Game Mechanics Item Tester Team

The thing is, it can be hard at times to know who to listen to, who knows what they are talking about when you have many people saying totally different things, half of those things being pure dumbassery. This makes it so the item team would know the people giving feedback actually know what they are talking about and honestly, hearing about how attached to these ideas the item team can get makes me think we need separate testers even more than I did before, though this could also be a specific case that doesn't happen much.

 

Fair point. I think divzer deserved a nerf but didn't need a nerf like it is now. Or, if the nerf is to be kept, the bs of tank meta is an indirect nerf to it and all other glassy weapons like it.

Also—Selvut and Druser are the only IMs that I know that are classbuilders, and from my talks with Selvut he clearly plays differently and/or plays different content than I and several other class builders do (pre-1.20 wars and li at the time, around 1.17 and 1.18 era wynn)

________________________________

Also—old Lunar Spine was pretty good from what I remember when using it. Sure looks boring in comparison to all the items we have now, but before it was pretty good. Even still, if it were to be reverted, it'd still be a very inoffensive wand. I like the idea of current Lunar Spine, but the reality of it is incredibly inconvenient and frustrating, since mana is used for sprinting, teleporting, healing, all of which are higher priority than hitting mobs in many situations. 0/10, do not recommend

 

wtf

Druser isn't an IM, unless I've missed a very important event that happened. He definitely commands respect for good reason, but not quite in that position.

Bart is very much a class builder, xavi is, from what i remember of super, super is, alta definitely can be categorized under that label but is more of an ingredient overlord, no idea about sebiee.

There are definitely some questionable decisions but honestly I'd pity the item team more than any other emotion, having to rework rainbow to not be an extremely boring core-item-dependent monolith AND having to deal with the eventual str/dex change whenever that happens AND whatever else that's on the roadmap doesn't sound pleasant. Not that we should excuse them from everything, but meh.




anyway this looks awfully bare so let's talk about some other things:

I'm repeating a lot of what Kio said, but that's because it's hard to say the truth in a wildly different way. So here goes:

That's the issue, or maybe the solution to an issue- inoffensive designs are just too basic as the game moves forward. That's why stuff like requiem got deleted from the game, and why new items are almost gimmicky when compared to current ones. I don't see a legitimate argument supporting old lunar spine, and I think continuing a case for it just makes the argument for an item tester team weaker as it shows a lack of thought. Much cooler to have a unique playstyle (no matter how bad it is) over generic weapon #84.

You bring in a lot of things that weren't necessarily changes, rather the game moving on and items being left behind. They really shouldn't be seen as representative of the pool as a whole. We arguably have the most item diversity... ever, at the moment. It does feel bad when you look at the examples, but anecdotes don't make an argument. Gaia got hit hard by content and supporting item shifts, when its move could have been successful in a different reality. Sitis just got left behind, hard (rip base ;;). Hive weapons suffer from the strength of master armor/accessories (I've told hundreds of #questions askers this as well) but it's so exaggerated. They're nowhere near as bad as they're portrayed as, and your ramble about the condition in which they're used basically proves this point. And of course, they're another case of stuff getting somewhat left behind instead of actively negatively changed. When there's hundreds of cool changes, stuff will be left behind. There's better arguments to make against the item team than this.

>fire spell assassin (only really good with inferno)
Assuming you're ignoring black here since it's TF even though standard powdering is TFF? Just a question, lack of fire spell options is definitely a thing.

I know you're honing in on the mythic changes but this ramble doesn't stand up to analysis.





Now time to take a u-turn:


I'd also point out major id additions on items that really didn't need them balance-wise, but that's not really something the item team can deal with so more of an inevitable pain.
Wait, isn't flashfreeze also a dev issue then???


some things I do agree on are:
- virtuoso.
- pro tempore (haha virtuoso episode 2)
- freedom somehow still existing in its painfully boring state of power instead of any risks being taken with it (it's called "freedom" ffs, why is it so basic?? And also a bit funny since rainbow gives you the least freedom)
- a lot of other stuff i don't immediately recall
-

So yeah still agree with the idea of an item tester team, but yall need to present more valid points.

