|
On June 07 2013 01:42 KingAce wrote:
She doesn't sound bitter at all actually.
She doesn't sound bitter but it is still mostly just office gossip. Bitter or not she clearly doesn't like developers, but honestly I'm not sure why that matters all that much. Just typical stuff that occurs in all organizations.
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina72 Posts
On June 07 2013 01:19 AnomalySC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:14 Batcha wrote:
Pretty entertaining.
The sc2 dev portrayal matches up quite nicely with the state of the game.
Not sure why some nerds here shove the notion of bitterness though..
The person seems quite reasonable and brings up positive and negative stuff, but i guess some people are used to buying the idyllic employee talk.
He did just lose his job though, surely he is a little bitter with what went down right?
He isn't happy for sure, no one would be.. but don't you think using "bitter" is a tad bit extreme?
Apologies for dwelling into semantics, i just never happen to use "little bitter".
Overall i got a pretty normal vibe out of it, giving praise where praise is due and criticizing stuff he thought was wrong.
You could say the revealing of dirt is motivated by the lay off, which is just common human behavior but looking at the answers as a whole, i fail to see how it might question the truth behind claims (at least in this concrete example).
Unless you really believe everything is great at Blizzard and that all of the employees are great guys...
@ZenithM
No, nothing to do with balance. Just with my disappointment with general design direction and HOTS shortcomings.
|
On June 07 2013 01:22 Jojo131 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:00 theking1 wrote:On June 07 2013 00:50 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2013 00:40 theking1 wrote:On June 07 2013 00:29 Aberu wrote:On June 07 2013 00:11 theking1 wrote:On June 07 2013 00:06 Gowerly wrote:On June 06 2013 23:55 HeeroFX wrote:
I think we knew the sc devs were dicks when they refused to give listen to the community wants and suggestions. To be fair have you seen some of the suggestions the community has? Some places (a couple where I have worked) don't even allow the devs on their forums because a) it's soul destroying and b) because the suggestions are largely bad at best and insane at worst It's ok to listen to a subset of the community, generally the top level players, as they understand things the most. Outside of that, though, you're all crazy. There is a rule in business staitng the customer is always right.Saying that people who buy your products are wrong and you are better than them is a bit of dangerous for the company.Also listening to the community seems to be working flawlessly for other games develpes such as riot,valve or the dudes behind world of tanks.Why can't blizzard do the same?We're not half as toxic as other communities,most of us have been long time fans aka buyers of blizzard games and when a topic gets like a 100 pages on the forum its most likely a serious issue. That rule is based on how you treat the customers. You treat them AS IF they are right. If "the customer is always right" means "you give every single customer exactly what they want" then every restaurant in the world would have 50 page long menus and be unfeasible to run. Source: Restaurant manager. That saying is fucking ridiculous. You treat them courteously and nicely as if they are right, and you apologize humbly and try to make it up to them if something goes wrong. You treat complaints as 10 times important as compliments. That's the meaning behind that phrase, so tired of people getting this wrong. Or let's apply the customer is always right mindset to games. A new patch every week taht dramatically changes multiple heroes, at many times the labor cost to the development team. Do you think the game would be as popular if they did that every time some SonGoku447UltraZ complained that his favorite hero wasn't OP enough? Gimme a break. i was reffering mostly to serious issues like the ones that cause 100 pages long threads.The issues do not include nerfing heroes but more serious topics such the free to play online features which they have implemented,lack of lan,more customization options such as skins etc etc.Nerfing a hero or race does not raise a 200k pettion like the lack of lan has Also your example with the restaurant is a bit flawed in this context.if a restauran towner receives 100 complains regarding a certaina spect he will most likely change it as he will lose clients.Also I seriously never heard of anyone complaining about restaurants not having 50 page long menus lol.The basic idea is that having such a hardcore fanbase we are most likely different from Songoku44utraz and know what we want(theoretically) and maybe we actually want the good of the game and do not complain for te sake of complaining  Free to play is not an option for Blizzard for SC2. It would cost them millions of dollars to create a business model