View Single Post
Cryptic Studios Team
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,138
# 195
09-12-2013, 09:44 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sulfrustriple View Post
How can the community structure a test to gather meaningful data to assist you in determining whether fighters are meeting your design specs?
Thank you for the offer!

Any thorough testing performed by the community is helpful. It still has to be verified internally, but it can provide us clues as to what we should be on the lookout for.

Quote:
DPS Test:
Would individual dps logs of a wing of each blue fighter class attacking a stationary Bortasqu with neutronium armors and KHG Shield be meaningful? If the target is identical each test, it should allow for relative comparison of dps.
This sounds like a good baseline for a test. Keep in mind that we'd need to know exactly what gear the Bortasqu had in every slot, all of their Rep Passives, Skills and Traits, in order to accurately quantify the results. As well the skills, gear and passives of the Carrier.

Also, we're looking at test figures in the quantities of hours of non-stop fighting. We can manage this more easily internally by speeding up a local test shard (so 10 min passes in 1 min, e.g.). If you're willing to spend that amount of time on the test, you're welcome to. Shorter testing periods are prone to spikes of inconsistency.

Quote:
Survivability Test:
Would individual logs of a wing of each blue fighter class attacking a Bortasqu firing disruptors with BFAW on cooldown be meaningful? If the target is defending in an identical manner, it should allow for relative comparison of survivability.
Survivability is far less quantifiable. A ship with a PSW or TBR equipped can almost universally wipe out waves of Hangar Pets regardless of how sturdy they are. I don't think it's worth performing this testing until we see where the relative DPS results end up.

Quote:
You introduced the new Carrier system on July 25. In the ensuing 6 weeks, problems of fighter survivability, an AI which continues to fail to avoid warp core breach, and inconsistent dps have been repeatedly commented upon. I would hope that Cryptic would not wait "months" more to give tuning these issues some priority. Basically, this is checking to see if the new interface "works as intended" that would be viewed as part of a Quality Control process.
You're talking about two extremely different and separate forms of Hangar Pet performance: Stats and AI. Don't conflate the two. While they each contribute to one another, behavior errors in the AI need to be addressed separately from any DPS parsing we may eventually perform. (And prior to, if at all possible.)

As for your commentary on our priorities... Well, you're welcome to your opinions of course, but we do the best we can to keep this game moving forward with the limited number of hours that exist in a day.

Don't rush a miracle man, sonny - you get rotten miracles.
-=-=-=-=-=-
Jeremy Randall
Cryptic - Systems Design
"Play smart!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Kurland here...