[UKFatGuy77]

2 hours ago, blazemonger said:

They plan to "implement" energy by adding a likely ransom value to tiles which makes them capable of sustaining a defined capacity of power consumption. I have a feeling that NQ thinks this will trigger both trading of tiles as big industry may currently be located on tiles not supporting it once energy goes in and/or sees this as a perfect reason to start wars and fight over tiles

To be honest that idea in and of itself isn't terrible. That said you're right, people have already build huge factories that would need moving and the whole concept falls apart with the inclusion of Space Cores. again why bother fighting over a tile when you can build the industry in space. Personally, I find it easier and less harsh on fuel docking with a space station than i do farting about with re-entry and atmospheric effects.

 

Sadly the answer to that is to nerf space cores.....But if you limit industrial capacity of space cores players will just put down more space cores to handle capacity. If you remove the ability for space cores to house industry then they just become less useful dynamic cores.

 

The other issue with territory warfare being power generation related again leads to EVE Style MegaCorps which to outward appearances seem great but ingame they suck. In fact i think that style of play has already started. Wasn't there some big hoohar recently over some big org treating its players like crap.

 

Anyway, i suppose my point is that while we're throwing out reasons why territory warfare etc won't work and generally sounding like doomsayers. We could instead be helping, offering solutions and other ideas. The problem is we can't do that if we aren't aware of the RL situation. Hell if the problem is proprietary knowledge then slap people with an NDA. Hell why not recruit a group of super users who can handle simple problems. Surely anything that gives the Devs more time is good.

 

TTFN

UKFatguy

Obvious Inhabitant of cloud cuckoo land ? 

[blazemonger]

1 hour ago, UKFatGuy77 said:

The other issue with territory warfare being power generation related again leads to EVE Style MegaCorps which to outward appearances seem great but ingame they suck. In fact i think that style of play has already started.

 

This is already here. Big orgs have everything they need inhouse, including banks and their own economy. They do not need to use the in game economy as they both pull in resources and have the production capabilities  to still make everything they need in house and keep the money that brings in as well as the funds to be paid out entirely in-house. They _are_ the very isolationist inward looking entities in game that JC/NQ said were the reason to throw industry upside down and those changes really have not made any difference whatsoever.

For those outside of these big orgs, things only got worse and this will continue as long as the big orgs are able and allowed to be self sustaining entities in game. 

 

NQ continues to seemingly want to drive an over-arcing in game economy while the whole idea of building communities/nations/mega-orgs is that they all do their own thing and either enter into alliances or combat over territory and resources. NQ is really trying to have it both ways here and that will never work, they need to go with one or the other.. And frankly, that means they need to bring in player markets sooner rather than later (and currently, the idea of player markets has all but evaporated from the plans NQ has for the game)

 

The whole idea of districts and the coupled markets was created to allow for new players to come in and get started but that should really be all they are. From there orgs and players should be able and allow to create their own which is actually starting to happen but without access to market terminals and a proper market system/API, that all falls apart and ends up with clunky solutions like dispensers.

 

There is at least three big project underway that I know of which include markets, housing, commerce and industry all located on site with big and very well organized and managed organizations. NQ is very much behind the way their game is evolving and thus unable to provide the needs for the game to progress. And a game developer playing a constant game of catch up with the players generally means that they will nerf everything they can trying to slow players down especially when the developer does not have the same level of innovation and ingenuity players have.

[UKFatGuy77]

3 hours ago, blazemonger said:

especially when the developer does not have the same level of innovation and ingenuity players have.

To be fair on the Devs nobody can expect a someone to match the ingenuity of even 1000 players never mind however many players there actually are. However, they shouldn't have to. I get the impression were both on the same track and would probably like NQ to slow down a little and involve the players a lot more especially with regards to the reasoning behind certain decisions.

