Warrior General Games

Originally posted by NiborRis
This is pretty naive thinking. Chaos theory, complex systems, etc etc - it's fairly trivial to take a small number of relatively simple equations and not be able to fully predict the outcome of all possible inputs. When you start considering the large number of inputs involved here (22 players in a play, with 14 attributes, 10+ SAs, VAs, and transient data like location on the field, current velocity, energy, breath, morale, etc...) it's not surprising at all that the full implications of all the various formulas require actually looking at the results rather than just thinking about it in your head for a bit.

Chaos theory? lol. Like the butterfly effect?!?! like if Bort makes some kind of small mathematical error somewhere there's no telling what it's going to effect? ok I can get with that idea...but the difference between GLB code and something like economics, where this theory is applicable..is that Bort set all the rules and had control of all the inputs...the only Chaos in the system should be his personal errors (and I'm sure he had less then I would have)..and that can be tested from the ground up by CodeRedders.

I also don't understand how this pertains to testing out SA's as we are discussing above..we aren't talking about ID'ing root causes of fluctuations 20 degrees down the line because a frog farted in Peru...we are talking about testing the scaling of SA's and their effects given attribute levels and VA's..right? this is just a simple test of the code and it's output...

Maybe I am Naive...proceed as planned I guess.

Originally posted by BP
Chaos theory? lol. Like the butterfly effect?!?! like if Bort makes some kind of small mathematical error somewhere there's no telling what it's going to effect? ok I can get with that idea...but the difference between GLB code and something like economics, where this theory is applicable..is that Bort set all the rules and had control of all the inputs...the only Chaos in the system should be his personal errors (and I'm sure he had less then I would have)..and that can be tested from the ground up by CodeRedders.

I also don't understand how this pertains to testing out SA's as we are discussing above..we aren't talking about ID'ing root causes of fluctuations 20 degrees down the line because a frog farted in Peru...we are talking about testing the scaling of SA's and their effects given attribute levels and VA's..right? this is just a simple test of the code and it's output...

Maybe I am Naive...proceed as planned I guess.

1. Chaos can be a result of single equation where the rules are set, simpler and clearer than anything to do with GLB.
2. Chaos theory has nothing to do with GLB. The sim belong to a different math discipline, and due to the linearity of most calcualtion I really doubt there is any 'butterfly effect'.
3. Bort's sim set the rules for the different rolls and paths players make. However just the variety of build make it hard to tune the system only base on calculations. More complexity comes from the interaction of 22 dots. And the biggest one comes from the lack of clear goal for the rolls. One aim for a good looking sim, but that is a moving target hard to quantize.

Honestly, most of the work done on test should have been done in an Alpha build of the game. The community has been tremendously forgiving but I think the long term damage to the property is irretrievable.

Originally posted by Enkidu98
Honestly, most of the work done on test should have been done in an Alpha build of the game. The community has been tremendously forgiving but I think the long term damage to the property is irretrievable.



Hey, this is beta after all. You can't expect polished perfection...

Originally posted by Redster
Hey, this is beta after all. You can't expect polished perfection...

I haven't I've contributed numerous ideas and suggestions and quite a few of them have been implemented. But My concern is things like the testing paths on SA's etc are very basic things integral to the operation of the SIM and we're just now getting to see if they even fire off as often as they should and then on top of that, determine if they are actually providing enough value?

This is something _integral_ to the sim, to character building, etc. Tweaks etc, certainly, but the first pass of finding if they fire appropriately should have been done before the game was pushed to beta.

I participate in a number of teams, in a number of leagues, and I am finding it is easier and easier to run into the same core of players. This bodes ill. I would love for things to succeed and continue to help where I can, but this is really disheartening as when I was on test the talk about Catch22's SA tests was not to see if they were firing appropriately but to see if they were balanced and if not, make them so... Its sounding like that is very far into the future.

People pay real cash to support the development of this game and then to find that some very basic/essential testing hasn't been performed.

Not cool.

Originally posted by Enkidu98
Originally posted by Redster

Hey, this is beta after all. You can't expect polished perfection...

I haven't I've contributed numerous ideas and suggestions and quite a few of them have been implemented. But My concern is things like the testing paths on SA's etc are very basic things integral to the operation of the SIM and we're just now getting to see if they even fire off as often as they should and then on top of that, determine if they are actually providing enough value?

