Playtesters?

[bo]

Yo Bleck help! I got tired waiting for the German AI to attack me the Russians so I declared war on Germany in Sept 1941 to see what would happen, Oh brother what are your playtesters doing with this game? I got a pop up that said the Soviet union was staggered by the initial attack of the Germans, WHAT ATTACK? The Germans did not attack the Russians. I know you Wastelands people get offended when someone points out a major flaw to you and you take it to heart that we dared bring something up. This is not a major problem to the game but it shows me that popup is a major blunder not by your programmers but your so called playtesters, this should have been caught with ease, if you can explain this to me without feeling offended I would appreciate it. I asked to be put on the playtesters list for the Pacific game and guess what I was ignored by your people the last time I looked at your oversea forums that I dont look at anymore. I just got to this point in the game but I am wondering if any of the other players saw this and just let it go as another mistake and no sense bringing it up. What else am I going to find as I go on, I put it in this forum so as not to start a brew haha in the main forum.

Bo

[cpdeyoung]

Perhaps it should say "Staggered by the initial contact with the superior German ability.", but the same penalty should apply. No matter who initiates the battle, the Red Army is going to find out pretty quickly who is the master of the battlefield.

At most this is small phrasing problem, but the penalty is correct.

Chuck

[gwgardner]

I agree with Bo on some of the events like this which are worded too specifically. When the game doesn't follow the historical sequence, such events are jarringly out of place.

It would be better to keep the event/penalty, but word it generically, such as "German preparedness and technical superiority comes as a shock to the Red Army." thus causing so and so effects.

There are several events that occur on the Eastern Front later in the war that are similar. For instance, when the Germans take Minsk (or is it Smolensk?), there's an event worded something like, "Army Group Center's advance was so swift that hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops were encircled, etc..." That's way too specific to an historic event. It should be worded more generally as, "the capture of Smolensk is a devastating loss for the Red Army" with associated results.

[cpdeyoung]

In general, no matter who declared war, you can be pretty sure the Germans would have attacked, or counter-attacked. It was not part of German doctrine to be passive. Even in the most desparate, out numbered, situations the Germans would go on the offensive. This bold taking of the initiative is one of the factors that leads to the severe penalty that the Red Army suffers under for the beginning of the war against the Germans. It would be quite a while before the Soviets, and, for that matter, all the forces who opposed the Germans would be able to meet them on the battlefield with some confidence.

Chuck

[Uxbridge]

I had almost forgotten about this event. Since I have now made changes that make it unnecessary, or even grossly un-balancing, I have to disable it. Could anybody tell me what event it is and if it is connected to any other events (like Russian recovery)?

[Mike Parker]

ORIGINAL: bo
I know you Wastelands people get offended when someone points out a major flaw to you and you take it to heart that we dared bring something up. This is not a major problem to the game but it shows me that popup is a major blunder not by your programmers but your so called playtesters, this should have been caught with ease, if you can explain this to me without feeling offended I would appreciate it.
Bo

Bo,

Wow I am not one to say we should sugar coat everything but man there is something to be said for tact. I haven't seen Wastlands being overly sensitive to criticism. There are alot of events that are misworded in the flavour text just like this one. Ya know what I emailed doomtrader with the event name, the country it happened to/for and a suggested change, and every one I sent to him got changed for 1.7 (not all changed to my exact wording but they all got fixed).

So if you get this event again, or if you wish to go dig around with an XML editor in the USSR event file, find the event, and suggest an alternate wording. Those are fairly easy changes for them to make, and they have been happy to do so, especially since English is a second language for Wastelands I am sure they appreciate the help from native language speakers!

