Assembly Hall

I believe the recent controversy over changes to RLML and RHML systems with Rubicon highlights a need for sufficient time for players to test and vet new game mechanics and provide constructive feedback prior to these changes going live.

One of the key complaints about the changes to RMLs is that the announcement was made barely a week and a half before the change was being launched with Rubicon, and only uploaded to the test server a few days before going live. A common opinion is that the launch of this particular change should have been held for a later patch in order to give sufficient time to test it first; but by the time it was unveiled, it had already been included in the planned Rubicon 1.0 build. To many, this felt like the job was being rushed out and half-done, and that feedback was ignored largely because there was no test data available to back it up.

I would think that those who are against a change such as this would welcome the opportunity to fully test out new mechanics prior to their launch, as it provides them with the opportunity to test out their theories and opinions and share experiences that reinforce their position. Likewise, I believe that those supporting mechanincs changes would also prefer this, as if they truly believe in the effectiveness of such changes, then it would be likely that at least some of the detractors would change their opinion once they have seen the changes in action. Having a reasonable amount of time to put new game mechanics to the test benefits everyone all around.

One of the statements on this particular issue was that it would be pushed live, and then possibly improved at a later date. The problem with this is that historically, once a system has gone live, it tends to be a long and laborious process to get anything changed. Once something is launched, it seems to be forgotten or ignored, and this often leaves players dealing with faulty mechanics for an extended period of time. This is unnecessary, and can generally be avoided with proper preview testing. Isn't this the primary purpose of having a test server open to the playerbase?

My proposal therefore is this: that any significant change to game mechanics be required to be uploaded to the test server for a minimum amount of time prior to its launch on the live server. If CCP is unable to load a change to the test server with sufficient time before its planned launch, then that launch must be delayed until such time that proper testing and feedback can be completed.

I will leave the exact minimum test duration up for discussion. I'd personally recommend two weeks as an absolute bare minimum, although I would like to see more. Minor tweaks or adjustments to existing systems can probably be allowed without this requirement, but anything that changes the way ships or modules are or can be used should meet this minimum.

Please keep in mind that this is not specifically about the RML situation, but something I believe to be important and valuable to any future changes. The RML discussion has merely pointed out the need for sufficient community testing as a part of the development process.

Agreed!

+1

-1

The test server isn't there for us to fully vet any features they wish to implement. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Furthermore, your stance is diminished by your focus on RLML's.

Did RLML's didn't undergo a "significant mechanics change" from the standpoint of how they function. Sure, their R.O.F. and reload timers were changed, but that doesn't constitute a major change in mechanics. This isn't a fundamental change to POS code that effects 80% of the player base... this was a STATs change on some very specific weapon systems. What do you expect to find with another 2 weeks of sisi play test where 99% of the forum whiners don't even bother to explore the changes in the first place!.

Time to test is a good thing, but realize that ideas are often kicked around before they reach our ears. Between Devs, with the CSM, through internal testing, etc. Sisi, and your individual testing, is pretty much the final stage of feedback before they get implemented, and while I appreciate the opportunity to bug explore myself (especially regarding new mechanics), I don't believe CCP should be obligated to give us a fully functional Sisi server for XXX days prior to release.

Wrong the test serve is there to test things out on, it was first made for CCP to test new ideas and items out on. Yes it's used by players now, but it's key that the people making the game test things coming into the game somehow before it hits the game. The test server is the place for this, it's also a good place to test modules, ships, etc for being over powered and under powered and any other issues within the game.

And again wrong, CCP might have made the game, but it's the players game. The first burn Jita proved that. Upset the players enough and they could crash the economy of EVE, CCP knows this. That is why they have the CSM, and also why they ask for players input about stuff. Without the players there is no EVE.

Things like rapids being completed worthless now and not being tested and being changed within a week or so before release is completely unacceptable. All new ships, modules and etc should be tested for at least a couple weeks, to see if they have any issues, and adjusted as needed. To just through something into a game as in depth as EVE is crazy. EVE has a fine line of balance it doesn't take much to bring that line off. And EVE also has a VERY out spoken and aggreesive player and fan base, it wouldn't be wise to upset them. If CCP wants EVE to grow, and to keep the player base it has, it needs to do well thought out testing before fixing items, before new items are brought in and it needs to remember EVE is special because it isn't like other games.

And yes there are many issues with rapids now, 40secs reload in PvP is worthless for one, and won't be hard to counter at all. Once you know your enemy is using a weapon system that takes 40secs to reaload, just find away to not take a whole lot of damage and when they reload you win. Rapids were OP before, but now they are truely broken, and need to be looked at again, a long with some oher missiles too. The other thing is 40secs reload for a weapon system is a slippery slope, if they did it with rapids what else might they do it with? I think ASBs 1 minute reload is odd, and should be looked at again. These just seem to be easy and fast fixes, instead of well thoughtout and REAL fixes like old CCP would have done. I hope they get back to that soon, but who knows. Adding reload time aren't fixes, it's an easy way out. And if you disagree with rapdis being worthless, come find me and we can play, it should be a good time haha.

Let me use a real life example for you. I rent an apartment and recently the new management company said they are removing the indoor pool, adding an outdoor one in the spring, and revamping the clubhouse/office. Many people were pissed about that. Those people believe they are/were entitled to the indoor pool being that they pay rent. However, they pay rent to use the apartment and amenities, the management company owns the facility and has the right to do whatever they want to it so long as it doesn't violate the existing contact the renter agreed to.

Personally I like the changes they are making, a Virtual golf center with 500 18 hole courses (so good-bye Eve) among other things, and will stay while other people clearly don't like the changed to the pool (specifically that feature) but there is no legal obligation in the contact that says the pool cannot be changed or anything of the sorts. The Company did specify that I could, if i wanted to, end my contact early with a heavily reduced fee due to the changes (1.5 months rent as specified in my contact for early termination), many people have already opted to take this and end their lease.

If you do think you are entitled to anything in Eve or by CCP then you are horribly wrong for thinking that and you have the right to walk away at anytime. CCP Being a company obviously wants to give out a quality product for business, but it's THEIR game. They CAN listen to people but DON'T have to. If you want to start another burn Jita then go ahead over one module which needed to be changed. Since they changed it, finding the new use for it to be most effective is what you should be doing.

I disagree. When you change a weapon system like this, it has the potential to render it either completely useless, totally overpowered, or somewhere in between. The more players who can test and try it out, the more data CCP will have available to determine where on that scale this change will fall. The test server may not provide the same volume of data as the live server, but it is definitely more data than they are getting internally.

More data before release is always a good thing. After release, a lot more data will be available, but there is a lot less motivation for follow up and improvement. Once the release deadline has been met, people move on to the next project, and few features get the post release evaluation that they deserve. Plust, there is always the potential for catasrophic results and the ensuing fallout. As such, it is far better to do all that is reasonable to improve the features prior to release. To do otherwise is irresponsible.