Serious Question about Testing

[DAZ0273]

@Rhipf

@DAZ0273

Likewise, Line chats could easily be used to spread details among players despite any NDA - half of the stuff about this game goes on behind closed doors.

Admittedly I am not a lawyer but I don’t think using Line would absolve you of your restrictions under an NDA. Sure you could go on Line and disclose specifics of an upcoming update but you could do this via multiple avenues. You would still be liable for breaking the NDA.

I agree it would not absolve you but it would be quite easy to cover up.

[Warbringa]

@The rockett

So I know in the Game Board thread there was a ton of back and forth between my guy @The_Boogie and some others. This is the spot to talk about this. Here is the deal and what we know.

Fact: We know that the forum Mods get a 5* cover every month for running this site.
If this is the case, why cannot we have some players as a “players council”. This has been asked for years and years to the point that we were very close at getting this. Then for whatever reason it was pulled. Things like this new board could have been given to a handful of players that wound sign a non disclosure agreement, which I personally already have for my job, to test it. The ground work and “payment” is already set in place with the forum mod. It is just sad that this Dev team doesn’t reach out to some players here that have been around for a long time and have a deep understanding of the game to let us help them. All we want is this game to be successful and keep going.

Not going to happen for so many reasons.

They could however easily do UI beta testing with non-MPQ players to test out major UI changes like this last one. It is simply a match 3 game and the UI changes should have been beta tested for their visual impact since it is a very important factor for all players. I don’t expect them to beta test new characters but UI changes like this should have been thoroughly beta-tested with a group of people who have no direct interest in the game.

[entrailbucket]

What people are really asking for is not for generic “players” to provide feedback, but specifically for them to provide direct feedback/veto changes personally.

What if they don’t care about the opinions of veteran players because they have no reason to care? They know that no matter what they do, the veterans will never leave, and veterans generally dislike any change (especially a change that hurts them at the expense of newer players).

It’s far more likely that if they did something like this they would focus on newer players, since there are significantly more of them and there is a chance they might leave. You might not like what those players would decide. For example, I bet the screen dimming thing was a response to new players not knowing whose turn it was.

[ammenell]

@Akoni

I have never seen a serious thread take a 180 so fast. I’m dying laughing over here.

right? you just KNOW a thread about d3 and testing would be gold.

you guys are awesome, keep it coming!

[Phumade]

@entrailbucket

You might not like what those players would decide. For example, I bet the screen dimming thing was a response to new players not knowing whose turn it was.

I thought the exact same thing. Then I got furious when I saw how slow the Ai side is in complete it’s turn. The dimming tells me exactly how much of my clears are wasted waiting for the AI to give back control

[KGB]

@Phumade

@entrailbucket

You might not like what those players would decide. For example, I bet the screen dimming thing was a response to new players not knowing whose turn it was.

I thought the exact same thing. Then I got furious when I saw how slow the Ai side is in complete it’s turn. The dimming tells me exactly how much of my clears are wasted waiting for the AI to give back control

This may now be a deliberate set amount of time to fix the speed up hack. There hasn’t been an official word (and there may never be) but that could be the reason.

KGB

[HoundofShadow]

It’s funny how those players who were up in arms about the exploit didn’t bring this up. The exploit was closed immediately when this change went live.

Timeline:

1. Cases of exploit: as early as September 2020
2. Dev’s mention about UI change: late last year, probably October 2020.

That could explain why they mentioned they it will take them some time to close the exploit and why they are reluctant to roll back the change. If they roll back the change, the exploit could be back again. It’s a case of pick your poison.