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

ORIGINAL: bo
I know you Wastelands people get offended when someone points out a major flaw to you and you take it to heart that we dared bring something up. This is not a major problem to the game but it shows me that popup is a major blunder not by your programmers but your so called playtesters, this should have been caught with ease, if you can explain this to me without feeling offended I would appreciate it.
Bo

Bo,

Wow I am not one to say we should sugar coat everything but man there is something to be said for tact. I haven't seen Wastlands being overly sensitive to criticism. There are alot of events that are misworded in the flavour text just like this one. Ya know what I emailed doomtrader with the event name, the country it happened to/for and a suggested change, and every one I sent to him got changed for 1.7 (not all changed to my exact wording but they all got fixed).

So if you get this event again, or if you wish to go dig around with an XML editor in the USSR event file, find the event, and suggest an alternate wording. Those are fairly easy changes for them to make, and they have been happy to do so, especially since English is a second language for Wastelands I am sure they appreciate the help from native language speakers!

I was never noted for tact Mike, I dont hide my feelings and sometimes tact means telling the truth about something even if it ruffels some feathers. There are nice way to say things [tact] and there are other ways to say things [truth] but if you go back to Michael the Poles posts and some of the answers by Wastelands people to him it was very touchy, not defending Michael or Wasteland. One thing you brought up about a second language Mike, it is a minor problem but Americans say things that sometimes get misconstrued in translation, I try very hard [no tact] not to let that happen. I liked to be understood right or wrong.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I agree with Bo on some of the events like this which are worded too specifically. When the game doesn't follow the historical sequence, such events are jarringly out of place.

It would be better to keep the event/penalty, but word it generically, such as "German preparedness and technical superiority comes as a shock to the Red Army." thus causing so and so effects.

There are several events that occur on the Eastern Front later in the war that are similar. For instance, when the Germans take Minsk (or is it Smolensk?), there's an event worded something like, "Army Group Center's advance was so swift that hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops were encircled, etc..." That's way too specific to an historic event. It should be worded more generally as, "the capture of Smolensk is a devastating loss for the Red Army" with associated results.

Glad someone understands where I am coming from thank you GW, but then again maybe you should not agree with me might put you in a bad light.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

Perhaps it should say "Staggered by the initial contact with the superior German ability.", but the same penalty should apply. No matter who initiates the battle, the Red Army is going to find out pretty quickly who is the master of the battlefield.

At most this is small phrasing problem, but the penalty is correct.

Chuck

This has nothing to do with a phasing problem CP it has to do with a playtester missing a glaring error, I bet the house that a playtester never once attacked Germany first with Russia. I dont care about the penalty it has no bearing on the comment I made.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

I had almost forgotten about this event. Since I have now made changes that make it unnecessary, or even grossly un-balancing, I have to disable it. Could anybody tell me what event it is and if it is connected to any other events (like Russian recovery)?

First of all Uxbridge I have no idea what is coming in patch 1.7 and being no one is talking much about 1.7 I have to make comments on what I know, it took me a long boring time to get to July 1941, and by Sept. I could not handle German inactivity any more so I attacked Germany to see what would happen and I got that popup that sort of stunned me telling me how the initial German attack had stunned the Russians HUH!
My whole post was about the playtesters missing that one, which proves to me that they never once had Russia attack the Germans first in playtesting, we the players who pay good money for these games should not be the ones to find this out.

Bo

[vonRocko]

I also had high hopes for this game, but I'm going to put it in the "could have been great" file.[:(]

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: bo


My whole post was about the playtesters missing that one, which proves to me that they never once had Russia attack the Germans first in playtesting, we the players who pay good money for these games should not be the ones to find this out.

Bo

Now that is just silly, Bo. Cpdeyoung alone, not to mention others perhaps, played the game from multiple different angles. He would play one side for a while, then another, over the same period of time - doing that repeatedly, trying out many options.

While I agree with the part of your post that this particular event could be worded differently, you are totally wrong about the game being untested.

Anyway, take any game, put a human player on it, and you'll get lots of things happening that you never thought of as a playtester or developer. Look at a game like HOI2, which has been around for years now, and you still have people trying new things with it.

Finally, the event in question can easily be modded. If it's found to be wrongly worded or fires at the wrong time, then some modder will change it.