to justify the development cost, create a pricing structure for the content and then sell that content world wide. It has taken Riot years to create that. Also, why would Blizzard chase after Riots success? That is what tons of companies did for WoW and failed. There is no reason for Blizzard to change their plans just because someone else is making money on another game. The demands for F2P are being made by people who don’t understand how the industry works or just assume that F2P is easy. And a lot of people being outraged or upset about something on the internet it not good feedback or a reason to change things. A 100 page thread means that enough people posted world wide to make the thread 100 pages. At 20 posts a page or so, that is around 20,000 posts. At maximum that is 20K people (which is unlikely) world wide that decided to post about that thing. That is like getting 20K likes on facebook, which isn’t super meaningful. Just because a lot of people are willing to post about something doesn’t mean its important. It just means they were willing to take 1-5 minutes to post something. I disagree with you on that.Blizzard does not need to copy ad litteram the lol model but instead they can find ways of implementing f2p in sc2 while still making a profit.They have made steps in this direction with the recent spawning feature which will basicly allow players who do not own the game to play certain feature such as team maps and custom maps(which are by fr what most casua players play).I personally believe it is a step in the right direction which could have been done form the beggining considering bw already had such a feature. Regarding the 100 page thread thingy if its constructive criticism why not allow it.it doesnt hurt at all and maybe they can get some positive feedback.after all its free. Other people have made this argument before, but I've still not heard one realistic/good suggestion to monetize a f2p SC2 that did not follow the LoL-model. As you've mentioned, the Spawning was a good step in getting new players to try the game, but ultimately they're still going to have to pay for something for Blizzard to make any money. . A lot of this is due to how Starcraft is marketed/perceived by many people (even newcomers) on the internet. The campaign/custom maps aren't what people see/think of when you look up Starcraft on youtube etc, because no matter how we try to guise it well all know SC is more about the competitive aspect.
I do not advocate a f2p starcraft2.The campaign should remain pay to play(at least until a f2p company manages ot make money out of that too).The only thing that should remain f2p probably is the arcade(which thanck god is) and maybe the ladder so we can even the odds with the mobas(if the ladder becomes f2p basicly sc2 offers far more features for free than a f2p moba).In terms of how to monetize i dunno.Maybe they could apply the dragonage model where you could unlock certain missions for a cost.or the lol ip boost model to climb the rank higher.Or maybe a far more immense campaing.It could be something revolutionary,blizzard probably has people to think about those things.If I knew I would probably start my own gaming company and become a millionaire.Also I am a firm believer that the lol skin model can be implemented in sc2 despite what that dev said in that recent interview.Big units such as the ultralisk,collosus,tanks,overlords etc do have the possibility of customization due to their big size.I would love to see different species of ultralist or maybe different design of collosus.
|
On June 07 2013 01:36 theking1 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:09 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2013 01:00 theking1 wrote:On June 07 2013 00:50 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2013 00:40 theking1 wrote:On June 07 2013 00:29 Aberu wrote:On June 07 2013 00:11 theking1 wrote:On June 07 2013 00:06 Gowerly wrote:On June 06 2013 23:55 HeeroFX wrote:
I think we knew the sc devs were dicks when they refused to give listen to the community wants and suggestions. To be fair have you seen some of the suggestions the community has? Some places (a couple where I have worked) don't even allow the devs on their forums because a) it's soul destroying and b) because the suggestions are largely bad at best and insane at worst It's ok to listen to a subset of the community, generally the top level players, as they understand things the most. Outside of that, though, you're all crazy. There is a rule in business staitng the customer is always right.Saying that people who buy your products are wrong and you are better than them is a bit of dangerous for the company.Also listening to the community seems to be working flawlessly for other games develpes such as riot,valve or the dudes behind world of tanks.Why can't blizzard do the same?We're not half as toxic as other communities,most of us have been long time fans aka buyers of blizzard games and when a topic gets like a 100 pages on the