Less Balance Updates, More Testing (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Artix Entertainment Games] >> [EpicDuel] >> EpicDuel Balance



Message

Kellykatherine -> Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/20/2013 21:09:44)

I have found, especially since the onset of Omega, that I really dislike nearly every balance update; and this is not just me ranting about 'oh this is so annoying', but they also seriously detract from my playing experience.
Back story:
I felt that right after Omega came out, the system was fresh and quite good for innovative strategy and building. The fresh start brought an end to the extremely overused, overpowered 6 focus infernal android build, and I felt like it was a great fresh start for Epicduel. I found myself playing for almost 5 times more than prior to the update, and it was honestly very enjoyable.
Now:
However, as later balance updates came around, I found many of them very... demoralizing. Especially with the latest update where block becomes non-complete, I feel like there is actually a lot LESS strategy and MORE luck involved, rather more strategy and less luck. Many players seem to be taking the (formerly incorrect) approach of 'heck, I don't care if I only hit properly 50% of the time, I'll just do it anyways", which is annoying both from opponents and from my allies. Also, another thing that I've noticed (I don't know if this has anything to do with the balances) is that with the increasing amount of balances within a stage of testing, not only the blocks, but also the deflects and crits, become increasingly random. I won't list examples, but there are more than a couple cases when the stats and the occurences just don't match up at all.

I don't offer any way of fixing this, but I will say that since these have been happening, I haven't been playing even 1/10 as much as I did in the beginning of Omega stage. I only came on recently to finish up the egg hunt and in fact, outside of for in-game events, I don't play at all. Generally, I feel like the emphasis should be on testing the larger-scale effect of 'balances', and to have each balance (obviously I don't count bug-fixes as balances) be a large, important thing [almost like a mini-new phase] with notification beforehand so that players can be prepared for the changes (good/bad) that occur after it, rather than the current little things that will randomly shock you every week, mostly in bad ways.



RabbleFroth -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/22/2013 15:59:03)

I have toyed with the idea of talking about planned balance changes before an update, but have been hesitant for several reasons.

First, these changes aren't locked in stone until the actual update comes out, and I'm afraid readers might be frustrated if things change between the initial discussion and the update. It's also sometimes possible that a proposed change won't make it in that week.

Second, I'm afraid it may cause additional frustration if there's an outcry against a change, but we still feel that it's an important change to make. I very, very much appreciate all the feedback I get from the forums (even the stuff I don't respond to!), but there's more than just the forum feedback to consider when making a change, so I'm afraid that in certain circumstances it will look like the feedback is being ignored, which is not the case.

Finally, it's often just a matter of time. I love coming on the forums and talking about stuff we're doing, but it does take a bit of time away from actual development, polish, testing, etc.

So, that all said, I can try opening a discussion to explain more of our thoughts on what we're planning if enough people think it would be helpful.



goldslayer1 -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/22/2013 16:30:28)

idk if this has been said before, but we need quality testers, not quantity testers. (ill probably get a warning or something worse for that now)

for example, the assimilation "bug" should have been foreseen in testing.
i know some will come out and make excuses that they are only human, or that they are trying.
but seriously, how does something like that get past you so easily when you had 2 weeks to develop this update?

some of you may have heard this story before, about when delta first came out.
everyone was expecting TLM to be a heal looper. (and it was to some extent but nothing like old mage)

within the first 5 minutes of delta, i switched to tlm, and made a strength build that pretty much got 95%+ almost all the time.
at the time, i had only seen faction mates using it because i showed them the build. but by the next day it had spread like wild fire.
and im talking like same stats/skill trees type of copying.

but later in the day, down in fortune city by habuki (ohh yeah i remember)
i saw Cinderella, she told me they tested all 3 new classes.
i had asked her if they tested strength TLM
and she told me no, that they didn't. that only support tlm was tested for that class.
at the time, i didn't think much of it, but now its starting to kick in even more.

later on another great example of this, is the plasma armor release.
in where i was able to create 98%+ CH builds that were only counter-able by someone with the same build (good thing this one was kept hidden a little more) or heavy luck.

the point is, while im not trying to offend anyone, or degrade anybody. i personally feel the balance team has been doing a poor job.