[carnifex]

Blaming testers for perceived bugs is not the right way to garner any support for your cause and betrays a certain lack of understanding of the software development process. Speaking as someone who runs a QA department for the digital media division of a major corporation, I can tell you from experience that just because an issue is present in the release version doesn't mean it wasn't reported. Repeatedly.

When the release date nears, development assets have to be prioritized to resolve the most pressing issues and hard decisions have to be made whether to "go live" with certain defects with the understanding that they will be fixed later.

As to the issue that prompted this post, while I agree that the wording of the event could be improved, I also agree with others in this thread that this penalty is a good thing. As a matter of fact, in my opinion the penalty is too low. It is my considered belief that Stalin would not have attacked Germany under almost any circumstance, not even if Hitler totally denuded the eastern frontier and sent his best generals and units to invade Madagascar. Stalin was praying the German attack would come in 1943 or later, when his forces would be better ready to receive the blow, and he certainly did not even consider offensive action, a fact borne out by the non-existence of any Soviet plans from that era to that effect.

Having the hindsight of history and games being by their nature open to "gamey" plays, I think it's unrealistic to prohibit any offensive action by the Soviets. Certainly Hitler didn't have that hindsight - if he knew 100% that Stalin wouldn't ever attack him, he would have been much more unrestrained in his strategy than he was. I think it comes down to a design decision as to how much a penalty the USSR should have to pay for attacking Germany, but I do believe it should be substantial enough to deter all but the most adventuresome Soviet player from considering such an attack.

[Bleck]

ORIGINAL: bo
Oh brother what are your playtesters doing with this game?

I'm not head programmer in Wastelands Interactive so all I know about playtesters is that they are doing great job detecting and reporting bugs, and I know it isn't easy. They have to test and check many, many things (that typical players are often not even aware of ) every turn.

ORIGINAL: bo
I know you Wastelands people get offended when someone points out a major flaw to you and you take it to heart that we dared bring something up.

I disagree. We are thankful if this was something we were not aware of, but we also try to explain that some things are not so easy to implement/fix because of engine (not designed by us) limitations.

ORIGINAL: bo
I asked to be put on the playtesters list for the Pacific game and guess what I was ignored by your people the last time I looked at your oversea forums that I dont look at anymore.

How can you be sure you was ignored? [:)]

ORIGINAL: bo
What else am I going to find as I go on, I put it in this forum so as not to start a brew haha in the main forum.

Good, thats why this forum (tech support) is here [8|]

[bo]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

ORIGINAL: bo


My whole post was about the playtesters missing that one, which proves to me that they never once had Russia attack the Germans first in playtesting, we the players who pay good money for these games should not be the ones to find this out.

Bo

Now that is just silly, Bo. Cpdeyoung alone, not to mention others perhaps, played the game from multiple different angles. He would play one side for a while, then another, over the same period of time - doing that repeatedly, trying out many options.

While I agree with the part of your post that this particular event could be worded differently, you are totally wrong about the game being untested.

Anyway, take any game, put a human player on it, and you'll get lots of things happening that you never thought of as a playtester or developer. Look at a game like HOI2, which has been around for years now, and you still have people trying new things with it.

Finally, the event in question can easily be modded. If it's found to be wrongly worded or fires at the wrong time, then some modder will change it.

Whew scared me there GW thought you agreed with me, I would rather stand alone on something that annoys me then cave in to bulldunk. If you were the playtester here and you attacked Germany and you saw that popup would you have left it there or corrected it. And please gentlemen give me a break will you I know about the penalty, and the popup has nothing to do with the penalty, easily modded maybe for you but not for idiots like me. And I know I am being silly GW must be because I listen to FOX news, no spin with me!

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Bleck

ORIGINAL: bo
Oh brother what are your playtesters doing with this game?

I'm not head programmer in Wastelands Interactive so all I know about playtesters is that they are doing great job detecting and reporting bugs, and I know it isn't easy. They have to test and check many, many things (that typical players are often not even aware of ) every turn.

