These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#21 - 2012-06-02 13:45:42 UTC
Thanks Morwen for an excellent post! Big smile

And thank you for coming down to Providence this week, it was really nice chatting with you. Smart thinking too to come really early before I got swamped with people from 38 Studios. Big smile

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#22 - 2012-06-02 13:55:15 UTC
Morwen Lagann wrote:
Salpun wrote:
Did CCP Explorer have any clear reason why warnings clear and specific where not listened to with the new inventory. Was it the level of noise on those threads which was low compared to some Sisi threads. Even a not about it being a work in progress prior to release would have calmed the issue a little.
I didn't ask that, primarily because I didn't think it would be appropriate to ask that at what was effectively a recruitment and interview session. It's a touchy subject for a lot of people, so I wanted to skirt around that and leave it be.

That said, the Unified Inventory is part of why I wanted to make the post, and we did briefly discuss the Inventory - specifically the case with POSes being totally unusable when having large numbers of modules anchored - and that's where the use-case bit in my post came from. Whoever was doing the internal testing set up a POS, but likely didn't set up a particularly large one. They know better for next time, though, which is the important part there.

He also mentioned iteration timeframes - we as players are generally impatient little buggers and expect that iterations are going to be quick and easy for everything. Unfortunately, they're not, because some features don't allow for it. However, the UI is on a short iteration schedule, as we've already seen - it's being updated a couple times a week, and it's really good to see that. I noted that at this point the only major remaining gripe I have with it is that I can't tell the client what I want double-clicking and shift-clicking to do.
I also would only have been able to answer in general terms since communication on Unified Inventory is being handled by CCP Soundwave. We nominate a point person for issues like the Unified Inventory to focus the discussion and to make sure we clearly communicate to players what our plan is. It is a different person depending on the circumstances, e.g., for the boot.ini incident a few years back I was the point person since the issue was technical in nature whereas this one is more a design matter.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#23 - 2012-06-02 14:00:26 UTC
BuckStrider wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I love Sisi and I'm so grateful for you guys who test things there and give me feedback. Thank you:)


Too bad you don't use any of the feedback.


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.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#24 - 2012-06-02 14:00:44 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
All well and good, but you do realise that a considerable percentage of the bugs reported on SiSi actually end up making it to TQ anyway? Until CCP extends deadlines to quash serious bugs they haven't fixed on SiSi, it' s really quite pointless.

Not to mention, the test server splutters during mass tests - getting thousands of people on there to test every day would probably kill it.
I think that perhaps that is part of the OP's point. Changes need to be made on both ends. CCP need to be a bit more forthcoming with information on what exactly needs testing, and perhaps use some of the new CCL members to act as go betweens so that the players feel like their concerns and ideas are being addressed. And players need to stop treating the test servers only as a zero risk/zero cost version of TQ and remember that it has another, proper, purpose.
We are always aiming to improve our testing and to make the best use of public testing on SiSi. Any feedback you can offer to improve is most welcome! Big smile

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#25 - 2012-06-02 14:10:53 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
All well and good, but you do realise that a considerable percentage of the bugs reported on SiSi actually end up making it to TQ anyway? Until CCP extends deadlines to quash serious bugs they haven't fixed on SiSi, it' s really quite pointless.

Not to mention, the test server splutters during mass tests - getting thousands of people on there to test every day would probably kill it.
I think that perhaps that is part of the OP's point. Changes need to be made on both ends. CCP need to be a bit more forthcoming with information on what exactly needs testing, and perhaps use some of the new CCL members to act as go betweens so that the players feel like their concerns and ideas are being addressed. And players need to stop treating the test servers only as a zero risk/zero cost version of TQ and remember that it has another, proper, purpose.
We are always aiming to improve our testing and to make the best use of public testing on SiSi. Any feedback you can offer to improve is most welcome! Big smile

The thing is there was a lot of talk at FF about these very issues and there have been no changes.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#26 - 2012-06-02 14:14:00 UTC
Salpun wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
All well and good, but you do realise that a considerable percentage of the bugs reported on SiSi actually end up making it to TQ anyway? Until CCP extends deadlines to quash serious bugs they haven't fixed on SiSi, it' s really quite pointless.

