But you see Cryptic doesn't care about existing players and their experience. All they are trying to do now is replace the playerbase with new delta recruits - I mean new Wallets.
True and as I said, I don't believe that new content creation should cease. The "we'll look at it when we have time" attitude toward serious bug fixing isn't quite working either, is it?
Honestly... define "serious"?
I wouldn't consider the boff reset bug to be serious. The bug with Treasure Trading station? that's serious. The glitches that have caused crashes whenever certain abilities were used? those were serious....
Content is for the customer's sake, bug fixes are for the customer's sake, balance changes are for the customer's sake.
The customers of STO decide which of these is what they are most interested in. There isn't a public election for it, however. It's a vote with the wallet. If the bugs are so terrible that the content doesn't sell, it's time to focus on those bugs, but if new content is still selling well, then more of that kind is the right approach. Not simply because of greed, but because that is what the customer wants, as evidenced by him spending money.
If you think the game is too buggy, stop giving Cryptic money. If enough people agree and do the same, Cryptic has to adjust its priorities. But if you remain a minority, then tough luck - bugs will not get a higher priority. Most customers aren't bothered by them enough.
I've started to wonder if Cryptic actually has the means to know what customers want. There is no direct way to track the flow of money to either content or bug fixes. They can track purchases on the C-Store (including purchases of master keys) and transactions on the dilithium exchange. They can look at queue numbers and bug counts and try to relate those metrics to Zen purchases, but I don't think they have any way to establish a direct causal relationship. I think any inferences they make would be weak at best.
Maybe, we've got it all wrong. Cryptic doesn't prioritize content over bug fixes, or the other way around. They prioritize salable digital goods over both. After all, Cryptic sells neither content nor bug fixes. Both of those are expenses: content is an advertising expense, and bug fixes are a maintenance expense. They can measure their sales and their costs, but they have no way of knowing how much those costs contribute to sales, so they put most of their efforts into salable goods, because the effects are easier to measure.
I wouldn't consider the boff reset bug to be serious. The bug with Treasure Trading station? that's serious. The glitches that have caused crashes whenever certain abilities were used? those were serious....
Or maybe you would categorize them as "critical"?
I think valoreah was talking about "serious bug fixing", not serious bugs. But I would say that the boff reset bug was serious. I would roughly categorize bugs as follows:
critical: Server crashes. Any of the following problems if it affects 10% or more of the population: unable to log in, lag, client crashes, graphics glitches affecting 10% or more the screen.
major: Bugs in the game mechanics (includes not only combat mechanics, but also other systems like map transitions, the doff system, the Exchange, and mail). Unable to complete a mission. Unable to collect a reward.
minor: Typos. Art errors affecting less than 10% of the screen. Improperly drawn UI elements if it affects less than 10% of the screen and has a clear workaround.
The examples are not meant to be all-inclusive, but to give a rough idea of how I would prioritize bugs. Of course, that brings up another point: How many minor bugs equal one major bug? How many major bugs equal one critical bug? If you fix bugs only according to the above priority, a lot of minor bugs would never get fixed. They would suffer from starvation. I think that's what happened to a lot of bugs in this game. You can't just ignore minor bugs; eventually they add up. I've suggested strategies before to deal with starvation, but I'm not sure anyone was paying attention.
aging: Increase a bug's priority with age. Eventually, a minor bug becomes important enough to be fixed.
grouping: Group multiple bugs together into a "wrapper bug" with higher priority. The idea is that once you have enough minor bugs, they collectively become important enough to fix.
According to today's Release notes, they are addressing the BOff instability/loadout bug in the Emergency Maintenance. If this turns out to be an actual fix, instead of another bungled attempt, it adds to my motivation to finally purchase a LTS. Additional bug fixes of this nature are the reason I have been holding out on the LTS, so yes, people do pay for bug fixes...
