Brink beta and my pov

(Nail) #81

I agree, especially modders who have worked with idtech SDKs. I think they would be more familiar with the bug reporting terminology required by the developers

(Szakalot) #82

Very good idea, totally agree.

(PSG_Mud) #83

[QUOTE=SockDog;233136]I said invites were a distribution not selection method.

I like Apples idea. I think giving closed beta access to mappers, modders from various games would be of most benefit to tweaking the game design and some balance issues. Gamers IMO are rarely capable of seeing past their own needs and shouldn’t have a great influence on design.[/QUOTE]

Profound statement, but, in the end SD or Bethesda will have to choose between marketing and making a solid game. I hate to say this, but, in todays world, games take a much longer time to make. And, because of this, betas are not as effective as they once were. Regardless or not I don’t see the influence of a few really good beta testers out weighing the benefits of a beta system I suggested in a previous post. I don’t want this game to fail in terms of marketing like ETQW did.

Either way, Brink has already antiquated the game via disregarding gaming as a service than a product. In our computer age 5 years is 5 centuries of technology. And, the business model I have to criticize as being ancient, and because of this, underachieving.

(tokamak) #84

[QUOTE=SockDog;233136]I said invites were a distribution not selection method.

I like Apples idea. I think giving closed beta access to mappers, modders from various games would be of most benefit to tweaking the game design and some balance issues. Gamers IMO are rarely capable of seeing past their own needs and shouldn’t have a great influence on design.[/QUOTE]

See now that’s a “selection” method that just blows tapir balls. Firstly because making a map doesn’t automatically make you a good tester or even a good mapper at that, and secondly there aren’t nearly enough modders/mappers to fill a beta with.

And invites are in a way a selection method, you let the early beta testers ‘select’ the new beta testers. It’s totally different than putting invites up for grabs like in BC2.

(SockDog) #85

Well I didn’t think it would need to be pointed out that you wouldn’t select people who were terrible at making maps and mods. Kinda obvious isn’t it.

I’d also say that people who make maps and mods, which are successful, would be more aware of what makes a game play well and what doesn’t. At least more so than many gamers. So for a selection criteria it seems perfectly adequate and you’ve not really proven otherwise.

and secondly there aren’t nearly enough modders/mappers to fill a beta with.

Right so not enough qualified people so lets just pick anybody?

And invites are in a way a selection method

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

(tokamak) #86

You’re seriously suggesting that in order to select beta-testers the developers must have first played the maps of the modders in order to determine the value of their mod?

(SockDog) #87

Are you having a tough weekend? You seem to be having great issue with comprehending very simple concepts. Let me try again, if a map or mod maker has proven work then there is no requirement to test the work.

Jesus, you’re suggesting that you are qualified to issue invites but producing a map or mod that has a following is laughable. Honestly, you sound a bit too desperate to be included in the beta.

(tokamak) #88

This is so rich, how many people do you think would be selected through this…method?

(DarkangelUK) #89

I wouldn’t invite anyone from here to the beta… especially not me!

(murka) #90

Well, there are enough good mappers/modders to make a diff. The number is probably around 10+, but that is a decent number for testing mechanics. To test balance, you need a huge ammount of people.

(INF3RN0) #91

I can only think of what kind of people not to invite, but I am having a bit of trouble determining who should get the privilege. Meh… pre-orders should still get an alpha though. The people who will be buying and playing the game will have some sort of incentive to help with an early patch list. Anyone who might whine about it would whine when it got released anyways, considering it would be a near perfect match with the finished game (but perhaps limited to a single map).

(ehrw) #92

After reading all this few times I come back to my original thought. Have a one map demo for those that pre-orders and have it up for like a week or two before the release date. Take all the data and stuff you get from that testing period to get materials for the first patch.

Before that get a closed core group that helps out with the stuff you want them to. Then give them invites and expand the beta to be more open. When you’re done with that beta phase close it down and make a the demo to test it under heavier load.

(tokamak) #93

You need 16 players to play the game as it’s supposed to be played. Only the most dedicated players will wait around on a server and wait for the others to join, that’s why you need a ‘critical mass’ of players to keep servers filled, if only for the peak hours.

Shattered Horizon’s beta program has hundreds of designated beta testers, it’s beta servers are only up for two hours per day (to keep the numbers concentrated and everyone knows when to play) and still has trouble getting the servers filled to test the content properly.

Most of the time the servers were very low, this was especially a problem for balancing guns as the more selective weaponry, like SMG’s and Snipers was in a clear advantage over say, the machine gun which couldn’t throw it’s huge 200 ammo clip around to effect.

My point is, getting the right amount of beta players is insanely difficult. Too little and the testers have a skewed view of the actual content, too much and people treat it like a trial version and judge it as such.

This is why you can’t just point at a fixed group of people and say ‘those are the best fitted for testing’, you need a dynamic procedure that you, as a developer have a steady control over, yet doesn’t take so much of your time that you need the delay the release date another year. That’s why Google’s invite approach is superior here, people will hand out their invites to those that they deem motivated enough to test the beta with them, all the developer needs to do is control the flow of invites and keep the beta population at an optimum level.

Generally speaking, game journalists rarely review the game beyond it’s first build, that means that all it’s flaws will be taken into account with the final verdict. Although doing this ‘stunt’ prior to it’s release certainly is valuable for creating lots of hype around it, you still really want the feedback that would be gained through it earlier so it can still be included in the shipped product.

(H0RSE) #94

I think the way they are doing it now, controlled, internal testing, is the best way to do it.

(murka) #95

Tokamak, your ability to write when clearly not being able to read never ceases to amaze me.

Like i said, to test mechanics you don’t need to play with anyone else. Maybe for some things you need help, one additional person. So if every one chosen gets 2 keys, this will be solved. And cheats enabled pretty much removes requirement of other people of some etqw bugs like icarus, vehicle exit, certain weapon events can be stopped in an unintended way etc.
I did mention that you need many people only to test balance, but you just respond “bah wah SH beta people balance…”.
Sure you get more motivation to test when you can play, but this is what seperates closed bet from open one. Dedicated people doing it in a required way.

(tokamak) #96

To test that kind of stuff they want in-house testers, that has nothing to do with a beta. Only by ‘crunching’ the game with 16 players matches you can truly know the game and expose it’s flaws.

(SockDog) #97

Does it matter? You’re only arguing because… well… because I said invites were not a selection criteria? and so you now need to pick holes in anything I say? :rolleyes:

Seems quite logical that mappers and modders would have more experience of the underlying mechanics of what makes a game work and the issues that come up. They’d be used to seeing a game in less than perfect condition and they’d be used to documenting bugs with enough technical detail as to be useful/reproducible.

I’ve said several times in this thread that an open MP_Test would also be great to wrap up bugs and smaller stuff so that the first patch actually gets onto the retail. But of course if you’d acknowledged that then you wouldn’t be able to pew pew as much.

(DarkangelUK) #98

I wouldn’t say that much, since modders and mappers release beta’s of their own work so others can find flaws… which they usually do.

(mortis) #99

Reverse logic might not work in this scenario…

(SockDog) #100

Well I’m just talking a selection criteria to have valuable participants. I’m not suggesting anyone is perfect, only that it makes sense to pick people who have some (proven) experience. A fresh pair of eyes with some knowledge behind them.

Of course if you throw out a wide net you’ll also get some quality people that way too but you’re also accepting a lot of noise as a consequence.