Public Test Realm servers. Yay or Nay?

I'm gonna be real quick here.

If the game doesnt have public test servers, the live servers will be the public test servers.

Noaani wrote: »

I'm gonna be real quick here.

If the game doesnt have public test servers, the live servers will be the public test servers.

Man you really have never played that tested their content in house, and released it in working condition have you?

Asgerr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

I'm gonna be real quick here.

If the game doesnt have public test servers, the live servers will be the public test servers.

Man you really have never played that tested their content in house, and released it in working condition have you?

I have played many, many MMOs, and every single one of them had a testing server.

Some were invite only, and much of the population didn't even know they existed - but they all had such a server.

Well, I can tell you from experience, that I've also played some that didn't have them, and they worked jusst fine and rarely if ever had any bugs.

I feel like the games that need a PTR are those games where the devs don't actually play their own game.

Asgerr wrote: »

Well, I can tell you from experience, that I've also played some that didn't have them, and they worked jusst fine and rarely if ever had any bugs.

I have no doubt at all that you have played games where you were not aware of a test server.

Literally no doubt about that at all.

Having seen the criteria that a number of games have for people they offer testing to, you wouldn't meet it - so if you have played any of those games, you wouldn't know test servers existed despite people like me providing you with that pre-launch testing so that the expansions and patches can get to you with as few bugs as possible.

I feel like the games that need a PTR are those games where the devs don't actually play their own game.

I mean, you can feel this all you like - doesn't mean it's correct.

And even if it were correct, this isn't a particularly good argument. The company should have systems in place to ensure the best quality of product that it can, regardless of if the developers wish to go home from working on a product for 8+ hours to then using that same product.

Sure, we all like it when game developers are passionate about the game they are making, but you had better believe that if I had a job where I was working on a game for 8+ hours a day, when I came home I would not be all that interested in logging on to that game to play it. I'd go and do something else - anything else.

The argument of: "Ah you're just not good enough to be invited to the secret PTRs that everyone has" might be the single worst argument you've made in the entirety of the forums' existence.

And you've made plenty of fallacious arguments. Throwing one that requires proving a negative is quite the leap in challenge rating though.

Asgerr wrote: »

The argument of: "Ah you're just not good enough to be invited to the secret PTRs that everyone has" might be the single worst argument you've made in the entirety of the forums' existence.

Who said anything about not being good enough?

Are you making the assumption that because a lot of top end players tend to spend some time on test servers in some games, that top end players make good testers?

As a general rule, the value of someone in a testing environment has no relation at all to how good they are at anything in that game. Being a good tester is a mindset thing, it's about how you look at things.

If you are an analytical person, you are probably going to be a good tester. If you make assumptions based on how you "feel", you are not going to be a good tester.

Fun fact, most games with public testing also have earlier alpha testing on expansions. The earlier testing is where most of the actual bugs are found, and the later beta tests are more for load testing - both server technology, but also how well the content itself handles loads.

I've yet to be involved in a game that has not had invite only testing - including Ashes.

Noaani wrote: »

Who said anything about not being good enough?

Hmmm let me see...

Noaani wrote: »

Having seen the criteria that a number of games have for people they offer testing to, you wouldn't meet it - so if you have played any of those games, you wouldn't know test servers existed despite people like me providing you with that pre-launch testing so that the expansions and patches can get to you with as few bugs as possible.

Ah yes, there it was. Sounds pretty much like: "I'm good at this and you're not thus you can't get invited and can't ever disprove anything I say."

Asgerr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Who said anything about not being good enough?

Hmmm let me see...

Noaani wrote: »

Having seen the criteria that a number of games have for people they offer testing to, you wouldn't meet it - so if you have played any of those games, you wouldn't know test servers existed despite people like me providing you with that pre-launch testing so that the expansions and patches can get to you with as few bugs as possible.

Ah yes, there it was. Sounds pretty much like: "I'm good at this and you're not thus you can't get invited and can't ever disprove anything I say."

Are you saying that a specific mindset makes a person better or worse?

Keep in mind, your comment was "you're just not good enough to be invited" There was no qualifier as to what the person was not good enough. I disagree that a person is not good enough based on the things that are in the discussion here.

My point was that if a game company is holding specific, invite only testing, they are going to only invite people they think will be good at testing what they are testing.

Now, if you want to amend your statement to say something more like "you're just not good enough at testing and giving the kind of feedback to be invited", then I would agree with your statement.

The thing is, if you are talking about limited numbers in testing, I think even you would agree with that statement. If you have limited testing available, you want to bring along people that you think would be good at testing the thing that you are testing.

An example of this would be solo content - I wouldn't invite myself along to test solo content in a situation where there is limited test spots available - but I would invite Dygz.