Expendables Fleet: Andrew - Bajoran Fed Engineer Ken'taura - Rom/Fed Scientist Gwyllim - Human Fed Delta Tac Savik - Vulcan Fed Temporal Sci Dahar Masters Fleet: Alphal'Fa - Alien KDF Engineer Qun'pau - Rom/KDF Engineer D'nesh - Orion KDF Scientist Ghen'khan - Liberated KDF Tac Welcome to StarBug Online - to boldly Bug where no bug has been before!
STO player since November 2013
Bugs that prevent you from playing the game properly, such as BOFF stations emptying and BOFF abilities being reset on every load screen.
Yes, I would consider those gamebreaking/critical.
The point is that the apparent cavalier/laissez faire attitude toward bug fixing needs to change. As I said "we'll look at it when we have time" isn't quite cutting it.
It's simple, some bugs take time to fix and you can't simply rush it.
And as people have been pointing out... it may be fixed now.
Can we get "stop new content development to fix the bugs!" whining added to the FCT list and closed when they pop up? It's long since old now, the whole premise has been debunked a thousand times (including in this thread) and those pushing it never learn.
I honestly think it's a form of doom trolling, and it needs to stop.
The customers of STO decide which of these is what they are most interested in. There isn't a public election for it, however. It's a vote with the wallet.
People have voted with their wallets. They have left this game, and spend their money on other games now.
The current paying playerbase is a sub-segment of a bigger crowd.
Not simply because of greed, but because that is what the customer wants, as evidenced by him spending money.
PvP was something the customers wanted. Unfortunately that type of customer has deserted the game by now, people remaining are the ones that couldn't care less about PvP or balance or similar stuff.
Cryptics business policity has directly fueled a catch 22 feedback loop, leaving them with a possibly diminished revenue stream, and diminished player base.
It's the perfect recipe for creating an underperforming gaming title. It's a shame really, if you think about this games potential.
Not sure of any other way of putting it. Don't quite think I've seen a thread where somebody's misread so much of what so many folks have said. Could take a moment to read what they're saying, how they're saying it, instead of doing the proverbial fingers in the ears lalalala-not-listening thing you're doing. Cause it's obvious you're not reading what you're replying to there...hrmmm.
Can we get "stop new content development to fix the bugs!" whining added to the FCT list and closed when they pop up? It's long since old now, the whole premise has been debunked a thousand times (including in this thread) and those pushing it never learn.
I honestly think it's a form of doom trolling, and it needs to stop.
I also think it's unrealistic to request that they stop all new development to fix bugs. People take things to extremes---in both directions. It's not either all content or all bug fixes. Both extremes are equally unproductive. It's also unproductive to bring up the same old excuses. Yes, some bugs are hard to reproduce. Yes, some bugs take a long time to figure out. But that describes only a small fraction of the bugs I see. The fact is that there are a lot of bugs in this game. Many of them are very old, and not all of them are hard to reproduce or hard to fix. Some of us think that Cryptic is taking the wrong approach to bugs. Two things stand out:
1. Bugs reported on Tribble make it live to Holodeck anyway.
2. Some bugs remain in the game for months or years.
Cryptic needs to work on catching bugs early and fixing them before they go live. But that means giving their staff time to do that. Their releases always seem rushed to me. Well, people make mistakes when they're rushed. What's the point of pushing things out so soon if they don't work? Just look at how long it took them to fix loadouts. Was it really worth pushing that system out so soon?
The other thing Cryptic needs to work on is how to give older bugs some priority. A bug shouldn't be allowed to linger indefinitely. All bugs should eventually be fixed. But "eventually" shouldn't mean "whenever we get to it". There should actually be a procedure that ensures every bug is eventually fixed. Obviously, some bugs take higher priority than others. The problem is that it's possible for low-priority bugs to be constantly pre-empted in favor of higher-priority ones. There is an analogous concept in OS: starvation. I made two suggestions on how to avoid starvation:
aging: Increase a bug's priority with age. Eventually, a low-priority bug becomes important enough to be fixed.
grouping: Group multiple bugs together into a "wrapper bug" with higher priority. The idea is that once you have enough low-priority bugs, they collectively become important enough to fix.