Stabilis -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/22/2013 17:06:08)

I have to ask, is the developer server differently structured than the public server? Sorry for O-T but I am just confused as to why developer server testing is bug free while public servers often have new bugs.



RabbleFroth -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/22/2013 18:39:43)

@goldslayer
That was the intended behavior of Assimilation. It is not a bug. During the previous week we were working on under-the-hood changes, not the same things you saw from last week's update.

Additionally, any balance changes that are made come down to me in the end, not any of the testers or people I discuss balance with pre-release. So direct any complaints you have at me, not anyone else. The same applies to bugs. It is the dev team's responsibility to release updates that are as bug-free as possible, but this is software development, so bugs come up. The testers dedicate an extraordinary amount of time to helping us catch and fix as many of these as possible, but it is physically impossible to test every possible aspect of the game every single week. Luckily, we're on a weekly release cycle, so issues can be fixed very quickly, and generally are.

Finally, any amount of testing we are able to do on the dev server is between at most a dozen or so people. The live game has many thousands of active players. The simple truth is that there may be issues that we miss or overlook due to the difference in scale between the two environments. We capture an immense amount of issues during testing, but there is always the possibility that some slip through the cracks.

quote:

I am just confused as to why developer server testing is bug free while public servers often have new bugs

See above. In most cases if the bug is on live, it was also on dev, aside from a few specific types of issues.



Sageofpeace -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/22/2013 18:56:26)

^ Offtopic I really like how rabble Actually post in the forum

On topic some Balance update have become annoying mostly because i hate NERF

while im please that Omega made varuim player and non varuim player close maybe it the gap got too close(Promo should stay rare and unique for Supporter of the game only as well the credit that the packeged ) didn't really care about them having the same stat as us but if we are spending 50$ we should at least get some unique item for our self.

All the nerf just made player to use 5 focus, the problem is not player using 5 focus but 5 focus destroying all other build that we make



goldslayer1 -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/22/2013 18:59:50)

quote:

That was the intended behavior of Assimilation. It is not a bug.

so taking energy while assimilation is blocked was its intention?

see here is what i find wrong, tech mage has reroute, yet its given a skill that is already miles ahead of static charge, in assimilation.
i understand the balance team is there to test, but
do they get any input regarding balance?
do they agree with the balance changes that you are making?
are they allowed to be against it? (as in tell you its perhaps not the best route?)



Mother1 -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/22/2013 19:04:01)

@ sageofpeace

Focus 5 doesn't work with all classes. I play as a focus 5 TM and have been for the longest with my main, and I can tell you besides other focus 5 builds can tell you caster TM, as well as Support Merc and Tactical merc does cream me at times. There are even builds that people say are worthless that creams me and they aren't even focus.

The thing I see most is that with all the new robots that are coming out I am not surprised people are jumping to focus 5 to use these. I mean in less then 3 months they brought in 8 new robots (not including the dark yeti since it was available in delta) even even though they are effect bots they they work best with focus overall. It isn't like they made a new bot like the bio borg, or assault bot (these bot's effects work with or without focus)



Sageofpeace -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/22/2013 19:09:51)

Mother1@

While is true that 5 focus with TM is a little wearker on 1vs1 and on 2vs2 only if they kill you first it does a lot damage but it doesn't have a good defense or resistence still a strong Build.Believe me i literally wasted 100$ changing class and use all the possible build for each class Excepted mercenary because they are WEAK RIGHT NOW.

i know what you are saying about the bots and im not trying to say they are Op in any possible way but do to all the NERF NERF NERF you got to admit they are the most effective build right now(Talking about Five FOcus)



Mother1 -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/22/2013 19:27:51)

@ sageofpeace

reason why they nerfed everything else was because everyone complained about all the powerful builds being OP. Look at the start of omega. When it was discovered that Strength Merc was the strongest build out there what did the masses do? Jump to the class if they weren't a merc already, and use it. Those who didn't jump to it complained once again about strength being too much, and then the nerfing started. By the time the yeti tourney start Strength was weakened but due to certain changes Support became too strong add to the fact that they changed the going first formula, and Support builds took over for that weak. People complained and then boom support got nerfed and diminishing returns came for strength and support as well as side arms and aux's.