For example, Schematics.....I'm pretty sure that I heard somewhere that part of the plan regarding them was to eventually allow the players to research them or make them better in some way....which is a nice idea and adds an extra element of gameplay to the game, but, you can't do that if schematics don't exist in the first place.

 

That aside, and slightly off topic. I'll admit to being a little concerned and incredibly annoyed that certain players weren't immediately banned. For example, the players which dropped dispensers at the districts and outside marketplaces claiming that you had to click them in order to receive your daily money. All that did was take advantage of the NEWEST players as anyone who'd played for any time at all knew you got your pennies automatically. The people who did that actively damage the chances of the game retaining new players. After all what are new players going to think, I doubt they are going to have a good impression of a game which allows the exploitation of noobs logging in for the first time....Again though this happens in EVE and CCP do nothing. I doubt very much DU wants a reputation anywhere near as bad as that of CCP

[NQ-Naunet]

On 1/2/2021 at 9:44 PM, UKFatGuy77 said:

Hiya,

 

I've just been thinking and while I have a whole host of suggestions and questions...I can't help but think that all of them seem blindingly obvious (even without hindsight).

For example...the 0.23 introduced both element degradation *AND* schematics. Both are huge changes and both affect the other...Surely anyone with even a modicum of sense could see that essentially resetting everyone's industrial capacity and then requiring them to replace the elements on their ships....elements they can not longer make....is going to cause a huge backlash among the community. When you pair that with the number of ways common control bugs and glitches can trash your ship through no fault of your own...then 0.23 seems insane.

 

Now, I've worked on the development of new systems in the past and thus I know its very easy to overlook really obvious problems when you're too close to a project.

The way we got around this was by getting a few bog basic users involved and instead of trying to wow them with our It wonders we just showed them the projects 'bare arse' along with all its warts. They then asked the really dumb questions we'd never even considered......That process didn't catch everything but it did help a hell of a lot and even let to some pretty wazzy ideas and systems.

 

I expect this is technically what a QA team are supposed to do but ours focused more on the systems adherence to regulatory guidance rather than the impact and overall usability of the system. So....in conclusion get some users involved. Ones less interested in wowing a crowd and more interested in basic quality of life and transition management.....After all bringing schematics in a month or two before element degradation would have gone a lot smoother and probably caused a lot fewer complaints and rage quits.

 

Thats all for now

 

TTFN

UKFatguy

This sentiment is why we're implementing a public test scenario, rather than continuing to use the ATV group that was created for the purposes of testing.

Hopefully opening ourselves up to this will create exactly the kind of results you describe.  

[UKFatGuy77]

1 hour ago, NQ-Naunet said:

a public test scenario, rather than continuing to use the ATV group that was created for the purposes of testing.

Now I'm a 'New Guy' so I'm assuming the ATV was some kind of user group which didn't go according to plan. Anyway, while the idea of a public test scenario (I'm assuming this means a test server) is again ok in principle, I'm not entirely sure its going to work as intended. My experience thus far with assorted test servers is that in order to fully grasp many of the proposed changes etc. It takes a lot of real life time and with it being a test environment gives no reward. Thus people still tend to avoid it. That said some people to try out those servers and they do provide some input but i can't say of cost effective such servers actually are.

 

My question is....How hard it it to do a *partial roll out* of major changes like territory warfrare and mining units on the main server? For example. if you chose a single low population planet or one of each planets moons. Then enable those aspects of the game just on those planets players can go there and try it out. Likewaise if mining units only worked on planets where territory warfare was enabled then you even have an ingame benefit from engaging in that aspect of the game. Likewise you would then have a large test environment in which to work out any major problems before it fully goes live.

Personally, given that different aspects of the game i'd take a leaft of of EVE's book and havea  large safe zone, a PvP zone and then a full territory warfare zone so players could engage in whatever level of gameplay they feel they want.

 

The main problem with suggestions like mine is that we as users don't have any idea what level of control devs have over the environment and how hard it is to parcel out pieces of the map etc.