Why can't we have a serious conversation on how to improve the quality of the game for once, instead of revisiting the same pointless arguments and excuses?
They've talked about their heinous production schedules in the past - all the things they end up having to cut and hopefully look at later. Some things, I think they expect to have some time to fix it before folks start tripping all over it.
Which has led to an apparent cycle of it being around three months after a release that they'll start to get into the bug hunting.
The other thing Cryptic needs to work on is how to give older bugs some priority. A bug shouldn't be allowed to linger indefinitely.
So if Cryptic has the choice between starting to work on an old bug, working on a new bug that is bothering a lot of people, or working on a new bug they have a good idea how to fix as they just broke it, they should pick the old bug?
Needless to say, I disagree. Just because a bug is "old" doesn't mean it deserves priority. In fact, if it's old, it most likely means it doesn't deserve priority, because it has been around for very long and there was always something else that was more important to do then that bug. Chances are there will be something else around that is more urgent.
And what about bugs vs features? Should an old bug really be giving priority over a new feature? Like, say, the choice is fixing an old glitch in some mission that sometimes causes you to need to replay it, and the other is species change. People have been tripping over that bug a lot, but people have also been asking for that feature a lot? Is the bug to be prioritized over the feature?
What if the feature directly will result in sales?
People have voted with their wallets. They have left this game, and spend their money on other games now.
The current paying playerbase is a sub-segment of a bigger crowd.
And many more are still playing the game, and still spending money on it. Just because some people left doesn't mean that others didn't join, and just because some left doesn't mean they were significant.
There was never a time were PvP was immensely popular in STO. And it seems to have never driven sales. WIshing it were so doesn't make it so. PvPers leaving may be unfortunate, but I would say that the addition of STFs and reputations has helped the game immensely to retain and gain players. Would adding to PvP have done just as much? Adding canon ships in the C-Store and adding lockbox ships has probably made immense things in terms of revenue. Would PvP enhancement have done the same?
Think back 3-4 years. Remember when Space Assault PvP mode was removed? Now think back a year ago, when Exploration content was removed. Do you remember the forum reactions? Compare them. The removal of exploration content has bothered the players a lot more than the removal of Space Assault. Most people have probably even forgotten that the latter existed! And that was in the so called "Glory" Days of PvP, when things were much closer to balance.
As much as I used to love PvP, I don't see a point in STO's time where it was genuinely relevant.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Some things, I think they expect to have some time to fix it before folks start tripping all over it.
It doesn't seem like a very good assumption to me. If their QA staff can find it or a player can find it on Tribble, then with all the players on Holodeck, many more are bound to encounter it.
People have voted with their wallets. They have left this game, and spend their money on other games now.
No one voted with any wallet. Gamers are always taking breaks from the current games they're playing to devote time to a brand new hotly anticipated release that's just come out. Doesn't mean they're "voting with their wallet."
My Foundry Mission--Name: Falling Star | Mission ID: HQIH36HAW | Faction: FED
So if Cryptic has the choice between starting to work on an old bug, working on a new bug that is bothering a lot of people, or working on a new bug they have a good idea how to fix as they just broke it, they should pick the old bug?
No, I didn't say this. If the new bug is the subject of constant complaints, then obviously it should take priority.
Needless to say, I disagree. Just because a bug is "old" doesn't mean it deserves priority. In fact, if it's old, it most likely means it doesn't deserve priority, because it has been around for very long and there was always something else that was more important to do then that bug. Chances are there will be something else around that is more urgent.
The problem is that focusing only on the current highest priority bugs creates a situation where you have many old bugs lying around that are collectively as annoying as one single higher priority bug. There is always something more important than each low-priority bug individually. But there is a point where the small bugs "add up" to something more important. That's why I suggested the grouping solution above. Here is how I envision it would work. Someone, perhaps the team lead, would keep track of low-priority bugs in a specific area, say the doff system or the tailor. When enough low-priority bugs have accumulated, he would create a "wrapper bug", for example, "Miscellaneous bug fixes for the doff system", and schedule someone to work on it in an upcoming release.