forum its most likely a serious issue. That rule is based on how you treat the customers. You treat them AS IF they are right. If "the customer is always right" means "you give every single customer exactly what they want" then every restaurant in the world would have 50 page long menus and be unfeasible to run. Source: Restaurant manager. That saying is fucking ridiculous. You treat them courteously and nicely as if they are right, and you apologize humbly and try to make it up to them if something goes wrong. You treat complaints as 10 times important as compliments. That's the meaning behind that phrase, so tired of people getting this wrong. Or let's apply the customer is always right mindset to games. A new patch every week taht dramatically changes multiple heroes, at many times the labor cost to the development team. Do you think the game would be as popular if they did that every time some SonGoku447UltraZ complained that his favorite hero wasn't OP enough? Gimme a break. i was reffering mostly to serious issues like the ones that cause 100 pages long threads.The issues do not include nerfing heroes but more serious topics such the free to play online features which they have implemented,lack of lan,more customization options such as skins etc etc.Nerfing a hero or race does not raise a 200k pettion like the lack of lan has Also your example with the restaurant is a bit flawed in this context.if a restauran towner receives 100 complains regarding a certaina spect he will most likely change it as he will lose clients.Also I seriously never heard of anyone complaining about restaurants not having 50 page long menus lol.The basic idea is that having such a hardcore fanbase we are most likely different from Songoku44utraz and know what we want(theoretically) and maybe we actually want the good of the game and do not complain for te sake of complaining Free to play is not an option for Blizzard for SC2. It would cost them millions of dollars to create a business model to justify the development cost, create a pricing structure for the content and then sell that content world wide. It has taken Riot years to create that. Also, why would Blizzard chase after Riots success? That is what tons of companies did for WoW and failed. There is no reason for Blizzard to change their plans just because someone else is making money on another game. The demands for F2P are being made by people who don’t understand how the industry works or just assume that F2P is easy. And a lot of people being outraged or upset about something on the internet it not good feedback or a reason to change things. A 100 page thread means that enough people posted world wide to make the thread 100 pages. At 20 posts a page or so, that is around 20,000 posts. At maximum that is 20K people (which is unlikely) world wide that decided to post about that thing. That is like getting 20K likes on facebook, which isn’t super meaningful. Just because a lot of people are willing to post about something doesn’t mean its important. It just means they were willing to take 1-5 minutes to post something. I disagree with you on that.Blizzard does not need to copy ad litteram the lol model but instead they can find ways of implementing f2p in sc2 while still making a profit.They have made steps in this direction with the recent spawning feature which will basicly allow players who do not own the game to play certain feature such as team maps and custom maps(which are by fr what most casua players play).I personally believe it is a step in the right direction which could have been done form the beggining considering bw already had such a feature. Regarding the 100 page thread thingy if its constructive criticism why not allow it.it doesnt hurt at all and maybe they can get some positive feedback.after all its free. I think you underestimate how hateful and harmful reading the comments or forums can be for someone making games or anything, really. There are endless discussions among professionals in public fields(casters, writers, producers, developers) and they all say the same thing: "Don't read the comments" Caster, content producers and game developers are not robots. They cannot simply shut of their emotions and ignore everything they read. That is not how people work. Even if there are gems of good advice, there are other ways to get that advice than subjecting yourself to the hate and bile of the internet. I've been lurking on these forums for a couple of years.The commuity isn't that bad.There are some exagerrations but they get banned rather quickly by the mods.Also there does not need to be necessarly direct interraction.They could have like community managers who observe the forums and if a topic gets a lot of attention it can inform the dev teams about it. The point that i am trying to make is that there are ways for the community and blizzard to closely interract without insults and trashtalk and it can work in the benefit of both.After all we want a good game and they want to take our money .