 

Hard disagree from me. I agree a lot with most of what Saya said: Druser is not an IM, I can tell you for sure that Selvut, Altakar, Bart and Xav are all competent class builders and I strongly suspect the other two are as well.

I want to add that the IM item-making and voting process is already quite heated and tedious as is. They ARE the testers, they do their job honestly and thoroughly. Opening up that to more people slows the process down, and brings in essentially less experienced perspectives—even if the community is right once every 35 items, having community input on every item would slow things drastically to a near standstill. I agree with Druser's idea; just execute the public changelogs better to avoid virtuoso situations.

Also, can we be honest and just say that trying to pick a team of "good builders who are honest, unbiased, and not elitist" that the community agrees on is just not possible, and would lead to unnecessary strife?

I understand where the frustration comes from; the current item pool has its flaws that need addressing and there are some which have persisted for a while. I can ASSURE you with 100% certainty that the item team is aware of this. Hell, I talk to Bart all the time on discord. He knows. They are busy people leading busy lives too, and are currently especially busy with str/dex changes, rainbow rework, and weapon revamp all on the horizon.

It may seem like adding more people to the Item Team or Item making process (as you suggest) would speed things up, but I think that would backfire hard. I can tell you firsthand from the heavy spell project that more item makers definitely does not make a more streamlined environment.

In the end to me this seems like well-meant frustration at gaps in the item pool and seemingly out-of-touch IMs, but I think the frustration is a bit misguided and that the solution propose will have the opposite effect of what is intended.

 

Touhoku basically articulated my problems with the idea too, but I’d like to add a few more things.

It seems like much of this thread is based on and has derailed into frustrations with the item team. Yes, the item team can have bad ideas (flashfreeze was a questionable decision at best). Yes, the community can have good ideas (some of which are listened to). But the bottom line is, IMs are more than competent people who are fully capable of making, balancing, and testing items. And from what little we’ve seen from projects like rainbow rework, they’re doing a great job.

Also, many people fixate on the endgame item pool. All the items discussed in this thread and changes that I’ve seen suggested throughout all community platforms relate to endgame content, usually mythics. The IMs have to create and balance items for all points in the game. It’s unfair to fixate on relatively nitpicky things when there’s much more they have to deal with.

The idea for an item testing team is redundant with the item team itself. I do think IMs can and should listen to and seriously consider legitimate suggestions from the community, but it’s important to be aware of the perspective your suggestions are coming from. An item buff that might seem like a good idea to a player who uses it may be bad for overall game balance, design, and cohesion with future projects. And when it comes down to it, the IMs the most experienced and best equipped people to judge that.

 

hey my personal take on this is that the item team already listens to a lot of community feedback on items, if there is a solid case made against or for a certain thing.

my main issue with the system is that the "running logs" are more like tortoise logs because they are only updated after the items are in game :hmm:
(this leads to pro tempore and virtuoso type situations, where they could have been avoided or the impact drastically reduced by just. showing the item ahead of time? i can see why mythics aren't leaked but bro come on these are low 90 unique and rare boots.)

 

i don't want to hard conflict and say you're wrong but there's a very defensible case on the other side.

busted mythic baseline, missing substitutes for resurgence/slayer, hard reqs like hive/li, armor specials… there's so much content in the game that contributes to a great divide, that to balance around your average playerbase would render a large part of the game completely broken.

if you weren't referring to resource discrepancies, that's even worse. IMs are never going to bend over backwards for players who have 3 cps, players who don't dodge, players who don't choose relevant options in their build, players lacking basic understanding of game mechanics, players who don't spell cycle, and players who believe in radical playstyles like regen assassin or major id stacking.

elitism seems (and probably is) toxic. but the proper answer to this isn't to balance for lower player ability — it's to help those players improve and better understand the game.