Goony -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/22/2013 21:12:54)

Okay, been quiet about this since I started as a moderator/tester.

Misconception number 1:
quote:

i understand the balance team is there to test, but


The last time the was anything that remotely resembled a balance team was when Ashari was head moderator, seen him lately?
As Rabblefroth said the balance changes are made by him, we are there to test to make sure the numbers work properly, there are no major glitches that cause the game to hang or issues that will disconnect people. Do we find issues? Yes, all the time and I would say that 90-95% of them are caught before release. A few got through this week, we were training new testers and missed running through some basics! Not really a valid excuse. Sorry!

Misconception number 2:
quote:

how does something like that get past you so easily when you had 2 weeks to develop this update


The updates are developed weekly, but that is not to say that all the code is written, all the graphics are updated and we get all week to test the updates. On the contrary, the testers often have a very short time period to run through as many scenarios as possible. I will also say that testing has been done, in the main, initially by the developers and if we find any issues we have to wait until they are rectified before we can continue testing.

To answer your other questions:
Do they get any input regarding balance? Limited, we can't review any of the data that is gathered by the balance tracker and while we can identify areas that may concern us with balance, the developers are the ones that balance the game. The discussion in the balance forum is a lot more robust and the testers are only privy to some limited points that may be bought up by the developers when they feel it is warranted. We have no more of an idea of what the developers are planning, in regard to balance, than the general community in the main.

Do they agree with the balance changes that you are making and are they allowed to be against it? I'll speak personally and say no I don't agree with some of the balance changes or in some cases what balance the developers are focusing on. But, I will say that most balance changes are conceptually okay and have the best interests of the game at implementation. Sometimes this doesn't equate to actual outcomes. I will also say that I do trust the developers and after working with them for some time can see the methodology that is used to make changes to balance. There is a lot more work to balance changes than just changing a couple of numbers here and there and it sometimes takes a while to work out all the code changes required to make what may seem to be easy fixes! I will also add that some balance changes suggested by the testers have been implemented.

I do get offended when people say that I am not doing my job properly and if you could see it from our perspective then perhaps you would not be so quick or harsh in your criticism of what we do! The constant jibes at the testers is not warranted, or the developers for that matter, but then again we are easy targets because we are limited to what we can discuss openly. While there are enough testers now to cover the task of weekly testing, that hasn't always been the case!

I'm not supposed to reply to inflammatory posts and I also want to have better communication and feedback by the moderators/testers with the community, but what we say is often misconstrued. In some cases our comments can have negative effect when, in all reality, we are just serving the game we like to play just as much as you do!



goldslayer1 -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/22/2013 21:38:19)

quote:

The last time the was anything that remotely resembled a balance team was when Ashari was head moderator, seen him lately?
As Rabblefroth said the balance changes are made by him, we are there to test to make sure the numbers work properly, there are no major glitches that cause the game to hang or issues that will disconnect people. Do we find issues? Yes, all the time and I would say that 90-95% of them are caught before release. A few got through this week, we were training new testers and missed running through some basics! Not really a valid excuse. Sorry!

ohh, i always thought she was still the lead balance mod.
i haven't seen her lately.

quote:

The updates are developed weekly, but that is not to say that all the code is written, all the graphics are updated and we get all week to test the updates. On the contrary, the testers often have a very short time period to run through as many scenarios as possible. I will also say that testing has been done, in the main, initially by the developers and if we find any issues we have to wait until they are rectified before we can continue testing.

To answer your other questions:
Do they get any input regarding balance? Limited, we can't review any of the data that is gathered by the balance tracker and while we can identify areas that may concern us with balance, the developers are the ones that balance the game. The discussion in the balance forum is a lot more robust and the testers are only privy to some limited points that may be bought up by the developers when they feel it is warranted. We have no more of an idea of what the developers are planning, in regard to balance, than the general community in the main.