ORIGINAL: bo
I know you Wastelands people get offended when someone points out a major flaw to you and you take it to heart that we dared bring something up.

I disagree. We are thankful if this was something we were not aware of, but we also try to explain that some things are not so easy to implement/fix because of engine (not designed by us) limitations.

ORIGINAL: bo
I asked to be put on the playtesters list for the Pacific game and guess what I was ignored by your people the last time I looked at your oversea forums that I dont look at anymore.

How can you be sure you was ignored? [:)]

ORIGINAL: bo
What else am I going to find as I go on, I put it in this forum so as not to start a brew haha in the main forum.

Good, thats why this forum (tech support) is here [8|]

Did you notice my first two words of the post was YO BLECK because I have learned to respect your opinion more than anyone elses here and I dont kiss anybodies butt trust me on that. Sometimes my opinions and statements are a little strong, its usually because I want to get something out of my craw thats annoying me. Perhaps there are other ways to do this, I am not making excuses for my behavior because I believe my underlying problem about great war games is there are none, this is a good game but not great and I keep looking for that one great game and I am starting to realize it aint gonna happen mainly because of the incompetent AI's in all games not just this one, I wasn't any nicer to battlefronts's SC series which in my opinion the playtesters missed a lot of things, I do apoligize for some statements I just cant help it when people dont do their job to the fullest. The last time I checked about my request to playtest no one even answered me for 3 weeks and then I didnt go back anymore.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

Blaming testers for perceived bugs is not the right way to garner any support for your cause and betrays a certain lack of understanding of the software development process. Speaking as someone who runs a QA department for the digital media division of a major corporation, I can tell you from experience that just because an issue is present in the release version doesn't mean it wasn't reported. Repeatedly.

When the release date nears, development assets have to be prioritized to resolve the most pressing issues and hard decisions have to be made whether to "go live" with certain defects with the understanding that they will be fixed later.

As to the issue that prompted this post, while I agree that the wording of the event could be improved, I also agree with others in this thread that this penalty is a good thing. As a matter of fact, in my opinion the penalty is too low. It is my considered belief that Stalin would not have attacked Germany under almost any circumstance, not even if Hitler totally denuded the eastern frontier and sent his best generals and units to invade Madagascar. Stalin was praying the German attack would come in 1943 or later, when his forces would be better ready to receive the blow, and he certainly did not even consider offensive action, a fact borne out by the non-existence of any Soviet plans from that era to that effect.

Having the hindsight of history and games being by their nature open to "gamey" plays, I think it's unrealistic to prohibit any offensive action by the Soviets. Certainly Hitler didn't have that hindsight - if he knew 100% that Stalin wouldn't ever attack him, he would have been much more unrestrained in his strategy than he was. I think it comes down to a design decision as to how much a penalty the USSR should have to pay for attacking Germany, but I do believe it should be substantial enough to deter all but the most adventuresome Soviet player from considering such an attack.

Hi carnifex, well said could not agree more with the above statement after I had read your reply several times, I went back to my post to make sure I wasnt totally crazy and wanted to see what several posters said about the penalty, I NEVER disagreed with the penalty this has nothing to do with the penalty not even questioning the penalty, I just question why playtesters dont find things that players who purchased these game find in the first hour. This is not just Wasteland this is in all companies, one thing I mentioned briefly and have let it go is my game crashes to desktop for no reason at least 3 to 4 times an hour so thank god for game save.

Bo

[Arctic Blast]

Have you ever actually play tested a game, bo? Especially a game with a lot of depth and a lot of options? 6-10 play testers are never, ever going to find all the issues. It just isn't going to happen. Several thousand purchasers are a lot more likely to find all the problems that slipped through the cracks simply because there are more of them. They are also more likely to find technical issues because there are more of them with more varied computer setups with more varied software setups. Play testers do what they do on a voluntary basis for the most part in their spare time. They try to find whatever they can. However, they often have to start from scratch every single time a new Beta build is launched...sorry, but that can actually become somewhat of a grind after awhile. Still, they continue to try and find as much as they can.