This is something _integral_ to the sim, to character building, etc. Tweaks etc, certainly, but the first pass of finding if they fire appropriately should have been done before the game was pushed to beta.

I participate in a number of teams, in a number of leagues, and I am finding it is easier and easier to run into the same core of players. This bodes ill. I would love for things to succeed and continue to help where I can, but this is really disheartening as when I was on test the talk about Catch22's SA tests was not to see if they were firing appropriately but to see if they were balanced and if not, make them so... Its sounding like that is very far into the future.

People pay real cash to support the development of this game and then to find that some very basic/essential testing hasn't been performed.

Not cool.

To be fair, player final builds was a huge unknown. If there is a bug preventing from SAs to to they job, this is really poor project managing. However, if problems lies in builds and dots interaction it would be impossible to test during alpha.

Originally posted by tragula
To be fair, player final builds was a huge unknown. If there is a bug preventing from SAs to to they job, this is really poor project managing. However, if problems lies in builds and dots interaction it would be impossible to test during alpha.


I disagree. Give me an afternoon and I cna create quite a variety of player builds. In fact, were this my game I would have had the tools built to build players and encouraged my friends/alpha testers to try to make a bunch of different players etc. I could create ample numbers of players to try out on teams and test certain situations.

I would have the ability to create a simulation of a single play, and run it for 1000's of iterations and data mine that.

Its hardly impossible,

And then in BETA you work on the fine tuning to cover all the things you and your alpha crew didn't think of.

But that we're not sure if they are even firing off at an acceptable rate _let alone_ knowing if the value they provide is worth their cost in SP's/balanced with the other SA's is a big deal.

It demonstrates exactly what you note. Really poor project management.

So where are the detailed reports of the testing?

Originally posted by AngryDragon
So where are the detailed reports of the testing?

Those won't be around until they're done, and I dont think that's for a few seasons.

Originally posted by Enkidu98
I disagree. Give me an afternoon and I cna create quite a variety of player builds. In fact, were this my game I would have had the tools built to build players and encouraged my friends/alpha testers to try to make a bunch of different players etc. I could create ample numbers of players to try out on teams and test certain situations.


The question is, will you have the ingenuity to create the "right" builds ? Just remember that the 11 season limit and AEQ were non existing in Alpha. How do you design the end game before you know what it is ? I also quite sure that slow building was not in anyone mind back then.
There is a big difference between designing a game and playing it. Unless you have some people on board that have great mind for MMORPG games it is hard to predict what the game will actually look like.

Originally posted by Enkidu98

I would have the ability to create a simulation of a single play, and run it for 1000's of iterations and data mine that.


QFT (I think seeing that Bort has one on his private test server)

Test tools are the real area where Bort did a poor job. With decent gallery of testing tools one could tune and debug the game in a few month.

Originally posted by tragula
QFT (I think seeing that Bort has one on his private test server)

Test tools are the real area where Bort did a poor job. With decent gallery of testing tools one could tune and debug the game in a few month.



Bingo.

I've said it a bazillion times. They need a statistician to do their testing, not lol unpaid users watching some games in their free time testing 1 SA at a time.

Hate to be a pessimist, especially when this "all SA test" is long overdue, but I think the results will be very underwhelming and largely outdated within another 6 seasons anyway.

When I was part of test, one of the first things I asked about was if there was some way to test a single play, and I was told there was not. I can't recall the exact reasons but I believe there was concern that the testers would abuse the ability to run these sorts of tests for their own teams advantage.

While for some folks I think this would be a completely legitimate concern, I think the loss of a tool like that simply because of the worry of some tester getting a competitive advantage was the wrong thinking. Especially if you have 5 other testers who use the tool exactly for what it is intended. Combine this with folks like Octowned (above) and I think there were quite a few missed opportunities to better the game significantly.

Easy fix to mods/testers abusing insider info..... don't let the "official" testers play the game.

Or, list who they are, don;t hide it, and if people watch their team and its more successful because it does a certain thing, emulate it.

Having testers who actually play the game is much better way to keep people who know how things work, working on fixes.

The whole 'anti-tester' bias is completely idiotic.

Isn't it enough to dish a negative X factor to every team a tester is involved with ?