These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP, Singularity and You: How we can all make better use of the test servers

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sellendis
The Ares project
#41 - 2012-06-02 15:07:33 UTC
So for every new broken feature that we report, in-game and on forums, best defense is... they didn't managed to read it?
Sorry, no go.
A lot of people described in details how and why (for example) new UI sucks. Procedures that worked before and how they work now. Window madness, frame-rate drop to 1 fps while reprocessing or stacking items, a whole lot of stupidity in new UI behavior. All reported, explained and documented. Tippia even made a video to prove the point.
So detailed and documented issues vs. "i liek new UI, adapt or GTFO (and so on)" posts are hard to comprehend? Honest post vs. troll?

So yes, CCP got constructive criticism, the fact it was ignored (as most bug do) and went to TQ speaks volumes about the deployment system.
Lets face it, old UI had better visibility, was way faster to work with, and windows remembered their positions. New UI is slower, visibility suffers and its gonna take months of patches and fixes to get it to old UI speed and functionality.

All of that is wasted time and effort that could have been spent better, like maybe, complete the project before you deploy it full of bugs to your paying customers that already reported problems.

CCP then comes forth saying "we love your feedback", and promptly ignore all feedback. I reported bugs, described them time and time again, on forums and ingame. Those issues are still present.
So me and others get to the time where we ask ourselves, whats the point? Log to sisi, patch, clear cache, reset settings, report issue and see the same thing on TQ in a month. Might as well save time reporting things and save ourselves the frustrations.

They got a deadline and they try to keep it, and damn the QA, we are gonna fix it in next 6 months (if even then) or player base will adapt to new frustrating system. Was it easier to implement "crapified" inventory system or to make station hangar with tabs like corp hangar?

Solution? Make updates "optional" at least UI changing ones, deploy 1-2 things that are ironed out to perfection, and not 5 things working half-way.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#42 - 2012-06-02 15:20:32 UTC
Sellendis wrote:
So for every new broken feature that we report, in-game and on forums, best defense is... they didn't managed to read it?
Sorry, no go.
A lot of people described in details how and why (for example) new UI sucks. Procedures that worked before and how they work now. Window madness, frame-rate drop to 1 fps while reprocessing or stacking items, a whole lot of stupidity in new UI behavior. All reported, explained and documented. Tippia even made a video to prove the point.
So detailed and documented issues vs. "i liek new UI, adapt or GTFO (and so on)" posts are hard to comprehend? Honest post vs. troll?

So yes, CCP got constructive criticism, the fact it was ignored (as most bug do) and went to TQ speaks volumes about the deployment system.
Lets face it, old UI had better visibility, was way faster to work with, and windows remembered their positions. New UI is slower, visibility suffers and its gonna take months of patches and fixes to get it to old UI speed and functionality.

All of that is wasted time and effort that could have been spent better, like maybe, complete the project before you deploy it full of bugs to your paying customers that already reported problems.

CCP then comes forth saying "we love your feedback", and promptly ignore all feedback. I reported bugs, described them time and time again, on forums and ingame. Those issues are still present.
So me and others get to the time where we ask ourselves, whats the point? Log to sisi, patch, clear cache, reset settings, report issue and see the same thing on TQ in a month. Might as well save time reporting things and save ourselves the frustrations.

They got a deadline and they try to keep it, and damn the QA, we are gonna fix it in next 6 months (if even then) or player base will adapt to new frustrating system. Was it easier to implement "crapified" inventory system or to make station hangar with tabs like corp hangar?

Solution? Make updates "optional" at least UI changing ones, deploy 1-2 things that are ironed out to perfection, and not 5 things working half-way.


As I and others already said in this thread, things are not perfect and changes are being made to the way CCP conducts itself. I understand your frustration at feeling that you are being ignored, and that is why as I said earlier, CCP needs to be a lot clearer about what changes are being tested, when they are being tested and most importantly WHY the change is even being proposed.

Many people have been upset about the new UI, and in most cases rightfully so. However, and CCP have to take responsibility here, players have been claiming as undeniable fact, that the old UI was perfectly fine when in fact they have zero idea about what is going on behind the scenes with regards things like future proofing.

Perhaps CCP could involve the real testers on SISI (not the "oh yay i get to fly titans for 100isk look at me" type idiots) in some sort of meeting, maybe issue some of them with pre-SISI release patch notes and try to get a decent dialogue going prior to the update on SISI.