Couple that with the simple fact that a game can't stay in Beta status forever and eventually has to be released so the developer can start to make some actual money back on their investment (an investment that is costing them every day it's in Beta), and not everything is going to be found. Never has been and never will be the case that testing is some foolproof way to find every flaw...it's just too complicated for that to even approach being realistic.

[willgamer]

I haven't jumped into this fray because I perceive I'm already crossways with Wastelands to the extent they don't respond to any of my recent suggestions for User Interface upgrades.

Nevertheless, FWIW (not much, I know), while I agree with your comments Bo, I really do give Wastelands a pass as a small developer with limited resources.

Unfortunately, for reasons that include company size, temperament and not native English speakers, they are weak communicators.

Company size seems to dictate that only a limited amount of project time is available for ToW. I believe that reality is there will be only one more major patch (1.7) and, according to Wastelands, the feature list for that patch is already closed. Don't think we're going to get a naval game! Reality is, to stay in business, they must move on to the the Pacific game.

Wastelands does exhibit thin skinned behavior. They seem to favor (fairly or unfairly, just say'in) owners of RtV and playtesters over people who merely purchased ToW. Wastelands also seems to be irritated by certain posters where the obvious response would seem to be "let's agree to disagree and move on". Which leads me to my last point-

To this native English speaker, many of Wastelands responses seem overly vague and indirect. I would simply have preferred a more direct approach. My best guess, trying to read between the lines, is that the plan all along was for two patches for ToW. One to gather user feedback on bugs and add an already planned enhancement to the air game and a last bug patch. This could be completely wrong, but I would speculate that the feature list, including the enhanced air game, was mostly frozen before the game was ever released. If not, Wastelands has never communicated otherwise.

I only wish I hadn't allowed myself to believe that Wastelands was open to game changes beyond their ability to make.

I'm still looking forward to the Pacific game and wish Wastelands all the best for future success. [:)]

[bo]

ORIGINAL: willgamer

I haven't jumped into this fray because I perceive I'm already crossways with Wastelands to the extent they don't respond to any of my recent suggestions for User Interface upgrades.

Nevertheless, FWIW (not much, I know), while I agree with your comments Bo, I really do give Wastelands a pass as a small developer with limited resources.

Unfortunately, for reasons that include company size, temperament and not native English speakers, they are weak communicators.

Company size seems to dictate that only a limited amount of project time is available for ToW. I believe that reality is there will be only one more major patch (1.7) and, according to Wastelands, the feature list for that patch is already closed. Don't think we're going to get a naval game! Reality is, to stay in business, they must move on to the the Pacific game.

Wastelands does exhibit thin skinned behavior. They seem to favor (fairly or unfairly, just say'in) owners of RtV and playtesters over people who merely purchased ToW. Wastelands also seems to be irritated by certain posters where the obvious response would seem to be "let's agree to disagree and move on". Which leads me to my last point-

To this native English speaker, many of Wastelands responses seem overly vague and indirect. I would simply have preferred a more direct approach. My best guess, trying to read between the lines, is that the plan all along was for two patches for ToW. One to gather user feedback on bugs and add an already planned enhancement to the air game and a last bug patch. This could be completely wrong, but I would speculate that the feature list, including the enhanced air game, was mostly frozen before the game was ever released. If not, Wastelands has never communicated otherwise.

I only wish I hadn't allowed myself to believe that Wastelands was open to game changes beyond their ability to make.

I'm still looking forward to the Pacific game and wish Wastelands all the best for future success. [:)]

Now that makes a lot of sense to me what you are saying about communications and also your other comments not because you agree with me on some things but you speak from the heart and you dont have an agenda of placating people just to appear nicey nicey. If I am totally wrong to take playtesters and Wasteland to task tell me so but please give a good reason where I am wrong [not referring to you Willgamer]

Bo