Does that mean I do not think I am good enough? Or does it mean there are specific things that are desired?

Really, I am unsure what your complain here is.

Games have invite only testing. Even Ashes has already had some invite only testing. If you do not know about games having invite only testing, don't go bitching to me for informing you of this fact - and that is literally all I have done here.

Just wanted to slap in that if the public testing is some secret invite only club to a handful of people - I don't that counts anymore as being called public since very few people will have access.

Might as well just refer to it as the dev branch used only internally. I think this is quite different from a PTR.

I'd like to think most MMOs have a dev branch for testing.

daveywavey

If someone's willing to use their game-time to test the game to make it better for the rest of the playerbase, then I'm happy for them to have that slight knowledge advantage.

MaiWaifu wrote: »

Just wanted to slap in that if the public testing is some secret invite only club to a handful of people - I don't that counts anymore as being called public since very few people will have access.

Might as well just refer to it as the dev branch used only internally. I think this is quite different from a PTR.

I'd like to think most MMOs have a dev branch for testing.

It depends on what you mean by public.

Public testing does not need to always and only refer to testing that is open to all. It is appropriate to label any testing by people not employed by the developer or publisher (or a paid contractor) as being public testing, even if it is invite only.

I disagree with the semantics.

I can't think of a single service that is invite only and referred to as public. Invite only implies it is private.

Please could you share an example of one if possible?

MaiWaifu wrote: »

I disagree with the semantics.

I can't think of a single service that is invite only and referred to as public. Invite only implies it is private.

Please could you share an example of one if possible?

Sure, MMO testing.

Other than that, I have opened a number of businesses, and have often held public openings that are invite only on the first day. Same thing with some museums, galleries and library openings that I have been involved with - the first day is often invite only with VIP's, dignitaries, donors and press. Additionally, many public events like concerts have invite only aspects to them - even if only a specifically designated area, or an initial showing of a performance.

This is a much better analogy to what MMO's do than simply isolating the invite only stage of the public test. The public testing starts out as invite only, and then opens up to where (often) anyone that wants to join in can.

It is called "public testing" because from the perspective of the developers, members of the public are testing it - even if it is invite only.

This is not rocket surgery.

Noaani wrote: »

Other than that, I have opened a number of businesses, and have often held public openings that are invite only on the first day. Same thing with some museums, galleries and library openings that I have been involved with - the first day is often invite only with VIP's, dignitaries, donors and press. Additionally, many public events like concerts have invite only aspects to them - even if only a specifically designated area, or an initial showing of a performance.

This is a much better analogy to what MMO's do than simply isolating the invite only stage of the public test. The public testing starts out as invite only, and then opens up to where (often) anyone that wants to join in can.

It is called "public testing" because from the perspective of the developers, members of the public are testing it - even if it is invite only.

This is not rocket surgery.

This is still not reflective of the term public.

In your own example, the first day is a private event for invited members only. The public do not yet have access.

Noaani wrote: »

Many public events like concerts have invite only aspects to them.

Are these areas you are referring to feature a sign which says "Members Only" / "Invite Only" / "Private Area" ? How do the public know they don't have access to this invite only aspect?

Noaani wrote: »

The public testing starts out as invite only, and then opens up to where (often) anyone that wants to join in can.

You are describing 2 different stages of testing. I believe this thread is only looking at the public part. Which is, I agree often open to anyone that signs up.

I agree, this is not rocket surgery. Public has a clearly defined meaning.

MaiWaifu wrote: »

I agree, this is not rocket surgery. Public has a clearly defined meaning.

So, the adjective version here has 14 different meanings.

You are assuming only one meaning is appropriate - 6a in your link.

If you assume the definition contained in 3a - "of or relating to people in general" - then you get a better picture.

Basically, you are assuming a term has a single meaning, and provided a link where half of that term contained 14 different meanings as proof of your point.

Good work!

Yes, relating to people in general is not inviting only a subset group of said people.

Edit: For clarity, here is the definition of private.

- intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class
- not general in effect

For example, just because a president is meeting with members of the public doesn't change the fact it's a private meeting. These people were selected or invited.

Dev Testing / Private Testing / Closed Testing which can be based on invitation which I believe you are referring to are entirely different from a Public Test.

But I concede - I don't think this is a point we will be able to agree on.

MaiWaifu wrote: »

Yes, relating to people in general is not inviting only a subset group of said people.

Yes it is.

I mean, it isn't as if literally every person alive tests the game anyway, so we are literally always only talking about a subset.

Once again, when you are working within an organization developing a product, any time that product is shown to people not within that organization, it is a public showing. Even if it is an invite only event, it is still people that are not within that organization, and thus is a showing to the public.