That is fine, but I think Blizzard has a problem that the volume of the community is at 1000% and it is impossible for them to tell who to listen too. They have done a lot of stuff recently that involved the community, including the launch of HotS, testing out features the community built. Remember when they bought a cake for Stephano when Hots launched? That was pretty great.
|
On June 07 2013 01:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:36 theking1 wrote:On June 07 2013 01:09 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2013 01:00 theking1 wrote:On June 07 2013 00:50 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2013 00:40 theking1 wrote:On June 07 2013 00:29 Aberu wrote:On June 07 2013 00:11 theking1 wrote:On June 07 2013 00:06 Gowerly wrote:On June 06 2013 23:55 HeeroFX wrote:
I think we knew the sc devs were dicks when they refused to give listen to the community wants and suggestions. To be fair have you seen some of the suggestions the community has? Some places (a couple where I have worked) don't even allow the devs on their forums because a) it's soul destroying and b) because the suggestions are largely bad at best and insane at worst It's ok to listen to a subset of the community, generally the top level players, as they understand things the most. Outside of that, though, you're all crazy. There is a rule in business staitng the customer is always right.Saying that people who buy your products are wrong and you are better than them is a bit of dangerous for the company.Also listening to the community seems to be working flawlessly for other games develpes such as riot,valve or the dudes behind world of tanks.Why can't blizzard do the same?We're not half as toxic as other communities,most of us have been long time fans aka buyers of blizzard games and when a topic gets like a 100 pages on the forum its most likely a serious issue. That rule is based on how you treat the customers. You treat them AS IF they are right. If "the customer is always right" means "you give every single customer exactly what they want" then every restaurant in the world would have 50 page long menus and be unfeasible to run. Source: Restaurant manager. That saying is fucking ridiculous. You treat them courteously and nicely as if they are right, and you apologize humbly and try to make it up to them if something goes wrong. You treat complaints as 10 times important as compliments. That's the meaning behind that phrase, so tired of people getting this wrong. Or let's apply the customer is always right mindset to games. A new patch every week taht dramatically changes multiple heroes, at many times the labor cost to the development team. Do you think the game would be as popular if they did that every time some SonGoku447UltraZ complained that his favorite hero wasn't OP enough? Gimme a break. i was reffering mostly to serious issues like the ones that cause 100 pages long threads.The issues do not include nerfing heroes but more serious topics such the free to play online features which they have implemented,lack of lan,more customization options such as skins etc etc.Nerfing a hero or race does not raise a 200k pettion like the lack of lan has Also your example with the restaurant is a bit flawed in this context.if a restauran towner receives 100 complains regarding a certaina spect he will most likely change it as he will lose clients.Also I seriously never heard of anyone complaining about restaurants not having 50 page long menus lol.The basic idea is that having such a hardcore fanbase we are most likely different from Songoku44utraz and know what we want(theoretically) and maybe we actually want the good of the game and do not complain for te sake of complaining Free to play is not an option for Blizzard for SC2. It would cost them millions of dollars to create a business model to justify the development cost, create a pricing structure for the content and then sell that content world wide. It has taken Riot years to create that. Also, why would Blizzard chase after Riots success? That is what tons of companies did for WoW and failed. There is no reason for Blizzard to change their plans just because someone else is making money on another game. The demands for F2P are being made by people who don’t understand how the industry works or just assume that F2P is easy. And a lot of people being outraged or upset about something on the internet it not good feedback or a reason to change things. A 100 page thread means that enough people posted world wide to make the thread 100 pages. At 20 posts a page or so, that is around 20,000 posts. At maximum that is 20K people (which is unlikely) world wide that decided to post about that thing. That is like getting 20K likes on facebook, which isn’t super meaningful. Just because a lot of people are willing to post about something doesn’t mean its important. It just means they were willing to take 1-5 minutes to post something. I disagree with you on that.Blizzard does not need to copy ad litteram the lol model but instead they can find ways of implementing f2p in sc2 while still making a profit.They have made steps in this direction with the recent spawning feature which will basicly allow players who do not own the game to play certain feature such as team maps and custom maps(which are by fr what most casua players play).I personally believe it is a step in the right direction which could have been done form the beggining considering bw already had such a feature. Regarding the 100 page thread thingy if its constructive criticism why not allow it.it doesnt hurt at all and maybe they can get some positive feedback.after all its free. I think you underestimate how hateful and harmful reading the comments or forums can be for someone making games or anything, really. There are endless discussions among professionals in public fields(casters, writers, producers, developers) and they all say the same thing: "Don't read the comments" Caster, content producers and game developers are not robots. They cannot simply shut of their emotions and ignore everything they read. That is not how people work. Even if there are gems of good advice, there are other ways to get that advice than subjecting yourself to the hate and bile of the internet. I've been lurking on these forums for a couple of years.The commuity isn't that bad.There are some exagerrations but they get banned rather quickly by the mods.Also there does not need to be necessarly direct interraction.They could have like community managers who observe the forums and if a topic gets a lot of attention it can inform the dev teams about it. The point that i am trying to make is that there are ways for the community and blizzard to closely interract without insults and trashtalk and it can work in the benefit of both.After all we want a good game and they want to take our money . That is fine, but I think Blizzard has a problem that the volume of the community is at 1000% and it is impossible for them to tell who to listen too. They have done a lot of stuff recently that involved the community, including the launch of HotS, testing out features the community built. Remember when they bought a cake for Stephano when Hots launched? That was pretty great.