Do they agree with the balance changes that you are making and are they allowed to be against it? I'll speak personally and say no I don't agree with some of the balance changes or in some cases what balance the developers are focusing on. But, I will say that most balance changes are conceptually okay and have the best interests of the game at implementation. Sometimes this doesn't equate to actual outcomes. I will also say that I do trust the developers and after working with them for some time can see the methodology that is used to make changes to balance. There is a lot more work to balance changes than just changing a couple of numbers here and there and it sometimes takes a while to work out all the code changes required to make what may seem to be easy fixes! I will also add that some balance changes suggested by the testers have been implemented.

I do get offended when people say that I am not doing my job properly and if you could see it from our perspective then perhaps you would not be so quick or harsh in your criticism of what we do! The constant jibes at the testers is not warranted, or the developers for that matter, but then again we are easy targets because we are limited to what we can discuss openly. While there are enough testers now to cover the task of weekly testing, that hasn't always been the case!

I'm not supposed to reply to inflammatory posts and I also want to have better communication and feedback by the moderators/testers with the community, but what we say is often misconstrued. In some cases our comments can have negative effect when, in all reality, we are just serving the game we like to play just as much as you do!


thanks for clearing that up Goony. i was hesitant on putting most of the blame on the testing team.
thats why i asked those questions.

i was however told by another player that the testing team doesn't balance the game, that it was titan. and then told me that titan was stubborn and that, that is the reason why the game's balance is the way it is.

im not sure if thats true or not. but either way, whoever is making the balance changes isn't doing the best job of it (which was proven numerous times)

if it were me, and there's a balance change where someone sees a problem with it, id like for them to point it out, not be "Yes" men.

and im sorry if it sounds inflammatory (why is it that all criticism towards the devs/mods is considered inflammatory when its not intended that way?) but people dont like the truth when its dirty.

Removed unnecessary comment. - SMGS



Exploding Penguin -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/23/2013 0:30:56)

Just checked, Ashari hasn't logged on since October (10/22/2012).

Anyways, to get back on topic, (addressing you here, rabble and other staff members :P) I feel that an in-depth explanation of every single balance change should be present when posting the DNs. For example, the assimilation explanation was a great way to explain to some previously upset or uneasy people about how it was intended and why it was actually considered on whether or not it would be a good idea to keep the EP effect as negated when blocked.

Also, I fully respect the balance team as they pretty much filter out ridiculous things before they get released. I've noticed a lot of balance issues brought up by people were pretty...badly explained with poor reason. For example, strength mercs at the beginning of Omega were never overpowered to begin with (I guess that's really up to one's personal definition of OP, but I would call anything OP if it was an absurdly high win rate. Even if a build takes 20+ turns to win, it shouldn't be able to endure luck and get a 95%+ win rate with the current battle mechanics). However, I feel that the concepts could use more work (forgive me if I'm going off on a tangent, but I really want to address this now), because the golden yeti tournament really favored quantity over quality and overall it didn't project a fair environment to the players, or an actual tournament aura either. I was hoping for something based off of higher win rates, not higher total wins. Also, the bunny bot concept isn't that great because players affected by color blast easily work around it, and the overall concept would never work no matter how many balance changes were applied; it would either be OP or UP, unless the restrictions on color blast were overly complicated/confusing.

...thanks for hearing me out on this. Basically, I would suggest more time spent in analyzing the actual concept of some new things, rather than balance issues brought up by the players that really aren't addressing anything overpowered or underpowered.

Removed off-topic content. - SMGS



RabbleFroth -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/23/2013 3:21:20)

quote:

...whoever is making the balance changes...

As I've said, I generally make the final calls on balance changes.

quote:

if it were me, and there's a balance change where someone sees a problem with it, id like for them to point it out, not be "Yes" men.

Goony is one of several testers that frequently give feedback on my proposed balance changes, and is not afraid to tell me when he disagrees with my ideas, which I do appreciate. I feel the same about criticisms we receive on the forums. While we don't do approach balance changes by democratic opinion, I do take the feedback into account as one point of consideration, among many others.



