If you don't care of the meaning or differences between closed testing and public testing and want to use your own terms not much else to say. Though it is there for people that do want to understand or why people don't agree with what you are saying.
The opposite of closed testing is not public testing - it is open testing.
It is not my fault that a few of you seem to have mixed up the terms open testing and public testing.
Pretty sure you are things mixed up. Public testing is open to people and public, closed testing is open to select people including public for certain reasons and constraints including limited space of availability. Both terms are there for a reason.
Simply because you pull people from the public doesn't mean its a public test server, if your test has a limited amount of 10,000 spots it would be a closed test as its only a small amount of people that are able to test for one example as said above.
You are correct that both terms are there for a reason.
As I have said in this thread, public testing is any testing done by members of the public. Members of the public, in this sense, is defined by anyone not in the organization that developed the product being tested.
Since this is testing performed by members of the public, it is "public testing".
Within public testing, you have open and closed testing. Closed public testing is invite only (this is the part you seem to not grasp), and open public testing is open to all.
When I explain public and closed testing and you say "this is the part you can't grasp." clearly showing you actually aren't reading my post.
closed testing is open to select people including public
You can't call it a public test server if that isn't the case. It is simply closed testing that some of the public can be involved in. If you are trying to boil things down public is in it so public is testing it, that doesn't really matter as we are talking about what is defined a public test server not what the public can play in. That is like saying humans play game.
You can't call it a public test server if that isn't the case. It is simply closed testing that some of the public can be involved in.
If some of the public can be involved in it, then it is testing done by the some of the public.
Thus, it is public testing.
It may or many not be open testing, but if that testing is done by members of the public, it is public testing.
This should not need an explanation
No that isn't how it works lol. It is closed testing then.
So, you are saying that testing done by the public isn't able to be called public testing?
Do you not realize that this is not a protected term at all?
I'm saying there is a reason why developers call something closed testing. To call them both public testing for the sake of just wanting to be right is kind of confusing to me, I don't understand the inner reason to be right so badly on that. I could get into a lost list of reasonings on why public and closed are different even if public can be involved in both. Public involvement doesn't automatically make something a public testing as there needs to be context behind it as well.
Going by your logic a closed testing would be a public test server if the public is involved and the developers are wrong to call it a closed test server?
Going by your logic a closed testing would be a public test server if the public is involved and the developers are wrong to call it a closed test server?
Calling such a test a closed test is neither correct, nor incorrect. It is best described as incomplete.
It is a closed public test - technically speaking.
However, since every test the public is involved in and knows about is technically a public test, the word public in regards to testing is kind of redundant to us players - and is only of any meaning to those working on the game.
0
Options
DygzMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Did Phoenix Inititiave have private testing during Alpha One?
I am cool with a PTR for Ashes. And yeah that means anyone with an active sub can join. Not a private server with invites.
A much more interesting question I think is, should we be able to copy our live server characters over to the PTR? And if so, with what limitations?
I think yes, and sure, limit the amount of times or frequency with with you can copy characters over, but I think the testing will only be improved if we can. Have combat changes? Let players test them with their normal Live characters and give their feedback.
Should intrepid need to test new player experience changes, wipe and shut down the copy character service until the testing is done.
The first game I played with PTR was DAoC, with its Pendragon server, which also had the character copy feature. I saw no major downsides then, and I see no major downsides for Ashes.
I'm not sure if a permanent PTR is a good idea. But I am sure that its not going away. Access to the persistent Alpha test server turning into the PTR after launch was a promised benefit from backing the Kickstarter at a $150 and above package.
PTR is great in theory, but I just think it's an excuse for "community interaction." In all of the games I've seen have a PTR, there have been plenty of bugs that go through despite players giving feedback on those bugs.
I've experienced this personally in New World, and apparently it happens all the time in WoW. And games that don't have a PTR like FFXIV can still be relatively bug free with patches.
In my opinion, PTR is not any guarantee to prevent bugs, while it has a large negative effect of spoiling content.
I am cool with a PTR for Ashes. And yeah that means anyone with an active sub can join. Not a private server with invites.
As a general point, I agree.
However, there will still be invite only testing on that server (that will not be live 100% of the time) to test specific aspects as per developer need. What will most likely happen is they will port the build for the DLC or what ever to the test server, internal staff will run around on it for a bit (a few days or so), then they will invite a few more people to run around on it - and possibly get some specific testing done. Then they will open it up to more people (not necessarily a fully open test yet), and then at some point before launch, they will fully open it up.
Basically, testing of a games DLC echoes the testing of the game itself. Start off with in house testing, add a limited number of additional people, and ramp it up slowly until you are confident in a fully open test situation.
A much more interesting question I think is, should we be able to copy our live server characters over to the PTR? And if so, with what limitations?
This depends entirely on what the content they want tested is.
If they want us to test solo or group content they are adding, porting over our characters decked out in raid gear is probably not a good idea. If they are revamping low level content, it is again not a good idea.
If they are adding new top end content, then it is probably a good idea.
YaY on PTR. It’s overall better for the game to have as many players pummel the next build. I’m fine with data being available on day 1, because I have the internal fortitude to not look for data I’d rather discover on my own. This dynamic worked well in WoW for damn near 20 years.