 

I do have problem with it sometimes, but consider:
- You are the item balancer of a game
- The game is making roughly 100 new item and balances 300-500 items every major patch
- The game requires every items to be extremely precisely balanced
+ one small mistake sets up a domino effect-type disaster

What IMs currently managed to held together is quite a feat considering when making the item, they would have looked in all directions and identify possible problems before publishing said item.
Would you want to work under the stress that making one wrong move could mean disasterous result?

it is the player's choice to use what they want, if they have settled for a lower hp but higher damage build, they should have known the clear consequence that could have resulted from their choice. this is what such player compromises when going for the highest damage. your argument is just shouting "we want an OP weapon without consequences!!" and consider divzer has 33% more damage than most mythic bow and twice the damage of most legendary bow
would you want that thing to have no consequences?

is it the player's fault of incompetency or the item's fault of being detrimental?

I do not think Flashfreeze addition was detrimental nor beneficial.
Then again, the creator of Flashfreeze already said their thought process: They find Ice Snake hard to hit.
Of course, I do not agree that Ice Snake hard to hit.
(fast mage is funny enough try once a while)

How much knowledge is knowledgeable? Should they, when testing an item, have to look in every small detail to ensure nothing snaps or breaks? Should they know everything within the item system?
Knowing the CT's past and Salted's decision of being secretive, I do not think anyone can be "knowledgeable" enough to "qualify".
Instead, there is this problem that has not been solved yet:
- How does NATURAL HP Regeneration works? What's the exact equation?

If we consider the position "Item Tester" to be a not CT position but more of a community position, should said people (in salted's view) allowed to have the knowledge of every game mechanics?

I would really want to see what is your thought process of being considered "knowledgeable". If possible, I would like to see a sample application form of sort.

Thank you for the definition, now I do not know if I am being elitist when I caters a build to fits the player's request of high offensive ability yet they complains about dying repeatedly.
Should I say "gid gud" or should I say "please consider tankier options" which goes against what the player requested?
Should I be the one to blame for providing a build that fits with said player's request yet they failed to stay alive?
Or should the other player be considered bad?

How can you ensure that said builder can keep their honesty?
Could do a list of rubric/criteria when assessing an item but that could be easily done by the IMs by now

What is considered "good" and what is "not good"?
We can say: "Ah this item is useful and can increase the power of such build by 'x' amount!" (Example: Looking at Pro Tempore with its immense damage could be said good) is good, and...
We can say: "Huh this item does not excel in anything, is it just a niche item...? I do not think this should be in the game." (Example: Bantisu's Approach (and 3 other similar-looking items) were made with player progression in mind, not necessarily endgame usage despite sitting at endgame level range) When considering some items are made to further increases build flexibility.

And in order to recruit a builder, how should you gauge said builder's 'honesty'? I would really love to see how you are able to address this without spying on said builder in the wild.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Personal opinion:
Having a team like this would really create more work (and time usage) for the Item Team through waiting for feedbacks and such. And also unable to allow the IMs to surprise a player if they wanted to. Say, if we draw something (which I do know you draw), we want to surprise the other person through our FINAL result. If it were to be leaked halfway through completion, what would be the fun of that when you just show your audience your drawing again? Seeing people being amused is fun yes and that is one such reason to show your art to others.

What you are suggesting completely take away that. You could say "Item making isn't art the fuck?" but know that anything COULD be an art form, be it being me typing this whole thing out, players speedrunning Canyon Colossus or role-playing in wynnc.. uh I won't address that...

Another problem you have not addressed is 'what are the ways should the builders be assessed of their knowledge, competency and honesty without making the thing too systematic that anyone can do.'
Your suggestion also lacks concrete evidences or examples to further inform your readers. And the entire suggestion feels like you are putting a question for the community to answer, without giving your answer to said question:

of HOW could these things be avoided by listening to knowledged builders who agree these things are bad.
I believe this suggestion is made in good faith but the stances you took in your post says otherwise: Constant saying of "oh we can do the job" without addressing the problem of the opposite party. Is that being elitist?
If it is not, then the 5 consecutive posts by [AIn] should not be considered elitist?