I just get the feeling that perhaps if players and CCP were on the same page regarding the WHY, then everything else would fall in to place.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#43 - 2012-06-02 15:55:26 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
As I and others already said in this thread, things are not perfect and changes are being made to the way CCP conducts itself.

How do you know this?

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Sellendis
The Ares project
#44 - 2012-06-02 16:11:11 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:

As I and others already said in this thread, things are not perfect and changes are being made to the way CCP conducts itself. I understand your frustration at feeling that you are being ignored, and that is why as I said earlier, CCP needs to be a lot clearer about what changes are being tested, when they are being tested and most importantly WHY the change is even being proposed.


I agree on this. CCP should do more than say "we love feedback" and then shove a problematic piece of code down our throats.

Cutter Isaacson wrote:

Many people have been upset about the new UI, and in most cases rightfully so. However, and CCP have to take responsibility here, players have been claiming as undeniable fact, that the old UI was perfectly fine when in fact they have zero idea about what is going on behind the scenes with regards things like future proofing.


I took new UI as an example, its not only the UI.

We have font issues (aside 0-O and minor cosmetics) old font looked more hi-tech and kinda gave Eve a futuristic look, we need a font shadow since some areas are so bright you really cant read anything. Font is not correctly put under locked ships, sometimes the letters just merge with another locked ship since the damn word wont go to the next line.

New nebula's are awesome in some parts, in others they are so bright it makes eve look like a game with gamma on +10 setting.

New icons were a shining example of a concept gone wrong, they were dark, blurry and completely different from old ones, it was hard to even understand what you fit on your ship. They got rolled back...
Ship hangar (spinning) was removed for CQ, we raged and finally CCP gave the hangar back.

It goes to show that Eve community likes the game and its features mostly as they are, making major changes and without the option to use them or not is forcing people to use them. I remember when we got the new UI beta, we could turn the feature on in options or use the old way. This is what players need. A choice.


Cutter Isaacson wrote:

Perhaps CCP could involve the real testers on SISI (not the "oh yay i get to fly titans for 100isk look at me" type idiots) in some sort of meeting, maybe issue some of them with pre-SISI release patch notes and try to get a decent dialogue going prior to the update on SISI.

I just get the feeling that perhaps if players and CCP were on the same page regarding the WHY, then everything else would fall in to place.


I dunno about the meetings, since the "troll" is strong in eve, so most comments would degrade to flaming as it was with UI. Proposed changes going to SiSi and player input that is "not" ignored would go a long way. Not deploying something that is clearly not ready would indeed be a step forward. We had a expansion devoted mostly to fixing previous expansions bugs, that is a disaster. Instead of new features or content so much time and effort went into fixing sloppy work done before.

I worked in IT before, i know what happens when employees are afraid to speak their mind (about deadlines not gonna be reached in time, features completely wrong, customers wishes ignored on time restraints, ect..), the boss demands the project deployed before the deadline. In the end its a clusterfuck of problems, company reputation is lost on a buggy product and customers are rethinking their investments.
Morwen Lagann
Tyrathlion Interstellar
#45 - 2012-06-02 16:19:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Morwen Lagann
The forum seems to be having a field day ganking my posts in transit, so I'm going to forego answering people directly and just go with some of the general things I'd wanted to reply with (mostly to things on the first page).

First off, I'm well aware that many bugs reported on Sisi make their way to TQ. This is why I think more people need to spend time on the test server testing the client itself, and not their fits. More people finding and reporting bugs earlier on gives CCP more time to find the bug in their logs and then find and fix the code causing the problem. Even if they find the problem code, sometimes there isn't enough time to properly test a fix before a build has to be shipped. That's part of software development.

In addition, extending the deadline isn't always an option, contrary to what some may think. At some point it takes more work and effort to revert something you've been working on and then test everything else over again to make sure it still works, than it would to just keep going with what you have and then iterate on it after the main release with smaller fixes. Like what they're doing with the UI right now.

As far as the test server spluttering goes... I never said we needed "mass test" levels of people on at the same time testing things like the UI, let alone in the same place. Part of the reason the test server 'splutters' during mass tests is because there's so many people in one place doing things at the same time - just like it would on TQ. The test server can handle a couple thousand people just fine... if they're not all in 6-C.