PTR is great in theory, but I just think it's an excuse for "community interaction." In all of the games I've seen have a PTR, there have been plenty of bugs that go through despite players giving feedback on those bugs.
I've experienced this personally in New World, and apparently it happens all the time in WoW. And games that don't have a PTR like FFXIV can still be relatively bug free with patches.
In my opinion, PTR is not any guarantee to prevent bugs, while it has a large negative effect of spoiling content.
In my experience, many bugs found on test servers are fixed - I would say perhaps as many as 90% - before the update or game goes live.
It is the larger bugs though, which are often the ones that people care most about, that don't always get patched in time. This is because they are much more work to patch, and the fix to them usually breaks other things.
However, the earlier they are reported, the earlier that work to fix them can start.
What I have seen a lot of that often doesn't get any attention (and this is very prolific in WoW) is bad design choices. People report them as if they are bugs, and are complain when they aren't looked at - often for years.
These aren't bugs, as they are functioning exactly as designed - it's just that the intended design is stupid, easily broken or easily exploitable. These are the "bugs" I see the most complaints about.
Comments
Pretty sure you are things mixed up. Public testing is open to people and public, closed testing is open to select people including public for certain reasons and constraints including limited space of availability. Both terms are there for a reason.
As I have said in this thread, public testing is any testing done by members of the public. Members of the public, in this sense, is defined by anyone not in the organization that developed the product being tested.
Since this is testing performed by members of the public, it is "public testing".
Within public testing, you have open and closed testing. Closed public testing is invite only (this is the part you seem to not grasp), and open public testing is open to all.
You can't call it a public test server if that isn't the case. It is simply closed testing that some of the public can be involved in. If you are trying to boil things down public is in it so public is testing it, that doesn't really matter as we are talking about what is defined a public test server not what the public can play in. That is like saying humans play game.
Thus, it is public testing.
It may or many not be open testing, but if that testing is done by members of the public, it is public testing.
This should not need an explanation
No that isn't how it works lol. It is closed testing then.
So, you are saying that testing done by the public isn't able to be called public testing?
Do you not realize that this is not a protected term at all?
I'm saying there is a reason why developers call something closed testing. To call them both public testing for the sake of just wanting to be right is kind of confusing to me, I don't understand the inner reason to be right so badly on that. I could get into a lost list of reasonings on why public and closed are different even if public can be involved in both. Public involvement doesn't automatically make something a public testing as there needs to be context behind it as well.
Going by your logic a closed testing would be a public test server if the public is involved and the developers are wrong to call it a closed test server?
It is a closed public test - technically speaking.
However, since every test the public is involved in and knows about is technically a public test, the word public in regards to testing is kind of redundant to us players - and is only of any meaning to those working on the game.
A much more interesting question I think is, should we be able to copy our live server characters over to the PTR? And if so, with what limitations?
I think yes, and sure, limit the amount of times or frequency with with you can copy characters over, but I think the testing will only be improved if we can. Have combat changes? Let players test them with their normal Live characters and give their feedback.
Should intrepid need to test new player experience changes, wipe and shut down the copy character service until the testing is done.
The first game I played with PTR was DAoC, with its Pendragon server, which also had the character copy feature. I saw no major downsides then, and I see no major downsides for Ashes.
Are you saying you think that means they won't wipe the Alpha 2 server when it goes to PTR, and won't wipe it often?
I've experienced this personally in New World, and apparently it happens all the time in WoW. And games that don't have a PTR like FFXIV can still be relatively bug free with patches.
In my opinion, PTR is not any guarantee to prevent bugs, while it has a large negative effect of spoiling content.
However, there will still be invite only testing on that server (that will not be live 100% of the time) to test specific aspects as per developer need. What will most likely happen is they will port the build for the DLC or what ever to the test server, internal staff will run around on it for a bit (a few days or so), then they will invite a few more people to run around on it - and possibly get some specific testing done. Then they will open it up to more people (not necessarily a fully open test yet), and then at some point before launch, they will fully open it up.
Basically, testing of a games DLC echoes the testing of the game itself. Start off with in house testing, add a limited number of additional people, and ramp it up slowly until you are confident in a fully open test situation. This depends entirely on what the content they want tested is.
If they want us to test solo or group content they are adding, porting over our characters decked out in raid gear is probably not a good idea. If they are revamping low level content, it is again not a good idea.
If they are adding new top end content, then it is probably a good idea.
In my experience, many bugs found on test servers are fixed - I would say perhaps as many as 90% - before the update or game goes live.
It is the larger bugs though, which are often the ones that people care most about, that don't always get patched in time. This is because they are much more work to patch, and the fix to them usually breaks other things.
However, the earlier they are reported, the earlier that work to fix them can start.
What I have seen a lot of that often doesn't get any attention (and this is very prolific in WoW) is bad design choices. People report them as if they are bugs, and are complain when they aren't looked at - often for years.
These aren't bugs, as they are functioning exactly as designed - it's just that the intended design is stupid, easily broken or easily exploitable. These are the "bugs" I see the most complaints about.