King FrostLich -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/23/2013 8:22:55)

Yes, we need more testers for this game. Having 10 or less is NOT enough to prove balance updates as balanced. They need over 100 or 200 balance testers to fix proper gameplay. Ones that test for actual gameplay and ones that test for fun, eventually discovering or finding some bugs in the testing or some other builds.



Exploding Penguin -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/23/2013 16:43:03)

@king frostlich: 100-200 players is either more or equal to the amount of players on the forum who actively discuss balance, and it's already hard to find what's really overpowered and not when so many people disagree on the forums. Given that, increasing the amount of testers really isn't going to help as much as it's needed.



RabbleFroth -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/23/2013 17:58:32)

quote:

They need over 100 or 200 balance testers to fix proper gameplay

Putting more cooks in a kitchen does not necessarily lead to tastier food. :)



King FrostLich -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/23/2013 18:05:21)

The point is to get as much feedback as possible. Negative or positive, the devs should simply apply idea or feedback screening when receiving feedback to separate the good ones from bad ones. Having 100 or 200 testers actually fills in other testers that don't login because of timezone issues. Testing also doesn't focus primarily on overpowered and soon-to-be-overpowered builds, its main focus is balancing things universally to all 6 classes and simply have fun with any other non-successful builds.

Edit: Not all cooks have the same experience in cooking and have different tastes. The same goes as how players want to choose builds in Epicduel that suit them but in terms of testing or cooking, it speeds up the process.



RabbleFroth -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/24/2013 13:57:31)

The point is that it becomes a managerial issue. Throwing more people at a problem often muddles the true issues and slows down the feedback loop. If you've ever had a very large group project where everyone wants to do something their own way you may have experienced this.

As it is, we use the forums, in-game experience/discussion, tester feedback, internal discussion, and several data-driven metrics (balance tracker) to make decisions on balance. In other words, we have LOTS of points of data to take into consideration already, some objective, many subjective or anecdotal. Having a large, general feedback point (forums/in-game), and a smaller, focused feedback point (testers/some forum discussions like this) is more helpful than having several that are large and general.

Hopefully that all makes some kind of sense, haha. [8|]



Necromantres -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/24/2013 14:13:37)

of topic: am i the only one that love how ED team post in the forum? something is different...

on topic: 1 week may not be enough and testing will NEVER be as real as PLAYING so don't expect all bugs and problems to be solved with testing besides if it was that way it would be so quiet here :P and you have to agree sometimes it is funny and interesting what things get talked here...



dmage12 -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/24/2013 18:46:22)

Imo the reason that some things end up breaking or working differently then planned is moving between dev to live. its like when we do Aqw releases. everything can be tested and working fine on dev and ready to release, but when its put to live and theres significantly more people using it sometimes unexpected things or effects that werent noticed in testing occur.

@above thats one of the things I like about AE they actually try to communicate with players.



Xendran -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/26/2013 18:48:53)

quote:

but there is always the possibility that some slip through the cracks.


Sounds like you need a dedicated balancer capable of analyzing large amounts of battle data at once without actually having to battle.



RabbleFroth -> RE: Less Balance Updates, More Testing (4/26/2013 19:29:34)

quote:

1 week may not be enough

That's why we often don't have balance changes every week. Sometimes it takes things more than a week to settle. And sometimes it doesn't. :P

quote:

testing will NEVER be as real as PLAYING

Absolutely! There's a reason I play when I can, especially before making final decisions on balance. Many of you certainly play much, much more than I do, but that's why I value the feedback from our players so much.

quote:

Sounds like you need a dedicated balancer capable of analyzing large amounts of battle data at once without actually having to battle.

This doesn't solve the problem. We already have many data points we can use to analyze the state of balance in the game. The reason why things are missed is that the gaming masses will always, always be more collectively clever and comprehensive than any one person, or team of people. You can mathcraft things out, make assumptions, check data, listen to feedback, have discussions, run models, and do a large number of test fights (we do all this and more), but nothing will ever compare to the live players doing several hundred thousand fights a day.



Have to leave the lab for today, but I'll try to keep the discussion flowing at home.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition
0.125