I'm also getting the feeling some people have completely missed the section of my post stating what the players need from the devs. Both devs and players need to pitch in and work together to make it work.

I am not saying that Sisi is "just full of EFT warriors and free duels types", as Abdiel put it. I am saying that more of them should spend time testing new features and changes. I am saying that the devs should not just read but actively respond to our feedback more often, and earlier. I am saying that our involvement needs to start earlier.

I am also not going to say that there were things that weren't really ready for release that were released as-is for Inferno. But nor am I going to say that CCP did or did not make the right or wrong call in releasing things as they were. Seems to me that they've made it pretty clear that they know things are still broken, and they're actively working on it. Just look at the Unified Inventory. It's already had six patches since release and is doing much, much better than it was.

EDIT:

Sellendis wrote:
I worked in IT before, i know what happens when employees are afraid to speak their mind (about deadlines not gonna be reached in time, features completely wrong, customers wishes ignored on time restraints, ect..), the boss demands the project deployed before the deadline. In the end its a clusterfuck of problems, company reputation is lost on a buggy product and customers are rethinking their investments.


And I currently work in QA. I know what happens when you have a long list of defects that need to be fixed and a looming deadline that you can't push back any further. You perform triage, and fix important-urgent issues first. If you have time to fix non-urgent issues that aren't going to cause the software to stop working, go for it then; if not, you release smaller patches after the main release, and have a list of known issues at time of release.

Again, as I've said before, I think a lot of the 'issues' would be resolved or at least reduced if more players spent time testing the client rather than their fits so they can give useful, meaningful and productive feedback, and more devs responded directly to the feedback the players give them.

Morwen Lagann

CEO, Tyrathlion Interstellar

Coordinator, Arataka Research Consortium

Owner, The Golden Masque
Thebriwan
LUX Uls Xystus
#46 - 2012-06-02 16:23:52 UTC
I see some going points in this thread.

But I am more than a little bit taken aback by this whole inventory thing.

I normally go to the tests server before an expansion to get intel on what has changed how and in what way I can use it, exploit it, or have to change my behavior.

I did make some feedback before, but this this time the changes WERE horribly for my daily work flow. I did find that out after using the inventory for 5 seconds! - I did not rant, but wrote a long posting why and what I want to do that was broken.

There was no answer from any dev in this long long thread to me or anyone who mentioned the same problems. We were ignored. Just so.

And on patch day to my horror there were no changes in this area at all.

On Friday after 1 and a half painful weeks most things on my list (but not all) are better or fixed.

The point is: This feature was not ready and no amount of people really testing it would have sufficed. Because the input of the testers was simply ignored.

Someone mentioned bug reports.

Most of my bug reports ended in the "duplicate entry" box.
Or were defined as "it's a feature not bug" (no warning box when canceling n order for YEARS anyone ?)

A forum is not a good way of keeping track of bugs. There needs to be a more defined way to report issues AND TRACKING THEM! Without the latter it makes no sense for me.
Gorki Andropov
I Dn't Knw Wht You Wnt Bt I Cn't Gve It Anymre
#47 - 2012-06-02 16:29:07 UTC
When CCP start paying me to QC their product, then I will use Singularity for that purpose. Until then, whimsy away!
Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#48 - 2012-06-02 16:37:46 UTC
Gorki Andropov wrote:
When CCP start paying me to QC their product, then I will use Singularity for that purpose. Until then, whimsy away!

SiSi's actually a lot of fun when it's not crippled by too many bugs. As it is, atm you're paying to QC EVE on TQ, so why not at least give it a go? Lol
Gorki Andropov
I Dn't Knw Wht You Wnt Bt I Cn't Gve It Anymre
#49 - 2012-06-02 16:43:40 UTC
Actually, I do regularly use SiSi for ***** and giggles, and I agree with you that it's a lot of fun :) I just don't go around submitting bug reports!
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#50 - 2012-06-02 16:44:55 UTC
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
Gorki Andropov wrote:
When CCP start paying me to QC their product, then I will use Singularity for that purpose. Until then, whimsy away!

SiSi's actually a lot of fun when it's not crippled by too many bugs. As it is, atm you're paying to QC EVE on TQ, so why not at least give it a go? Lol



The only interesting stuff on SISI is the fact you can buy ships/mods for 100isk, blow everything included pirate implants because it's no effort to do so.