This probably won't garner many agreements but sometimes you just have to do what you think is best for your own creation, forget all the opinions from fans or haters. Make what you want to make, not what you think other people want.
|
I work in QA and I'm pretty sure no dev in a big company is gonna give a rat's ass about what suggestions somebody from QA or CS has. So it's not just Blizzard, it seems to be pretty much the standard as far as I can tell. Working for the same company at this level doesn't give you the slightest advantage over a normal random member of the community.
|
SC2 could go f2p if they added in a bunch of skins and things like that for purchase and only gave away the full MP client. Keep the campaign purchasable.
Though at that point they'd really need to give a way to turn off skins for your opponent
|
From the snippets the person sounds bitter as f*ck, (edit: but the more you look through it its not really the case.)
I have a couple of friends who work at Blizzard and have nothing but great things to say about their experience and the company as a whole.
|
On June 07 2013 01:32 Tenks wrote:
As a developer myself I am probably thought of as a dick to QA as well. Because the only time I ever interact with QA is when they're complaining to fix some piece of software I'm in charge of and they think their little bug report is the most important thing to me. It isn't. I have a mountain of new development so just file the bug and I'll get around to it. Even worse, like he complained about, is when they give their opinions on the matter because 999/1000 they are completely and dead wrong. So when they go over their theories on the bug it goes in one ear and out the other. Or more accurately it goes right in my email's trash.
This seems reasonable.
When I first read that she was a Game Master, I thought it was a Blizzard in-house title for manager/lead programmer/etc. Reading on, I figured out that it was something low related to WoW. So, I wouldn't expect people to always listen to her suggestions. To be honest though, I'm not familiar with how the industry treats QA. Are they just there to find bugs, or are they supposed to comment on the play experience?
Also, her experiences seem to be centered completely around WoW. Most of her answers are related to it. So, I'm guessing the SC2 dev's seem like dicks to her, because she really doesn't know too much about SC.
|
On June 07 2013 01:32 Tenks wrote:
As a developer myself I am probably thought of as a dick to QA as well. Because the only time I ever interact with QA is when they're complaining to fix some piece of software I'm in charge of and they think their little bug report is the most important thing to me. It isn't. I have a mountain of new development so just file the bug and I'll get around to it. Even worse, like he complained about, is when they give their opinions on the matter because 999/1000 they are completely and dead wrong. So when they go over their theories on the bug it goes in one ear and out the other. Or more accurately it goes right in my email's trash.
tbh honest, QA is a very important part of software developement.
=> Simple example, D3 Auction house fail.
New functionalities are cool, however the core product should be as bug free as possible first. Because the more features you implement the more interdependencies you get within the source code.
|
On June 07 2013 02:06 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:32 Tenks wrote:
As a developer myself I am probably thought of as a dick to QA as well. Because the only time I ever interact with QA is when they're complaining to fix some piece of software I'm in charge of and they think their little bug report is the most important thing to me. It isn't. I have a mountain of new development so just file the bug and I'll get around to it. Even worse, like he complained about, is when they give their opinions on the matter because 999/1000 they are completely and dead wrong. So when they go over their theories on the bug it goes in one ear and out the other. Or more accurately it goes right in my email's trash. tbh honest, QA is a very important part of software developement. => Simple example, D3 Auction house fail. New functionalities are cool, however the core product should be as bug free as possible first. Because the more features you implement the more interdependencies you get within the source code.