Not to mention, the test server splutters during mass tests - getting thousands of people on there to test every day would probably kill it.
I think that perhaps that is part of the OP's point. Changes need to be made on both ends. CCP need to be a bit more forthcoming with information on what exactly needs testing, and perhaps use some of the new CCL members to act as go betweens so that the players feel like their concerns and ideas are being addressed. And players need to stop treating the test servers only as a zero risk/zero cost version of TQ and remember that it has another, proper, purpose.
We are always aiming to improve our testing and to make the best use of public testing on SiSi. Any feedback you can offer to improve is most welcome! Big smile

The thing is there was a lot of talk at FF about these very issues and there have been no changes.


When you consider the scale of the task at hand, expecting instant change is rather foolhardy. You also need to remember that it is not just CCP that need to change, but also the players. Decent, well thought out and appropriate changes take time, else there is the risk of total failure. Would you prefer a slap dash attitude and instant changes leading to inevitable breakdown, or gradual, well thought out changes leading to a stronger system?

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#27 - 2012-06-02 14:14:47 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
Any feedback you can offer to improve is most welcome! Big smile


Like CQ, Hybrids and Inventory feedback? -for some of the MOST important ones witch seems a great part of the community gave more than enough feedback, still why we have the feeling this awesome feedback is useless?


Lol

brb
Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#28 - 2012-06-02 14:16:46 UTC
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'.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#29 - 2012-06-02 14:18:02 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Salpun wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
All well and good, but you do realise that a considerable percentage of the bugs reported on SiSi actually end up making it to TQ anyway? Until CCP extends deadlines to quash serious bugs they haven't fixed on SiSi, it' s really quite pointless.

Not to mention, the test server splutters during mass tests - getting thousands of people on there to test every day would probably kill it.
I think that perhaps that is part of the OP's point. Changes need to be made on both ends. CCP need to be a bit more forthcoming with information on what exactly needs testing, and perhaps use some of the new CCL members to act as go betweens so that the players feel like their concerns and ideas are being addressed. And players need to stop treating the test servers only as a zero risk/zero cost version of TQ and remember that it has another, proper, purpose.
We are always aiming to improve our testing and to make the best use of public testing on SiSi. Any feedback you can offer to improve is most welcome! Big smile

The thing is there was a lot of talk at FF about these very issues and there have been no changes.


When you consider the scale of the task at hand, expecting instant change is rather foolhardy. You also need to remember that it is not just CCP that need to change, but also the players. Decent, well thought out and appropriate changes take time, else there is the risk of total failure. Would you prefer a slap dash attitude and instant changes leading to inevitable breakdown, or gradual, well thought out changes leading to a stronger system?

Web team was focused on Dust Web site (so your point is a good one) hope the design has been chosen so when they are done they can focuse on the community pages now and get it done quickly.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#30 - 2012-06-02 14:21:30 UTC
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'.


And as has been made clear of late, changes ARE being made, and as I said these things will take time. Measure twice, cut once, remember? Also, having taken a look at some of the "feedback" from the test server forums, the amount of helpful posts in relation to the bog standard and pathetic replies of "OHMERGERD ITS FACKIN BULLSHIT!!!!" is heavily biased toward the more negative end of things.

I did see many helpful, well reasoned and useful posts, but lets be clear and honest here, they were so heavily outweighed by the over privileged, low IQ responses that its no wonder CCP are having difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#31 - 2012-06-02 14:23:57 UTC
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.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#32 - 2012-06-02 14:27:04 UTC
Salpun wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:


When you consider the scale of the task at hand, expecting instant change is rather foolhardy. You also need to remember that it is not just CCP that need to change, but also the players. Decent, well thought out and appropriate changes take time, else there is the risk of total failure. Would you prefer a slap dash attitude and instant changes leading to inevitable breakdown, or gradual, well thought out changes leading to a stronger system?

Web team was focused on Dust Web site (so your point is a good one) hope the design has been chosen so when they are done they can focuse on the community pages now and get it done quickly.


