Devs, do you have a QA dept, for testing

[nosscar 18]

Nerf the Alpha wolfs, surely if you had a QA department, that tested the games as a normal player would play it, they would have seen how insanely OP Alphas are, esp the wolves.

I play on an unofficial server, with 2x harvesting and 2x taming being the only changes. And thank god for the 2x taming, as this is really needed with the insane amount of tames lost to Alphas.

 

Yesterday i took my elephant out of the base walls to farm wood, he was protected and followed by 2 bears, 7 wolves, all tames are 40+ and 50+, suddenly a 252 Alpha wolf appeared from no where, the wolves and bears attacked, and all were slaughtered in seconds, i tried to get the elephant away, but no chance, that was killed too, along with my character.

If the game will not allow you to use tames even with what i considered reasonable protection, then what is the point of the whole taming mechanic.

 

I get that Alphas are tougher and better than normal tames, but come on, 1 Alpha wolf, v  1 Elephant, 2 bears and 7 wolves, all highish levels considering 30 max wild level.

I love this game, and i can see where it could be going, but you have asked us to help shape the game, and i have seen lots of posts on these forums asking you to nerf Alphas, please listen, and use your testers to help balance the wild animals properly.

Just my opinion on this topic, hope you take the feedback seriously.

[Coggage 239]

We ARE the QA Department, because it's EA and we knew that when we bought the game.  Why have 10 people do QA when they can have 40k+ testers? It makes sense.

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

48 minutes ago, Coggage said:

We ARE the QA Department, because it's EA and we knew that when we bought the game.  Why have 10 people do QA when they can have 40k+ testers? It makes sense.

From a business perspective it does not make sense. You can go on about EA all you want, but the reality is it is everyone's first impression of the game, and as the old saying goes, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Given that the business model for MMO's is to generate steady revenue over time, usually via cash shop purchases, retention of player base is far more important long term than initial game purchases. This means that when players try EA, get frustrated enough with the brokenness to quit and never come back, telling all their friends what a horrible game it is and never buy it, Atlas's long term success is diminished. Having an actual functional effective QA dept (they claim to have one, but if they do anything meaningful I see scant evidence of it) limits how much frustration EA players experience with the game by at least catching super obvious stuff before it goes live. The horrible game breaking bug which caused whole bases to disappear due to a patch that appeared to have no testing done before release at all during Extinction's first live weekend would be exhibit A for how lack of QA can hurt you.

Obviously Extinction was a released game and not Atlas's EA, but it is illustrative of the attitude this organization takes towards QA, how poor a job they do of it, and how that can hurt Atlas the same way it hurt the Extinction DLC. They got away with it with the DLC because cash in hand from initial purchases was almost the only thing that mattered. MMO economics will be much less forgiving of such an approach with Atlas imo. Failing to spend for, or demand, effective QA is penny wise and pound foolish.

Edited January 18, 2019 by boomervoncannon

[Percieval 1,067]

1 minute ago, boomervoncannon said:

From a business perspective it does not make sense. You can go on about EA all you want, but the reality is it is everyone's first impression of the game, and as the old saying goes, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. Given that the business model for MMO's is to generate steady revenue over time, usually via cash shop purchases, retention of player base is far more important long term than initial game purchases. This means that when players try EA, get frustrated enough with the brokenness to quit and never come back, telling all their friends what a horrible game it is and never buy it, Atlas's long term success is diminished. Having an actual functional effective QA dept (they claim to have one, but if they do anything meaningful I see scant evidence of it) limits how much frustration EA players experience with the game by at least catching super obvious stuff before it goes live. The horrible game breaking bug which caused whole bases to disappear due to a patch that appeared to have no testing done before release at all during Extinction's first live weekend would be exhibit A for how lack of QA can hurt you.

Obviously Extinction was a released game and not Atlas's EA, but it is illustrative of the attitude this organization takes towards QA, how poor a job they do of it, and how that can hurt Atlas the same way it hurt the Extinction DLC. They got away with it with the DLC because cash in hand from initial purchases was almost the only thing that mattered. MMO economics will be much less forgiving of such an approach with Atlas imo.

True, but I don’t think the players hate this model, that we’re the testers - Rather the respone, my god it’s bad. 

[nosscar 18]

Yes i realise it is EA, and we are the testers, but surely, (like the post above states) you would think they would have ironed out the simple things like balancing, as this negatively impacts the game and how it is viewed and reviewed in it's early stages of development.

I can imagine a lot of frustrated players turning away from the game due to this and never coming back.

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

1 minute ago, Percieval said:

True, but I don’t think the players hate this model, that we’re the testers - Rather the respone, my god it’s bad. 