I never said QA isn't valuable. I'm aware of the purpose the QA team provides to the team. It just seems almost all I've ever dealt with have this idea that I need to keep them completely in the loop about everything with the bug.
And I'd argue the D3 AH bug was more a problem of large-scale game development having fairly poor unit testing. That bug should have one that was caught automated not via human intervention.
|
On June 07 2013 02:06 freetgy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 01:32 Tenks wrote:
As a developer myself I am probably thought of as a dick to QA as well. Because the only time I ever interact with QA is when they're complaining to fix some piece of software I'm in charge of and they think their little bug report is the most important thing to me. It isn't. I have a mountain of new development so just file the bug and I'll get around to it. Even worse, like he complained about, is when they give their opinions on the matter because 999/1000 they are completely and dead wrong. So when they go over their theories on the bug it goes in one ear and out the other. Or more accurately it goes right in my email's trash. tbh honest, QA is a very important part of software developement. => Simple example, D3 Auction house fail. New functionalities are cool, however the core product should be as bug free as possible first. Because the more features you implement the more interdependencies you get within the source code.
QA has nothing to do with the auction house and would have no ability to change if it was in the game or not. They test bugs and play ability, not features. They are not focus testing. And Blizzard has admited that the auction house was not a good addition to the game at the last GDC. They also said that it focused tested really well and the community supported it when they took polls about putting something like it in. It was only after they put it in the released game did they start getting feed back on the negative impact it had on the game.
The D3 Auction house is an example of something that looked good on paper and sounded good, but did not work once it was released into the wild.
|
On June 06 2013 23:30 Partha wrote:
Sounds about right. The SC2 developers have refused to comment on fundamental issues that hinder the game (the fact that ALL map balance must take into account one fucking spell: Forcefield), The fact that expanding isn't more of a priority thus creating pockets of skirmishes throughout the map and the list goes on.
I agree with this statement.
|
On June 07 2013 02:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 02:06 freetgy wrote:On June 07 2013 01:32 Tenks wrote:
As a developer myself I am probably thought of as a dick to QA as well. Because the only time I ever interact with QA is when they're complaining to fix some piece of software I'm in charge of and they think their little bug report is the most important thing to me. It isn't. I have a mountain of new development so just file the bug and I'll get around to it. Even worse, like he complained about, is when they give their opinions on the matter because 999/1000 they are completely and dead wrong. So when they go over their theories on the bug it goes in one ear and out the other. Or more accurately it goes right in my email's trash. tbh honest, QA is a very important part of software developement. => Simple example, D3 Auction house fail. New functionalities are cool, however the core product should be as bug free as possible first. Because the more features you implement the more interdependencies you get within the source code. QA has nothing to do with the auction house and would have no ability to change if it was in the game or not. They test bugs and play ability, not features. They are not focus testing. And Blizzard has admited that the auction house was not a good addition to the game at the last GDC. They also said that it focused tested really well and the community supported it when they took polls about putting something like it in. It was only after they put it in the released game did they start getting feed back on the negative impact it had on the game. The D3 Auction house is an example of something that looked good on paper and sounded good, but did not work once it was released into the wild.