Last point I would like to address is would said builder be competent enough to address controversial changes? Could they stand up, help the IMs by explaining for the IMs to the playerbase that these specific changes SHOULD happen because of x and y factors that contribute?
Such controversial change for example, take Divzer (which you have addressed albeit in one line with little supporting evidence).
- Prior to 1.20, Divzer has 1.3x higher damage than all mythic bows and 2x-2.4x more damage than legendary bow, yet having innate max 8 mana steal and 1000 life steal.
This allowed the player to spec heavily into as much defense as they desire while not batting an eye to other stats as the bow has already provided.
The end result is Divzer being tankier than GMA, Spring, Freedom (arguable) while having the sustain level of Ignis (probably exaggerated) and the damage of little more than Freedom.

The defense penalty was created to set Divzer back, and it sure did.
You can start arguing "but it is too glass to clear contents!" to your heart's content but do remember: it is the player's choice to use what they want, if they have settled for a lower hp but higher damage build, they should have known the clear consequence that could have resulted from their choice. this is what such player compromises when going for the highest damage.

p.s. oh the irony

 

I'm going to tackle the elitist builders question from another angle:

Who does this. Please name a single name who does this.

The closest I've seen to this is @Iboju's clowning around due to how much he likes and is competent at "perfect play" builds, and there's no way he's going around being condescending due to skill level.

The second closest is the statement "The average player is pretty bad at the game". Which does sound awful at first glance, until you realize it's used in situations to justify easier-to-use builds to people who don't think about those aspects, and fuels advancements in accessibility.

So yeah. Not really seeing any "elitist" builders around these parts.

 

Okay, I'm assuming this got posted in the atlas inc. discord. There are a lot of things to respond to so I'm gonna take a while to get to it all. I will get to it all but please refrain from replying until I've replied to all the things here so I don't get more overwhelmed.

 

How are these nerfs just a result of them being left behind lmfao, they were actively nerfed and haven't been that good since their nerfs for the most part, there was an attempt to turn gaia into something it wasn't supposed to be and as a result it's not really outstanding for anything anymore, sitis was already mediocre (shitis lol) and got its base damage nerfed for no reason when in all honesty it probably needed a small buff and not just that universal life steal buff and now it's rarely/not used, Divzer would've been bad this update anyways getting like probably around 90 defense max which isn't usually good enough for archer especially with no agi, the hive weapon nerfs aren't "exaggerated" since it's quite clearly a waste of a master token to use one over any armor/accessory the only reason you'd build them is if there isn't good support for a certain element/play style as I said. Also yeah I do consider Black a fire weapon because it has fire damage and a def req obviously, but it doesn't really play like one which I think most people will agree with, it's a pretty glassy weapon with higher damage and a 55 dex req which is pretty impactful, even with courage it arguably plays more like a thunder weapon. I used these items as examples because I felt they were all meta items that were nerfed or over nerfed for no reason and have been bottom tier picks ever since then. Arguing that items that items are bad not because they were changed, but because the game moved on when they were actively nerfed is just a pitiful argument here, I'm sorry.

 

Okay, first thing to reply to.

Now I'm not gonna touch on people in the item team being good builders, I don't know how many in the team are and how good they are as I haven't seen much of their builds.
I will agree that it wouldn't be possible to find ones all the community will agree on, that's not the point of this. Plus you will always people who are grossly unqualified but think they are.
With the item team being the testers, part of this idea is to easy up the workload for them so they can focus on the items themselves and getting ideas for them and not worry about the making sure it's all perfectly balanced. It's also not about making the process faster but less stressful and, more importantly for the game, better at getting good content consistently.

