Improve quality control for pay to play

I think Gold has a point in that if they are asking us to start paying for the game there needs to be some more quality control focus on the patch releases.

There's been a number of changes made in a patch that had to either be reverted or changed again completely in a later patch (for instance the changes to TP degredation between encounters) because they just didn't work or didn't work as intended. Now while I don't mind this while the game is free, because as frustrating as it can be, after my initial purchase of the CE I haven't paid to play yet. So I don't have a problem with SE using the live servers for beta testing. But if I'm paying a monthly subscription fee I'd expect a higher quality of product, not something that requires tweaking just months after it's release to be pushed to the servers. This can only be taking away from time that could be used in the development and more indepth quality control of the next patch.

A clear example of this lack of quality control is the recent release of the Ifrit battle. So much so they are having players submit tracer reports because they were unable to / didn't think to / couldn't be bothered to test this themselves. If the game was never intended for launch outside of Japan I can understand why this may not have come up at the play testing for the content. But it's an international game, latency on combat mechanics and how it effects players from other countries should be basic, first line testing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gold_Lion

So far I feel there isn't enough play testing of the content SE is releasing which I think becomes a valid point as the game is going pay to play.

With 1.18 archers were the favored dps while pugs and lancers weren't really feasible when attacking the two bosses in the darkhold dungeon. This tore Linkshells apart as parties were turning down people who only ranked those classes; whats worse SE didnt do anything about it for 2 months.

With 1.19 I'm surprised SE lacked the foresight to see the appalling block-rate on Gladiator and the dps of the archer in the Ifrit instance. With the animation locks and dubious hit boxes of Ifrits weaponskills players have to rely on cherry picking the best skills from all the classes (Second wind 2, cure III, Sentinel) to work around the fight. While it is obviously possible to do the fight without these skills it definitely makes it easier. At the end of the day people shouldn't have to rank up around 5 classes for the ifrit fight-its not justified.

I face palmed when I read that only one person was working on the 2 job dungeons for 1.21 (zam interview question 3-http://ffxiv.zam.com/story.html?story=28045).
This is the content that is supposed to push party play and the new job mechanics to the limit. Just like how darkhold to a degree was content to demonstrate the new auto attack/battle revisions. I wonder if darkhold was tested by one guy multiboxing and auto following on the tank.

I wouldnt be surprised if about 10 ppl were working on the current client while the rest of the dev team is working on version 2.0, if I were yoshi I would probably do the same thing although now we will be paying for this and the dev team doesnt seem to battle adjustments until the next major patch.

Just one person working on the job dungeons..><. Ifrit and darkhold were tested with 8 ppl playing obviously and they still couldnt pick up on the balance issues which arose in each patch during playtesting really bothers me... feel free to share your comments/critics.

---

people complained about guard sooo they get what they wanted, anyone could have told you if you guard without taking any action, or stamina loss, you will probably lose a lot of control. I definitely think its a problem, but the real problem is even thinking that gladiator should not in some way be manually controlling its blocking ability *whether via stance, or skill, or basic skill.

as far as archer, i say meh to all that, archer is still prefered in darkhold, the mechanics of the ifrit fight specifically, make it so that archers damage reduction for being at range isnt the end all. But this is just one fight. Ifrit has a specific overall bias in terms of what type of fight he represents, which is a burn down avoid his big attacks style, without giving a ranged attacker a very clear and obvious advantage at it.

Ifrit is one fight, archer isnt going to be the DPS king anymore, and it really shouldnt be, its advantage is in being at range and avoiding dmg. Ifrit lowers this advantage by making every one move a bit more often, and the fact that burning him down is a good strat.
add to that, archer is gearing up to play a support/dps role. i dont think they will be ignored at all in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gold_Lion

So far I feel there isn't enough play testing of the content SE is releasing which I think becomes a valid point as the game is going pay to play.

---

I stopped reading after this. Same shit, in a dozen topics. I can't wait until you non-players can no longer access the forum.

What if all those changes was what was intended? what if they WANTED to make ARC weaker and lower the block rate? Just because you do not like it does not mean its broken.

I of course am not saying it is correct but what im saying is just because you hate it does not mean its broken. This is something players need to understand.

I would have to agree with the underlying point of the OP in that the game needs better quality control, but I do not agree with his argument.

There are a lot of things that slip through the cracks that are either a product of:

A) not enough playtesting, or
B) rushed release

Of course, I would never complain about this when the game is free, but when they start charging, they need to be able to provide a service competitive with other pay to play games. I recently reactivated another MMORPG subscription and let me tell you, I don't think Square knows exactly what they are up against. Either that, or they are vastly underestimating their competition. Pretty graphics will only carry a title so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nasomi

I stopped reading after this. Same shit, in a dozen topics. I can't wait until you non-players can no longer access the forum.

---

Oh yes, how horrible. A poster wants the quality of the product he's about to start paying for tested more. Woe is me. That is such an unreasonable request that he surely must be a troll. They should make another forum section called, "Fanboy circle jerk" so posters like you don't have their delicate sensibilities hurt when someone makes a suggestion or criticizes the game.

Quote:

---

when they start charging, they need to be able to provide a service competitive with other pay to play games.

---

Their service isn't even competitive with other free to play games, yet the playerbase is in the tens of thousands.

Maybe they need to do that if they want to make the game profitable in the long run, but that's not even the point of the current subscription schedule. It's there to cover some costs, and that it will do.

That said, right now they don't need to provide competitive service to fulfill their goals pre-2.0. The game attracts certain type of consumer regardless.

Quote:

---

That is such an unreasonable request

---

It is.

Being unable to consider the scope of what is being done to the game, and basing expectations on that is what makes it so. If they were to add a quest and said quest was bugged, that would require more play testing. If they were to rehaul all the algorithms that make the game function all at once, and one detail got released without proper balancing, bitching about it is being entirely unreasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betelgeuzah

It is.

Being unable to consider the scope of what is being done to the game, and basing expectations on that is what makes it so. If they were to add a quest and said quest was bugged, that would require more play testing. If they were to rehaul all the algorithms that make the game function all at once, and one detail got released without proper balancing, bitching about it is being entirely unreasonable.

---

The scope of what they're trying to do is none of my concern. If I pay them money, I have certain expectations on the quality of the content they release. Isn't that how consumerism works? I pay you 20 dollars for cookies. You give me sugar, eggs, and flour mixed together in a bowl. I'm not going to pat you on the head and tell you it's okay because I know it's hard to make good cookies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blarp

The scope of what they're trying to do is none of my concern. If I pay them money, I have certain expectations on the quality of the content they release.

---

Consumers can also have too high expectations. If you aren't taking the scope into consideration, it sure is easy for that to happen.

The fact is that with this scale of changes you wouldn't be paying for cookies, you would be paying for a smorgasbord full of food from all over the globe. If the lobster ends up a bit too salty and your whole evening is ruined because of it, that's the case of expectations being held way too high. If only perfection is acceptable it is the consumer's fault, not the company's if it isn't met.

If this was about a small alteration of an existing mechanic and it was released buggy or unplayable, it is a whole different case and if you can not see the difference between that and rehauling the entire metagame you truly are hopeless.

In this field of work, the standards are lower than what SE has demonstrated with 1.18 and 1.19. Patches are released full of bugs, yet it is still acceptable as long as the content in it is substantial enough. It can't get really more substantial than changing the metagame completely, from algorithms to economy.

And even the smorgasbord comparison was a vast understatement. The workload is more akin to preparing all the food for the wedding of the king of Monaco, except much more delicate.