A perfect example of what I was saying would actually be the transition we all had to make from the old forums to these new ones. CCP rushed it through the first time, were slap dash in their approach and they screwed up. So they stopped, went back over it carefully and with a lot of effort and time they created something much better than the old forums.

As I said, measure twice, cut once.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Roisin Saoirse
Doomheim
#33 - 2012-06-02 14:27:50 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Also, having taken a look at some of the "feedback" from the test server forums, the amount of helpful posts in relation to the bog standard and pathetic replies of "OHMERGERD ITS FACKIN BULLSHIT!!!!" is heavily biased toward the more negative end of things.

I did see many helpful, well reasoned and useful posts, but lets be clear and honest here, they were so heavily outweighed by the over privileged, low IQ responses that its no wonder CCP are having difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff.

Unfortunately too true. Proper bug reporting should be done in-game, not on the forums, especially since the forums just seem to devolve into overemotional rages and dummy spitting. I'd hate to be any kind of moderator here, and anyone at CCP who's tasked with reading them for any length of time should really get a pay rise imo. Lol
Josef Djugashvilis
#34 - 2012-06-02 14:33:34 UTC
Tippia posted a detailed description of what was wrong with the new inventory system and gave feedback to CCP, as did many others based on testing it on SiSi, yet CCP still released it in the 'expansion' even though it was seriously flawed.

CCP should move away from setting themselves release deadlines they do are not ready to meet and only release the finished article when it is ready for us to use.

If the new inventory system had worked the way it is slowly starting to, much unhappiness by the players and CCP would have
been avoided.

This is not a signature.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#35 - 2012-06-02 14:34:58 UTC
Roisin Saoirse wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Also, having taken a look at some of the "feedback" from the test server forums, the amount of helpful posts in relation to the bog standard and pathetic replies of "OHMERGERD ITS FACKIN BULLSHIT!!!!" is heavily biased toward the more negative end of things.

I did see many helpful, well reasoned and useful posts, but lets be clear and honest here, they were so heavily outweighed by the over privileged, low IQ responses that its no wonder CCP are having difficulty separating the wheat from the chaff.

Unfortunately too true. Proper bug reporting should be done in-game, not on the forums, especially since the forums just seem to devolve into overemotional rages and dummy spitting. I'd hate to be any kind of moderator here, and anyone at CCP who's tasked with reading them for any length of time should really get a pay rise imo. Lol


I couldn't agree more. Perhaps with the hiring of new staff, specifically those for the CCL we may see the tide turn on those who only ship toast and clog up important threads. As for bug reporting in game, that could prove problematic, many people seem to find it easier to post something on the forums as it is a familiar format, much more so than the in game bug reporting system.

And lets face it, if CCP do want more bug reporting done, it may be in everyone's best interests to have it laid out in a format that is easiest for the reporters to use. Then simply use a member or two of the CCL to go through the reports and collate them in to appropriate "piles" ready for more detailed inspection by the CCP team responsible for that particular issue. I for one would be only too happy to perform such a task for free.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#36 - 2012-06-02 14:36:39 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Tippia posted a detailed description of what was wrong with the new inventory system and gave feedback to CCP, as did many others based on testing it on SiSi, yet CCP still released it in the 'expansion' even though it was seriously flawed.

CCP should move away from setting themselves release deadlines they do are not ready to meet and only release the finished article when it is ready for us to use.

If the new inventory system had worked the way it is slowly starting to, much unhappiness by the players and CCP would have
been avoided.


This is part of the problem we are discussing Josef. I have been an avid fan of Tippia and his posts for over 5 years. I find him to be insightful, forthright and intelligent. That said, even the brightest diamond will not shine if it is buried 6 feet deep in manure.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#37 - 2012-06-02 14:41:21 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Tippia posted a detailed description of what was wrong with the new inventory system and gave feedback to CCP, as did many others based on testing it on SiSi, yet CCP still released it in the 'expansion' even though it was seriously flawed.

CCP should move away from setting themselves release deadlines they do are not ready to meet and only release the finished article when it is ready for us to use.

If the new inventory system had worked the way it is slowly starting to, much unhappiness by the players and CCP would have
been avoided.