________________________________

So one part of why I was making this idea is to a) give the item team less things to juggle so they can focus more on the items themselves and changes like rainbow rework and str/dex change, and b) to help if they are not able to kill their darlings, meaning give up on ideas that aren't good due to attachment.
I agree with the endgame part and a lot of this team would be balancing for other points in a game, that is a good thing to bring up and a thing I didn't think of, thank you for that.
The entire idea would be done to help the item team make better content, more of a support to help them avoid making bad changes as much, and make good changes even better. All of this by giving the item team less to juggle and by giving them a more direct group to look at for feedback that can be trusted.

________________________________

Okay, so looking at what you are calling the average player, your just more insulting than honest about what they are. The average player has more than 3 cps, they know what directional keys are, often will ask other builders for help in builds, aren't just dumbasses, and have been told how spell cycling works. And with the helping players improve, they don't do that, they just look down on those not as good as them and demean them, which I have an example of here (name and pfp censored to not get people on them for this).

________________________________

Gonna take a break from replying and will likely continue tomorrow. Until then please wait for me to finish.

 

Did not want to reply initially but I think I need to step in here; I was here when this was said. I feel as if using this quote to demonstrate a point in disingenuous. Haisay and Citied were in class_builds (and were in VC together as well) making controversial claims which often looked like baiting people into arguments. In this case, the discussion was whether or not 30k ehp was enough for TCC. You disregarded the experience of anyone who disagreed with you, implied that they were all getting carried, and demanded proof of a run where they lived without getting hard carried in what often came across a demeaning and disrespectful tone. Whats_Sigma provided a video, which you (correctly) pointed out was in hotfix6. Sigma then provided ANOTHER video, not in hotfix6, which I assume you must've missed, as you and the others continued to ask people for evidence. Eventually, this baiting and goading by Haisay and Citied as well as frustration from you not addressing the evidence led to the player you left unnamed saying that quote (which to be clear, I disagree with).

This quote does not show a "commonly held" perspective on newer players to the game. This quote reflects what an INDIVIDUAL said in anger and does not represent a large sector of the playerbase. There are a LOT of people who make a big effort to help new players improve; @Saya's class-building terminology thread, HazardEST's work in low-level classbuilding, and many other builders come to mind for me, and I'm sure that happens in the sections of the forums I'm not particularly active in too.

If you want to have an actual discussion, please discuss in good faith, rather than cherry-picking quotes and misrepresenting ideas out of context to serve an agenda. I do not want to start a flame war with this; everyone makes mistakes and things come across as they are not meant. But I want to convey what actually happened surrounding this screenshot, and urge you to not use it as representative of the 'experienced' part of the playerbase. I am not going to push this into some forums drama, and I am sorry if what happened wasn't reflective of your intentions.

Spoiler: Evidence from the argument

Edit: if anyone else wants to see the entire conversation in context, it was in #class_builds in the wynn discord on May 2nd (for me, US pacific). I do not mean to cherry-pick quotes from it, but I unfortunately do not have the time nor energy to screenshot the 30+ minutes of debate. If you suspect this is cherry-picking I encourage you to read through it and come to your own conclusions.

 

going to take this as a not serious reply

1.19:

the item went from -4 (lowest)/ 1 (highest) net mana to -2 (lowest) / 2 (highest) net mana and compatible with 68 int.
additional argument that if the sitis -mr roll is 1 or 2 it should not even matter

daily reminder raid is not the only content

how does a fire weapon play like?
does every fire weapon have to be a tank?
if so, i could say:
Conflagrate should not be fire element, it has negative hp
Adrenaline has too much damage, it does not play like a fire element

does an item being 'meta' immediately exempt it from being too strong and need adjustment?
i would pick divzer over spring if i can stand mana steal for once.

i think everyone would want every items to evolve alongside new item. but that is just not possible and unrealistic when considering an example of you being the IM

assume roughly 80 new items per major patch
currently we have:

Spoiler: Evidence

~roughly 600 or so items (excl normals)
so you would add roughly 80 new items and possibly look through 600 other existing item to look for those who are left behind.
you have 5 other IMs to work with
do note that items are interwoven like a complex net or when you shove your wired earphones back into your pocket, there is a lot of room for fatal mistakes
could you do the job perfectly?

