There was extensive TB testing on the beta, at one point a battle was occurring every 15 minutes. Each one I did I never saw more than 10-15 people on each side. Can't blame the devs here, only the testers for not getting out there.Originally Posted by Kalros
Of course you can blame the devs for not organizing proper testing. If a certain (major) feature in the game requires 80 vs 89 players, than they should make sure it's been tested extensively before releasing it. When that can't be done by volunteers on the fly, they should pay people to do so on a fixed day.
Blizzard is a standard in the gaming industry, I'm a happy wow customer. But the way some things seems to be done in the gaming industry ... I don't think they would get away with that if they were to develop applications in the real world. Ever since the release of 4.0.1 I have the feeling to be a tester who has to pay to fine tune their product. A simple example: I still can't queue up for more than 1 specific bg at a time. This bug happens on many toons, but not all. And gm's say there is nothing they can do. Just think back about all the bugs over the past 2-3 months, since people seem to forget this pretty fast (slow flyer after icc / toc wipe; horseman event that would lock out and freeze your raid, people being stuck in bg's for ages, random booting from a bg, not being able to join a bg that pops; ... etc). I'm playing wow now for almost 1,5 year, and to me it just feels that the quality of the game I was impressed with at the start is no longer there.
Everything that is fun in life is either bad for your health, immoral or illegal!
Blizzard is in a position where taking the lazy way out (pushing poorly-tested content to live and letting players pay to test it) is the most efficient solution, in the purely practical sense. This is a company that is riding on record sales after record sales and will probably record another set of record sales when D3 ships. We'll beta test TB on live servers for them, and both they and we know it.
"Multibox : !! LOZERS !!" My multiboxing blog
A close friend of mine, operates a GM toon on occasion, for his rotation.
He told me about this upcoming change. I understand it, and I think its a fantastic new idea. Heres how its intended to work.
Problem: Unbalanced servers generally control or maintain control of World PVP areas... thus leaving one faction forever trailing in gear and progression, and perpetuating the unbalance.
Solution: At the same time, slightly discourage a current holder, and encourage an attacker. If say, the Horde occupy at the start of a battle, the horde are less likely to work too hard, knowing they are only going to get 180 pts... they may allow a loss better, and upon the following battle, be very aggressive to get 1800. I.e. 1800 every two rotations is far better and quicker than maintaining a foothold.
this solution promotes better balance within the factions, amongst several other better opportunities to gear up faster, and allow more time to gather additional gear upgrades for the Raid instances, rather than attempting to hurry to get one more enchant, gem, or heroic, vendor gear. A Longer break in between "rotations" will yield more of a gear change too.
I think it's a very stupid idea that conflicts with a basic gaming theory. To me claiming that it's a fantastic idea is ignoring that the design of the bg is flawed. What they did now is admitting it, but instead of fixing the design they come up with a stupid rule, a rule that won't attract better players to join the bg to increase the chances for winning but even more 'casuals and afkrs' to not miss out on the honor. One might cover up a bad product by smart marketing for a while, but eventually even the most naive buyers will see the product is bad. The only way to solve the current situation is to reset TB every other 2-3-4 battles, where no one is defending or attacking; but where it's just a matter of holding most keeps to win at the end of bg and defend the next one. The alternative is redesigning TB from scratch.
Everything that is fun in life is either bad for your health, immoral or illegal!
Zenga, I think I get what you are trying to say, but Im not sure.
what is the "basic gaming theory"? Is this something in writing and a law or something like that?
The solution is actually already in place. It was copied from the PVP holds in Hellfire. There is a repeatable quest that offers PVP rewards upon a set capture, for each faction. If the Alliance hold all three, other than farming honor, whats the incentive to keep it?
In the case of TB, there is an Instance attached to winning and control. I believe... (my opinion), from purely catering to the masses of a business; blizzard is trying to make the dungeon available to everyone, more often.
Example; Servers that have a large faction population difference, maintain VoA. If a player were of the lesser populated faction, wouldnt this be grossly unfair, as he/she can not control the server population, and thus is denied a portion of the game which he/she pays for?
Course this is only my opinion, and it matters nothing to anyone but me. Im ok with that.I still think the solution is "thinking outside the box", and is a fantastic step. Whether it stays or gets modified further is yet to be determined.
Game theory is a very specialized branch of applied mathematics that is very useful for a broad variety of disciplines. Economics, pure science, psychology, biology, and yes, computer games like this one.
The Prisoner's Dilemma is a classic example of a Game Theory problem.
I find it improper that the best stratagy for maximum advancement is to lose, because I play to win.
28 BoXXoR RoXXoR Website
28 Box SOLO Nalak 4m26s! Ilevel 522! GM 970 Member Guild! Multiboxing Since Mid 2001!
Cool! I just learned something there. I read the entire article on Game Theory, and the one for The Prisioner's Dilemma.
Since this one was cited, I think its quite possibly most appropriate to Game Theory now, and what Blizzard is proposing.
I.e. If the Horde and Alliance work together, and alternate, they both win. If the one defending TB holds, they win, but only slightly. Similarly to the ...
CooperateDefectCooperate-1, -1-10, 0Defect0, -10-5, -5
The Prisoner's Dilemma
On the other hand, some scholars see game theory not as a predictive tool for the behavior of human beings, but as a suggestion for how people ought to behave. Since a Nash equilibrium of a game constitutes one's best response to the actions of the other players, playing a strategy that is part of a Nash equilibrium seems appropriate. However, this use for game theory has also come under criticism. First, in some cases it is appropriate to play a non-equilibrium strategy if one expects others to play non-equilibrium strategies as well. For an example, see Guess 2/3 of the average.
I believe you are confusing things here:
Alternating wins = defect /cooperate (1 side plays to win, other sides plays to lose)
The reward for cooperate / cooperate (both sides play to win) should always be bigger for both sides than the rewards for defect/cooperate.
I prefer to play games that are cooperate / cooperate, else they might just give us the gear or send us the honorpoints by mail. What sam said a few posts earlier is hitting the nail on the head (if that is proper English).
The idea that blizzard goes for a defect/cooperate approach here is just ridiculous. Luckily it won't last long, as it won't change shit. Eventually they'll have to change/fix something fundamental.
Last edited by zenga : 12-28-2010 at 02:18 PM
Everything that is fun in life is either bad for your health, immoral or illegal!
Posting Rules
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us