And what about bugs vs features? Should an old bug really be giving priority over a new feature? Like, say, the choice is fixing an old glitch in some mission that sometimes causes you to need to replay it, and the other is species change. People have been tripping over that bug a lot, but people have also been asking for that feature a lot? Is the bug to be prioritized over the feature?
What if the feature directly will result in sales?
Some choices will be difficult to make. I'm not going to say always choose the feature or always choose the bug. You keep seeing this as a feature vs. bug issue: Either we get features, or we get bug fixes. My view is that the reason we have so many bugs is that they try to release so many features that they can't even take the time to make sure they work properly. Can we at least agree that players don't want broken features? So if they are going release a feature, make sure that it actually works.
At the end of the day, everything affects sales. Just because there isn't a related expense on the income statement, doesn't mean that there isn't a cost involved with the decision.
A new player gets hit with having all his bridge officers leave their stations and having to reslot ALL his powers. How likely is this player going to keep playing the game? How likely is this player going to buy something? How likely is this player going to recommend this game? And, to get it out of the way, using a loadout to reslot all the powers doesn't always work. I've had it work most of the time, but not all the time.
The same problem happens to an old player; how likely is this player going to keep playing? How likely is he going to buy something? How likely is he going to recommend the game?
I don't care that someone at PWE is calling the shots. I sincerely doubt that there is such a person at PWE micromanaging the game to this degree. Which company's name appears during the loading screen? Not PWE. Whose names are associated with the game? Not this shadowy person at PWE.
At some point, it becomes your job to tell your boss that you know what's best for the game. You convince him that an increased budget, more resources, and a bigger staff will benefit the game, benefit the company, and most importantly, benefit him. PWE suffers from a serious image problem, how soon will that image problem spread to Cryptic and its employees, if it hasn't already.
I am a player, I don't give a f about profits, let the executives and stockholders worry about that.
Comments
That's exactly what I was thinking lol
I wouldn't consider the boff reset bug to be serious. The bug with Treasure Trading station? that's serious. The glitches that have caused crashes whenever certain abilities were used? those were serious....
Or maybe you would categorize them as "critical"?
My character Tsin'xing
I've started to wonder if Cryptic actually has the means to know what customers want. There is no direct way to track the flow of money to either content or bug fixes. They can track purchases on the C-Store (including purchases of master keys) and transactions on the dilithium exchange. They can look at queue numbers and bug counts and try to relate those metrics to Zen purchases, but I don't think they have any way to establish a direct causal relationship. I think any inferences they make would be weak at best.
Maybe, we've got it all wrong. Cryptic doesn't prioritize content over bug fixes, or the other way around. They prioritize salable digital goods over both. After all, Cryptic sells neither content nor bug fixes. Both of those are expenses: content is an advertising expense, and bug fixes are a maintenance expense. They can measure their sales and their costs, but they have no way of knowing how much those costs contribute to sales, so they put most of their efforts into salable goods, because the effects are easier to measure.
I think valoreah was talking about "serious bug fixing", not serious bugs. But I would say that the boff reset bug was serious. I would roughly categorize bugs as follows:
critical: Server crashes. Any of the following problems if it affects 10% or more of the population: unable to log in, lag, client crashes, graphics glitches affecting 10% or more the screen.
major: Bugs in the game mechanics (includes not only combat mechanics, but also other systems like map transitions, the doff system, the Exchange, and mail). Unable to complete a mission. Unable to collect a reward.
minor: Typos. Art errors affecting less than 10% of the screen. Improperly drawn UI elements if it affects less than 10% of the screen and has a clear workaround.
The examples are not meant to be all-inclusive, but to give a rough idea of how I would prioritize bugs. Of course, that brings up another point: How many minor bugs equal one major bug? How many major bugs equal one critical bug? If you fix bugs only according to the above priority, a lot of minor bugs would never get fixed. They would suffer from starvation. I think that's what happened to a lot of bugs in this game. You can't just ignore minor bugs; eventually they add up. I've suggested strategies before to deal with starvation, but I'm not sure anyone was paying attention.
aging: Increase a bug's priority with age. Eventually, a minor bug becomes important enough to be fixed.
grouping: Group multiple bugs together into a "wrapper bug" with higher priority. The idea is that once you have enough minor bugs, they collectively become important enough to fix.