 

More process, more people means more work, a restructured workflow for the IMs and getting comfortable with the workflow as well.
IMs are those who are committed for a longer period of time, they would have a chance to work with each other and being comfortable around.
Should we interrupt their bonds by introducing a seemingly temporary team with lax requirement and say that the IMs must have complete trust to us?

I can count 2 unique ideas that fails hard and still made it into the game, yet is not detrimental and is completely optional.
- Flashfreeze
- Ambivalence and 'heavy spell'
While I do agree that the energies got wasted on these, it was completely optional and you could choose to ignore it.
The idea of 'making people give up what they love' just sounds selfish and discouraging to hear even for me.
Like: Salted could say "Wars are too problematic, we should give up." Would we have the system we have today?
Especially that the IMs are volunteers. Their rewards is just seeing people be happy. In what rights should we even think about saying that they are incompetent.
If everyone just suddenly go "naw this is hard, im bored", probably your art would not even exist in the first place huh?

A 'not good' idea is still an idea, and it is still an addition to the diversity of what we have now, regardless of whatever it is.
Until that 'not good' idea affects and detrimenting others, which is not the case.

What is 'improvement'?
What should be considered 'improvement' in this case?
Is it measured by the success of said players in certain content?
So, in making the items way stronger, can we say the player has 'improved' with the new stronger item that lower overall game difficulty?
Or is it through sweat and blood that these player seeks out knowledge in order to 'improve' themselves should be considered 'improvement'?

I have known a lot of players whom actively seek out game knowledge through hosting a "Game mechanics answering party" that I had a random thought on. They genuinely look for ways to 'improve' themselves either through asking for what gear should they use or different relevant game mechanics that... wynn is just silent about.

Or is the service I am providing is completely meaningless, and the IMs should just make stronger item in order for the player to 'improve' themselves?

 

Okay, so firstly, if I ever came across as rude or demeaning in that conversation or any others I am sorry and would ask you please say I am. I have a lot of issue understanding people and how I'm coming across.

Secondly, I would prefer if this thread didn't become a massive firestorm and you seemed a bit more heated so I ask you please cool down a small bit.

Now on the actually discussion that the screenshot was from, a) I think they had just come by a few minutes before, b) Saying the average player can't effectively do raids with 20k-30k isn't that contraversial, c) I agree that what was expressed there isn't a commonly held perspective, just that it is enough to note as a thing to watch out for, and finally d) I was not saying that they didn't do that if I recall correctly, but that I was highly doubtful and wanted proof if I was to believe that, and yes, I missed the second video.

So unless you have information I didn't know or forgot I wasn't really taking that quote out of any context that would make it any better.

 

I wasn't really 'demeaned' 2-3 years ago when I was new to the game. Neither were others, from what I've experienced on the forums: @RenZenthio is my best case study for this. We were bad, we sought help, we improved. Most people who want to improve will ask for advice. Most people who ask for advice receive exactly that — they don't get looked down on for being bad.

I've helped out a lv100 player who didn't know about spell cycling. Just because you're aware of it doesn't mean everyone else, or even the majority, does.

Sure, let's suppose you're right. We'll take a more generous assumption and say that the average player has 6 cps, knows how to dodge attacks, adopts a build recommended by an experienced builder, is pretty reasonable, and practices good spell cycling.

Now, what are some builds at the forefront of the current meta? Morph. Far Cosmos. CDD. Adrenaline TWF. These builds are accessible, consistent, and reliable for most content. And under your hypothesis about the average player's skill level, it's pretty straightforward to play these builds. Other more interesting builds are thrown around quite regularly, and after the market deflation from last year, it's easy to source the items required for them. All of this is done without mythics.