For everything else is a waste of time, your time.

brb
Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-06-02 17:25:51 UTC
Morwen Lagann wrote:
Again, as I've said before, I think a lot of the 'issues' would be resolved or at least reduced if more players spent time testing the client rather than their fits so they can give useful, meaningful and productive feedback, and more devs responded directly to the feedback the players give them.



True both.

I also a little bit more of a test plan might help.Could even be a useful newb education tool. Something in the new players forum along the lines of "Come try this". You're not going to get the most informed and in-depth testing, but you'll also avoid get situations more experienced players wouldn't even consider. Might even soften the learning curve a bit. Some folks will hate that.
Scaugh
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2012-06-02 20:30:15 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
No of course not, that's why the last two updates were all updates specifically for things like POS management and increased ease of use for the new UI. I think you may need a new tinfoil hat, the one you have appears to have worn a little thin.

We're referring to feedback for issues on SiSi that are reported for months before inevitably making it to TQ in spite of being identified as problems. Repairing serious bugs on TQ that should never have made it to TQ in the first place isn't 'listening to SiSi feedback'.



One big concession that should be made here in defence of the people who DO provide feedback, is that there seems to be little in the way of decent and detailed explanations as to WHY some of these changes are being made.

From my point of view the need for a new UI is as clear as the Jewish nose on my Jewish face, but that does not mean that it is the same for everyone. Perhaps CCP could do a better job when it comes to explaining the need for changes, then perhaps people will be less inclined to ship toast.


You are correct here in stating the reasoning in behind the need for CCP to make theUI changes.

I for one am of the belief that the new UI is geared towards the DUST UI. It is an attempt by CCP to streamline both EVE and DUST interfaces into a common interface. It only makes sense as there then is the need for only one team of programmers for the two games.

Think of it this way. A tree type UI is ideal for the PS3 controller (or similar console controler), where the player only has to move the directional keys (< ^ > or v ) to where they want before pressing X to select item in question.

That is my personal opinion.
Sellendis
The Ares project
#53 - 2012-06-02 20:32:18 UTC
Morwen Lagann wrote:


EDIT:
Sellendis wrote:
I worked in IT before, i know what happens when employees are afraid to speak their mind (about deadlines not gonna be reached in time, features completely wrong, customers wishes ignored on time restraints, ect..), the boss demands the project deployed before the deadline. In the end its a clusterfuck of problems, company reputation is lost on a buggy product and customers are rethinking their investments.


And I currently work in QA. I know what happens when you have a long list of defects that need to be fixed and a looming deadline that you can't push back any further. You perform triage, and fix important-urgent issues first. If you have time to fix non-urgent issues that aren't going to cause the software to stop working, go for it then; if not, you release smaller patches after the main release, and have a list of known issues at time of release.

Again, as I've said before, I think a lot of the 'issues' would be resolved or at least reduced if more players spent time testing the client rather than their fits so they can give useful, meaningful and productive feedback, and more devs responded directly to the feedback the players give them.


All true mate, but EvE wouldn't go down and under if a feature that was intended for deployment gets delayed till its fixed. Its kinda different than missing a deadline for software that investors need to work on a specific date. Its not banking or air control monitoring software that needs to be done on time or pay insane penalties for delays.

Whats the point in 5-6 big project features that get done halfway? Why not iron out 1-2 and deploy them every (second) month or something?
2 expansions per year mean nothing if one of them introduces a crapload of bugs, and for the next 6 months you deploy small patches and next expansion introduces a new wave of problems. Half your workforce is working on the new projects, and half is trying to fix last expansions problems.

If CCP said that "crapified" inventory (or any other big change) wasn't ready and its delayed till its up to QA seal of approval, it would make a better impression that just deploying it and fixing it if community rages.

Triage, as you said, is last minute fix for important features, but you cant triage the core feature just to "work" without crashes. Those should work as intended or back to the drawing board as they say.
When they bite more (code) than they can chew, they can spit a part out or choke on the whole deal. And we see how it goes here.

The undisputed kings of patch clusterfucks (ATI) finally decided to release drivers when they are ready and not every month and screw the problems. For gods sake, i had to patch drivers with hotfixes just to make them work.