Savik - Vulcan Fed Temporal Sci
Dahar Masters Fleet: Alphal'Fa - Alien KDF Engineer Qun'pau - Rom/KDF Engineer D'nesh - Orion KDF Scientist Ghen'khan - Liberated KDF Tac
Welcome to StarBug Online - to boldly Bug where no bug has been before!
STO player since November 2013
like in today's patch?
And as people have been pointing out... it may be fixed now.
My character Tsin'xing
That and this boff reset bug is OLD now. It's gotten incrementally better since it was first seen in LoR, but it's not been actually fixed yet.
My character Tsin'xing
My character Tsin'xing
The current paying playerbase is a sub-segment of a bigger crowd.
That's a nice description of why PvP is on its knees. PvP is also a form of content. It doesn't sell anymore, it's time to do something about it.
PvP was something the customers wanted. Unfortunately that type of customer has deserted the game by now, people remaining are the ones that couldn't care less about PvP or balance or similar stuff.
Cryptics business policity has directly fueled a catch 22 feedback loop, leaving them with a possibly diminished revenue stream, and diminished player base.
It's the perfect recipe for creating an underperforming gaming title. It's a shame really, if you think about this games potential.
...pey.
Not sure of any other way of putting it. Don't quite think I've seen a thread where somebody's misread so much of what so many folks have said. Could take a moment to read what they're saying, how they're saying it, instead of doing the proverbial fingers in the ears lalalala-not-listening thing you're doing. Cause it's obvious you're not reading what you're replying to there...hrmmm.
I also think it's unrealistic to request that they stop all new development to fix bugs. People take things to extremes---in both directions. It's not either all content or all bug fixes. Both extremes are equally unproductive. It's also unproductive to bring up the same old excuses. Yes, some bugs are hard to reproduce. Yes, some bugs take a long time to figure out. But that describes only a small fraction of the bugs I see. The fact is that there are a lot of bugs in this game. Many of them are very old, and not all of them are hard to reproduce or hard to fix. Some of us think that Cryptic is taking the wrong approach to bugs. Two things stand out:
1. Bugs reported on Tribble make it live to Holodeck anyway.
2. Some bugs remain in the game for months or years.
Cryptic needs to work on catching bugs early and fixing them before they go live. But that means giving their staff time to do that. Their releases always seem rushed to me. Well, people make mistakes when they're rushed. What's the point of pushing things out so soon if they don't work? Just look at how long it took them to fix loadouts. Was it really worth pushing that system out so soon?
The other thing Cryptic needs to work on is how to give older bugs some priority. A bug shouldn't be allowed to linger indefinitely. All bugs should eventually be fixed. But "eventually" shouldn't mean "whenever we get to it". There should actually be a procedure that ensures every bug is eventually fixed. Obviously, some bugs take higher priority than others. The problem is that it's possible for low-priority bugs to be constantly pre-empted in favor of higher-priority ones. There is an analogous concept in OS: starvation. I made two suggestions on how to avoid starvation:
aging: Increase a bug's priority with age. Eventually, a low-priority bug becomes important enough to be fixed.
grouping: Group multiple bugs together into a "wrapper bug" with higher priority. The idea is that once you have enough low-priority bugs, they collectively become important enough to fix.
Why can't we have a serious conversation on how to improve the quality of the game for once, instead of revisiting the same pointless arguments and excuses?
They've talked about their heinous production schedules in the past - all the things they end up having to cut and hopefully look at later. Some things, I think they expect to have some time to fix it before folks start tripping all over it.
Which has led to an apparent cycle of it being around three months after a release that they'll start to get into the bug hunting.