I think whether the EA model is appropriate for a company like WildShot™, sititng on a pile of cash from Ark's 3 year success, is questionable. The best arguement for the use of EA is that allows small independant companies who are cash strapped and lack the resources otherwise, to get their game out there to the public and have a chance to have it seen, played and get it through the development cycle without having to have massive cash resources to fund development for literally years before generating dollar one. This is a win win because gamers get the chance for more innovative outside the box studios to offer them games that aren't the same old Company of Battlefront WOW Overwatch Creed clones.

GrapeCard™ fit this profile....3 years ago. They no longer do. At this point one could argue that a company which has significant resources but still announces a planned 2 year EA cycle to get free development testing is abusing the model.  But hey, there's no law against it, and as long as steam allows it, they'd be foolish not to right? With regards to whether the players hate this model, you and I both know that the demographics for gaming skews younger, and many players are unaware that the testing they plunk down cold hard cash to do used to be called free beta (sometimes open, sometimes closed, but always free). Make them aware of this on a larger scale and see how enthusiastic they become.

The bottom line is that game studios love the EA model because so far for them it has only upside. To my knowledge the overwhelmingly bad press Atlas's EA launch received was the first high profile example of a significant negative to a developer, and IMO it was due to Wildshot™ rushing Atlas into EA too early, likely to capture as much holiday season spending revenue as possible. Only time will tell if Atlas's bad experience gives the industry pause and encourages a more balanced approach to the use of EA.

[Coggage 239]

I can't deny some things they implemented are a little "out there" and I am surprised they thought some game mechanics were "game-ready", but a test with thousands of people is better than a test with a small department in the long run. For a start off the exploiters can very, very quickly show what is broken. 

Edited January 18, 2019 by Coggage

[Tezcatlipoca 76]

The biggest problem with this thing is that the developers are not talking to their community. For a week I'm waiting for new information about future updates in the patch notes. Why does not anyone say that he is investigating the problem?

[boomervoncannon 1,541]

9 minutes ago, Coggage said:

I can't deny some things they implemented are a little "out there" and I am surprised they thought some game mechanics were "game-ready", but a test with thousands of people is better than a test with a small department in the long run. For a start off the exploiters are very, very quickly show what is broken. 

True, but the merits of this, and you've stated them clearly, should ideally be weighed against that never getting a second chance to make a first impression thing. How many of those head scratchingly out there mechanics drove away players who with more thorough in house testing for a few more months, might well have wound up becoming long term customers when their EA experience wasn't so rough?

7 minutes ago, Tezcatlipoca said:

The biggest problem with this thing is that the developers are not talking to their community. For a week I'm waiting for new information about future updates in the patch notes. Why does not anyone say that he is investigating the problem?

Jat started a blog style post where he discusses just released patches and upcoming plans both less formally. You should have a look at it, to some degree it's the sort of thing you seem to be requesting in terms of communication. Beyond that, different companies and development teams vary wildly in the quality and scope of their communication with their playerbase. This organization's track record in that regard could charitably be described as....poor.

[Shintai 117]

Funny part is bigger Alphas can only be countered using the idiotic OPed flame arrows. But then they also die in like 3-4 hits.

Guess how you survive Golden Ruins islands, naked with flame arrows...

[Percieval 1,067]

18 minutes ago, Shintai said:

Funny part is bigger Alphas can only be countered using the idiotic OPed flame arrows. But then they also die in like 3-4 hits.

Guess how you survive Golden Ruins islands, naked with flame arrows...

I have asked this question on the top of the list for tonight, if they will nerf alpha’s. 

[Caldrin 55]

Their qa guys prob to testing for major changes but we are the testers for balance issues like animals and so on.. because it needs to be tested on a large scale. 

[Jean Lafitte 451]

1 hour ago, boomervoncannon said:

and as the old saying goes, you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Now that first impressions have been bored into the player's skull, I believe the proper marketing axiom for this company to ponder would be, "A happy customer will tell a friend. An angry customer will tell 10 friends." If this company does have a QA department then I pity those who work there because obviously one of two things are happening: either they are not doing their jobs and are destined to be unemployed in the near future or, more likely as this company is clearly demonstrating their capacity for, they are doing their jobs but like those of us in the masochism department, are being ignored.

I too asked this same question (during one of my more aggravating gaming episodes as indicated by the tone of the question) for the live stream.  We shall see if they even bother to answer it.

 

[Ellentro 107]

Wildcard ships patches live as soon as the code compiles. They always have, they always will. They don't have a QA or CS department. It's been that way for four years, and it isn't changing anytime soon. Regardless of whether it's EA or release. Ark or Atlas. Expect everything they add in every patch to be horrifically and game-endingly broke. You will be correct more often then not.