So, what's an example of an item or build that won't work for them? Further, what aspects of current item balance are bad for this demographic? If you're instead concerned about elitist builders in this tester team wrecking the meta, what's a change that they could bring about that would hurt the average player other than tomes?

________________________________

It is. When we use the term 'improve,' @PenLord and I refer to a player increasing their skill level and bettering their understanding of the game.

 

got it chief

 

Okay, this was really well done and is giving me a lot to think about. I'm unsure if I can answer everything but I will try.

So firstly, yes, what the item team are able to do is really amazing, and that they can redesign entire items like sparklingplate or dhydro necklace while making them good and not destroying everything with it is good. One of the main reasons for this suggestion is so the item team can have a smaller workload and also in cases where they might get attached to a bad idea, which is rare but has happened.

Secondly, I don't want to only focus on Divzer, but to respond your second point quickly, Divzer diffidently has high damage and sustain that makes it good, the issue with the defense change is that divzer would only get 30k-40k ehp, less than what gma and spring get in this update (this comes from builds I've seen with gma and spring post update and a modified divzer without -def), and this update also puts more emphasis on ehp, so that would still hurt divzer a lot. There could be an argument for lowering its damage and/or sustain for more bulk though.

Now on the knowledgeable part, I mean more a competent builder. They might need to learn about some mechanics for testing but most competent builders they can tell when an item is broken or not and can often tell why. Now, what is a competent builder? That is not an easy question to answer, in fact I don't think I can give an exact answer, and certainly not in one night. It would probably be more case by case and not fit to an exact definition.

For an application forum, I could write one up but it would likely also be made to ask for ideas and improvement so it would diffidently not be final and would likely have many issues that would need to be addressed.

Building to players isn't an elitist thing to do really and I think seeing that they might want to use a build with better ehp shows you to likely not be one. An elitist would be more of the opinion that they shouldn't need more ehp in the first place.

On the honesty part, asking for any times in the past they complained might help with that. Aside from that it would likely be seeing how they make criticism while they are a trial member.

What is considered "good" and "not good" would be very much a case by case thing and would likely be heavily influenced by what the item team wanted the item to be for.

With this being more work, I see where you are coming from, but I think it would more be more time between item updates rather than more work for the IMs. They wouldn't have to do the testing, just wait for the results to come back in.

For the items being leaked, that is a fair point and would likely have trial members not getting the full pool of new/changed items, this team would be made to be kept secrative about the items unless members wanted to get kicked, however.

I think I might've unintentionally gone too hard on the item team. I have trouble understanding how I come across and it sucks. As I said earlier and in a reply to another person, this is more to a) give the item team one less thing to worry about, b) give them feedback they know they can trust, and c) get feedback from a more unbiased source as it can be hard to kill your darlings.

And then with controversial changes, the people on the tester team should be able to hold firm on their positions and defend controversial changes that they think are good, but also support change for ones they think are bad. They shouldn't be pushovers what so ever.

And then finally on the divzer thing, the issue is most players cannot work with the ehp it has. Making it a low ehp high damage weapon? Good idea, love it, but this case has gone too far to where 99% of players will die before they can even do damage and not through fault of their own.

 

Chiming in again for a small thing.

It seems like the main argument for a testing team has boiled down to “people to test items = IMs can focus on concepts = less work for IMs.” I think this reasoning is flawed.

Item balance is an intrinsic part of the design process. Items are usually adjusted, tested, and adjusted more before the community even gets to see the concept, if the idea isn’t completely scrapped in the first place. Removing the testing/balance aspect from IMs doesn’t reduce their workload, it interrupts their workflow. A team specifically to test item concepts just means IMs have to outsource work they are completely capable of doing themselves, right in the middle of the design process.

Of course, this is just how I see it from what I’ve gathered from interactions with IMs. I’d rather see an opinion from an actual IM, but I’m confident my analysis of what this supposed team would do to the design process is a mostly accurate.