This is part of the problem we are discussing Josef. I have been an avid fan of Tippia and his posts for over 5 years. I find him to be insightful, forthright and intelligent. That said, even the brightest diamond will not shine if it is buried 6 feet deep in manure.

Maybe they need hidden poster ratings on the dev viewable side.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#38 - 2012-06-02 14:45:14 UTC
Salpun wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Tippia posted a detailed description of what was wrong with the new inventory system and gave feedback to CCP, as did many others based on testing it on SiSi, yet CCP still released it in the 'expansion' even though it was seriously flawed.

CCP should move away from setting themselves release deadlines they do are not ready to meet and only release the finished article when it is ready for us to use.

If the new inventory system had worked the way it is slowly starting to, much unhappiness by the players and CCP would have
been avoided.


This is part of the problem we are discussing Josef. I have been an avid fan of Tippia and his posts for over 5 years. I find him to be insightful, forthright and intelligent. That said, even the brightest diamond will not shine if it is buried 6 feet deep in manure.

Maybe they need hidden poster ratings on the dev viewable side.



I assume you mean some kind of "We at CCP like this person" kind of marker? Well, an interesting suggestion to be sure, but in reality that would mean risking the possibility of missing the fabled "uncut diamond" of an idea. One that is proposed by a virtual nobody who just happens to have looked at something from an angle that no-one else has noticed.

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#39 - 2012-06-02 14:48:48 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Salpun wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Tippia posted a detailed description of what was wrong with the new inventory system and gave feedback to CCP, as did many others based on testing it on SiSi, yet CCP still released it in the 'expansion' even though it was seriously flawed.

CCP should move away from setting themselves release deadlines they do are not ready to meet and only release the finished article when it is ready for us to use.

If the new inventory system had worked the way it is slowly starting to, much unhappiness by the players and CCP would have
been avoided.


This is part of the problem we are discussing Josef. I have been an avid fan of Tippia and his posts for over 5 years. I find him to be insightful, forthright and intelligent. That said, even the brightest diamond will not shine if it is buried 6 feet deep in manure.

Maybe they need hidden poster ratings on the dev viewable side.



I assume you mean some kind of "We at CCP like this person" kind of marker? Well, an interesting suggestion to be sure, but in reality that would mean risking the possibility of missing the fabled "uncut diamond" of an idea. One that is proposed by a virtual nobody who just happens to have looked at something from an angle that no-one else has noticed.

Its more of a Dev wanting to read the 10 best posts on a issue before going into a meeting. The rest of the uncut diamonds can be included in the write up by the community reps.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#40 - 2012-06-02 14:53:45 UTC
Salpun wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Salpun wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
Tippia posted a detailed description of what was wrong with the new inventory system and gave feedback to CCP, as did many others based on testing it on SiSi, yet CCP still released it in the 'expansion' even though it was seriously flawed.

CCP should move away from setting themselves release deadlines they do are not ready to meet and only release the finished article when it is ready for us to use.

If the new inventory system had worked the way it is slowly starting to, much unhappiness by the players and CCP would have
been avoided.


This is part of the problem we are discussing Josef. I have been an avid fan of Tippia and his posts for over 5 years. I find him to be insightful, forthright and intelligent. That said, even the brightest diamond will not shine if it is buried 6 feet deep in manure.

Maybe they need hidden poster ratings on the dev viewable side.



I assume you mean some kind of "We at CCP like this person" kind of marker? Well, an interesting suggestion to be sure, but in reality that would mean risking the possibility of missing the fabled "uncut diamond" of an idea. One that is proposed by a virtual nobody who just happens to have looked at something from an angle that no-one else has noticed.

Its more of a Dev wanting to read the 10 best posts on a issue before going into a meeting. The rest of the uncut diamonds can be included in the write up by the community reps.


Which was pretty much my suggestion above. Only instead of wasting a Dev's time with flagging and what not, get the CCL member to mark the best posts for immediate perusal and then put the others in to "piles", at the same time the CCL member could also remove the less helpful posts from the thread and keep it clean. After a few months of this, certain people will have then built up a "rep" as helpful posters and at THAT point Dev's will be able to select their posts first.

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