P.S.
Off topic, why did Mass Effect 3 ending suck? Because they introduced Catalyst (Software Suite) last 15 minutes. Ugh
Linda Shadowborn
Dark Steel Industries
#54 - 2012-06-02 20:42:43 UTC
Last time i reported a bug to CCP i got a reply saying, it is a feature (the extra gun on the executioner) i replied back saying im sorry that is bull.. get me someone else.

and got a reply.. oh we know about the bug.

when the bughunting team itself cant be arsed to even look at a petition before pressing the.. its a feature button then what is the frakkin point?

the bug report before that about tervis jakk? again.. closed with no answer.. redid it.. oh.. we are aware..

the bug hunter team makes it really hard for me to actually bother sending them bugs
Lipbite
Express Hauler
#55 - 2012-06-02 21:46:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Lipbite
Most fresh example of CCP's cooperation with players: drone damage module was introduced just few weeks prior to "yearly" expansion (which look like it was done during 2 months) and almost everyone in feedback said "make it high slot and without stacking penalty to replace useless weapons on drone boats". Check - where is this module located now?

P.S. Reporting bugs isn't interesting after first three "we know this already" answers. SP rewards on TQ for bug reports and time spent on Sisi could change everything but it seems CCP doesn't want to change anything.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#56 - 2012-06-02 22:19:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Cutter Isaacson
Lipbite wrote:
Most fresh example of CCP's cooperation with players: drone damage module was introduced just few weeks prior to "yearly" expansion (which look like it was done during 2 months) and almost everyone in feedback said "make it high slot and without stacking penalty to replace useless weapons on drone boats". Check - where is this module located now?

P.S. Reporting bugs isn't interesting after first three "we know this already" answers. SP rewards on TQ for bug reports and time spent on Sisi could change everything but it seems CCP doesn't want to change anything.


This an example of players needing to understand the WHY of things, rather than being left to assume that they automatically know best.

EDIT: In fact, in the few minutes it took me to go put some food in my oven I have already come up with one perfectly good reason why Drone Damage mods were made in to low slot modules. Imagine a Rattler or a Dominix that wants to fit an awesome tank. In both cases the low slots are usually used to augment the tank, and the high slots are filled with either a mix of guns/launchers, tractors, salvager's and DLA's.

Now, if a drone user wants to run extra drone damage then they have to sacrifice some of their tank to accommodate the Drone Damage mods. If the new mod had been made in to a high slot mod instead, they would no longer have to sacrifice any tank, thus making them exceedingly overpowered.

I came up with that in about 2 minutes.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#57 - 2012-06-03 09:59:17 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Lipbite wrote:
Most fresh example of CCP's cooperation with players: drone damage module was introduced just few weeks prior to "yearly" expansion (which look like it was done during 2 months) and almost everyone in feedback said "make it high slot and without stacking penalty to replace useless weapons on drone boats". Check - where is this module located now?

P.S. Reporting bugs isn't interesting after first three "we know this already" answers. SP rewards on TQ for bug reports and time spent on Sisi could change everything but it seems CCP doesn't want to change anything.


This an example of players needing to understand the WHY of things, rather than being left to assume that they automatically know best.

EDIT: In fact, in the few minutes it took me to go put some food in my oven I have already come up with one perfectly good reason why Drone Damage mods were made in to low slot modules. Imagine a Rattler or a Dominix that wants to fit an awesome tank. In both cases the low slots are usually used to augment the tank, and the high slots are filled with either a mix of guns/launchers, tractors, salvager's and DLA's.

Now, if a drone user wants to run extra drone damage then they have to sacrifice some of their tank to accommodate the Drone Damage mods. If the new mod had been made in to a high slot mod instead, they would no longer have to sacrifice any tank, thus making them exceedingly overpowered.

I came up with that in about 2 minutes.



Gosh you got it, it's like BCU's in lows and turrets dmg mods in lows too.

Ho w8 !!

brb
Ifly Uwalk
Perkone
Caldari State
#58 - 2012-06-03 10:53:05 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I love Sisi and I'm so grateful for you guys who test things there and give me feedback. Thank you:)

Never mind the rest of the thread...
.
.
.
WANT PINK TEXT NAO! GIEF!!1!1111eleven
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#59 - 2012-06-03 15:45:08 UTC
Firstly, thanks to Morwen for taking the time to put some really well thought out opinions and ideas onto the forum. I am enjoying a lot of the discourse taking place in this thread (note: the tinfoil conspiracies are not counted here)

I was initially thinking about quote replying to everything I want to respond to, but then realised that would result in a page of Goliath, and noone wants that. So I will just address some overall points.