I think he was talking about the dupe bug with the latest patch to Diablo 3 which was a result of an integer overflow
|
On June 07 2013 02:20 Tenks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 02:17 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2013 02:06 freetgy wrote:On June 07 2013 01:32 Tenks wrote:
As a developer myself I am probably thought of as a dick to QA as well. Because the only time I ever interact with QA is when they're complaining to fix some piece of software I'm in charge of and they think their little bug report is the most important thing to me. It isn't. I have a mountain of new development so just file the bug and I'll get around to it. Even worse, like he complained about, is when they give their opinions on the matter because 999/1000 they are completely and dead wrong. So when they go over their theories on the bug it goes in one ear and out the other. Or more accurately it goes right in my email's trash. tbh honest, QA is a very important part of software developement. => Simple example, D3 Auction house fail. New functionalities are cool, however the core product should be as bug free as possible first. Because the more features you implement the more interdependencies you get within the source code. QA has nothing to do with the auction house and would have no ability to change if it was in the game or not. They test bugs and play ability, not features. They are not focus testing. And Blizzard has admited that the auction house was not a good addition to the game at the last GDC. They also said that it focused tested really well and the community supported it when they took polls about putting something like it in. It was only after they put it in the released game did they start getting feed back on the negative impact it had on the game. The D3 Auction house is an example of something that looked good on paper and sounded good, but did not work once it was released into the wild. I think he was talking about the dupe bug with the latest patch to Diablo 3 which was a result of an integer overflow
That makes way more sense. I didn't follow the bug, but it I was surprised that people didn't find one earlier in the game's life. Dupe bugs are almost standard in any loot driven game.
|
His description of the SC2 top dogs seems spot on. Now i remember a Dustin B. interview saying how good of a change the queen buff was, their best change i think he said lol
|
On June 06 2013 23:32 Assirra wrote:
This honestly just smells like a fired person venting about his previous employer.
Yeah honestly I'm not even interested in reading any more. This is clearly just a disgruntled ex-employee slinging mud at his ex-employer.
|
On June 07 2013 02:41 Sapphire.lux wrote:
His description of the SC2 top dogs seems spot on. Now i remember a Dustin B. interview saying how good of a change the queen buff was, their best change i think he said lol
It was a GREAT change if you play Zerg 
|
On June 07 2013 02:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2013 02:20 Tenks wrote:On June 07 2013 02:17 Plansix wrote:On June 07 2013 02:06 freetgy wrote:On June 07 2013 01:32 Tenks wrote:
As a developer myself I am probably thought of as a dick to QA as well. Because the only time I ever interact with QA is when they're complaining to fix some piece of software I'm in charge of and they think their little bug report is the most important thing to me. It isn't. I have a mountain of new development so just file the bug and I'll get around to it. Even worse, like he complained about, is when they give their opinions on the matter because 999/1000 they are completely and dead wrong. So when they go over their theories on the bug it goes in one ear and out the other. Or more accurately it goes right in my email's trash. tbh honest, QA is a very important part of software developement. => Simple example, D3 Auction house fail. New functionalities are cool, however the core product should be as bug free as possible first. Because the more features you implement the more interdependencies you get within the source code. QA has nothing to do with the auction house and would have no ability to change if it was in the game or not. They test bugs and play ability, not features. They are not focus testing. And Blizzard has admited that the auction house was not a good addition to the game at the last GDC. They also said that it focused tested really well and the community supported it when they took polls about putting something like it in. It was only after they put it in the released game did they start getting feed back on the negative impact it had on the game. The D3 Auction house is an example of something that looked good on paper and sounded good, but did not work once it was released into the wild. I think he was talking about the dupe bug with the latest patch to Diablo 3 which was a result of an integer overflow That makes way more sense. I didn't follow the bug, but it I was surprised that people didn't find one earlier in the game's life. Dupe bugs are almost standard in any loot driven game.
It wasn't found before because it wasn't possible previously. You could never put an amount of gold on the RMAH that was over the limit of an unsigned integer. In that patch they increased the limit of gold you could put onto the RMAH past that point. So basically the bug was they'd deduct MAX_UINT from your character's gold but put the actual amount you listed on the RMAH. You then cancel the auction and it returns the actual amount. So it deducted around 4billion gold from your character but you put up 10billion. So lets say you had 10billion gold to start with. 10b - 4b (amount deucted) + 10b (refund from RMAH) = 16b gold now.
|
On June 07 2013 00:09 Gorlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2013 23:32 Assirra wrote:
This honestly just smells like a fired person venting about his previous employer. Agreed, I really don't think anyone should take what he wrote to heart.
Yeah, though I feel like some truth is shining through this, like the part about changes not happening and failures to work as a team. That sounds like it has some backing considering what we know about blizz in general and timelines to be met.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