Needless to say, I disagree. Just because a bug is "old" doesn't mean it deserves priority. In fact, if it's old, it most likely means it doesn't deserve priority, because it has been around for very long and there was always something else that was more important to do then that bug. Chances are there will be something else around that is more urgent.
And what about bugs vs features? Should an old bug really be giving priority over a new feature? Like, say, the choice is fixing an old glitch in some mission that sometimes causes you to need to replay it, and the other is species change. People have been tripping over that bug a lot, but people have also been asking for that feature a lot? Is the bug to be prioritized over the feature?
What if the feature directly will result in sales?
And many more are still playing the game, and still spending money on it. Just because some people left doesn't mean that others didn't join, and just because some left doesn't mean they were significant.
There was never a time were PvP was immensely popular in STO. And it seems to have never driven sales. WIshing it were so doesn't make it so. PvPers leaving may be unfortunate, but I would say that the addition of STFs and reputations has helped the game immensely to retain and gain players. Would adding to PvP have done just as much? Adding canon ships in the C-Store and adding lockbox ships has probably made immense things in terms of revenue. Would PvP enhancement have done the same?
Think back 3-4 years. Remember when Space Assault PvP mode was removed? Now think back a year ago, when Exploration content was removed. Do you remember the forum reactions? Compare them. The removal of exploration content has bothered the players a lot more than the removal of Space Assault. Most people have probably even forgotten that the latter existed! And that was in the so called "Glory" Days of PvP, when things were much closer to balance.
As much as I used to love PvP, I don't see a point in STO's time where it was genuinely relevant.
It doesn't seem like a very good assumption to me. If their QA staff can find it or a player can find it on Tribble, then with all the players on Holodeck, many more are bound to encounter it.
No one voted with any wallet. Gamers are always taking breaks from the current games they're playing to devote time to a brand new hotly anticipated release that's just come out. Doesn't mean they're "voting with their wallet."
No, I didn't say this. If the new bug is the subject of constant complaints, then obviously it should take priority.
The problem is that focusing only on the current highest priority bugs creates a situation where you have many old bugs lying around that are collectively as annoying as one single higher priority bug. There is always something more important than each low-priority bug individually. But there is a point where the small bugs "add up" to something more important. That's why I suggested the grouping solution above. Here is how I envision it would work. Someone, perhaps the team lead, would keep track of low-priority bugs in a specific area, say the doff system or the tailor. When enough low-priority bugs have accumulated, he would create a "wrapper bug", for example, "Miscellaneous bug fixes for the doff system", and schedule someone to work on it in an upcoming release.
Some choices will be difficult to make. I'm not going to say always choose the feature or always choose the bug. You keep seeing this as a feature vs. bug issue: Either we get features, or we get bug fixes. My view is that the reason we have so many bugs is that they try to release so many features that they can't even take the time to make sure they work properly. Can we at least agree that players don't want broken features? So if they are going release a feature, make sure that it actually works.
No, Cryptic never fix bugs... My two biggest bug bears in the one patch...
A new player gets hit with having all his bridge officers leave their stations and having to reslot ALL his powers. How likely is this player going to keep playing the game? How likely is this player going to buy something? How likely is this player going to recommend this game? And, to get it out of the way, using a loadout to reslot all the powers doesn't always work. I've had it work most of the time, but not all the time.
The same problem happens to an old player; how likely is this player going to keep playing? How likely is he going to buy something? How likely is he going to recommend the game?
I don't care that someone at PWE is calling the shots. I sincerely doubt that there is such a person at PWE micromanaging the game to this degree. Which company's name appears during the loading screen? Not PWE. Whose names are associated with the game? Not this shadowy person at PWE.
At some point, it becomes your job to tell your boss that you know what's best for the game. You convince him that an increased budget, more resources, and a bigger staff will benefit the game, benefit the company, and most importantly, benefit him. PWE suffers from a serious image problem, how soon will that image problem spread to Cryptic and its employees, if it hasn't already.
I am a player, I don't give a f about profits, let the executives and stockholders worry about that.