1. "Devs ignore my feedback" - this is a blanket header as there has been a theme of this developing in the thread and several other places on the forum. Now, the short answer is "you're right and you're wrong". Basically, just because your specific post didn't get a developer reply, or your (IYHO) awesome feature request didn't get put into the client, doesn't mean that your feedback was ignored.

To break down some development methodology for you - at CCP, the "PM Group" come up with their themes, or "epics" for the release cycle. These epics are broken down into stories by Product Owners of teams. Those who posted on the #tweetfleetbacklog will be familiar with the basic story format - "As a ... I can ....". These stories are then taken into teams, estimated for complexity and broken down as tasks which are estimated for time. Note that shy of suggesting the themes/epics that they want, the 'project managers' (which is actually something of a misnomer as none of them carry that title) do not get to dictate anything to teams. Once a team owns a feature it is just that - true ownership. Noone tells them what to do with it (though we may suggest) and they take accountability to their "customer" which in an Agile environment is represented by the Product Owner.

Now, an unfortunate sideeffect of working on a busy, successful team is that you don't get to read and reply to every single piece of feedback received. Instead you probably skim forum threads looking for common issues or themes, or maybe read the title post of a large thread in detail in the hope that (as I believe Zagdul did with the inventory) feedback in the thread is being collated by the OP. What I can definitely say is that if a post begins with "OMG CCP WTF" or "Well, :CCP: have conspired against me once again", I would not give it the time of day and straight up skip over it. Note that I'm only speaking for myself there, but I imagine that a lot of developers would react similarly. Just because you are posting on a forum, or talking to us in a web conversation, doesn't mean the basic rules of politeness and decorum don't apply Smile

Timeframe is another thing altogether but Morwen is quite right in saying that at certain points you are passed the "point of no revert" so to speak and you're committed to releasing, with iterative developments. Please at this point note the difference between bugs, which are faults that cause unwanted functionality, and feature requests, which are generally perceived faults that would be fixed with "just this easy inclusion" (which is of course generally far more difficult, dangerous or time consuming)

2. "Sisi is my playground and I don't care what you want me to do on it". No problem, totally up to you. Don't expect me to do you any favours either, and enjoy your EFT substitute! Break the rules and I'll happily ban you.

3. "But bugs still go to TQ from Sisi". Yes they do. The inevitability of software is that it contains bugs. Expectations of bug free code are frankly unrealistic so shed yourselves of them now and live a more stress free existence (I wish I could join you but my position at the company precludes doing so). When you find a bug, let us know about it. Don't think "oh this is so obvious that someone will have already pointed it out". We use volume of bug reports as a metric of how wideranging an issue is, and this is one of the small things that help GMs identify known issues, teams prioritise fixes and so on.

If it gets returned to you as "By Design" and you reopen it with a negative tone, expect it to get less well treated the next time around. Bug Hunters are volunteers and they shouldn't have to put up with people hating on them - they do a great job and mostly a thankless one. I've thanked them before and I'm thanking them now - Thanks BH team, I love you guys. Also, bear in mind that plenty of developers (myself included) work on bug reports, so it's not always a BH dealing with your report.

In the specific instance of Linda Shadowborn's Executioner BR, it was me who dealt with both instances. It was closed as By Design after a conversation I had with Trilambda, who explained that it was to compensate for the necessary 360 degree firing arc. When the BR was reopened with (in her own, slightly made more pleasant for the forums apparently, words) "im sorry that is bull.. get me someone else.", I informed her that we knew about the issue. I should probably have written the 360 degree firing arc in the reply, but when you're fighting the influx of BRs that occur after an expansion, you don't always get everything right :)

Looking forward to continuing to read this thread. Let's keep it constructive and polite!





CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#60 - 2012-06-03 15:53:06 UTC
Thanks for the epic reply there Goliath. Hopefully that should help some of the more confused people understand how the whole process works. And with any luck it might help cut down on some of the uneducated whine posts Cool

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.