Quote Originally Posted by Jaraiden
[img]/Web/Themes/Generic/images/icon-quote.gif[/img]Seikojin wrote: Why not embrace something that makes the task of testing easier... Let normal play happen on chaos, unity and order... It is a TEST shard... That should be the purpose is to test things, and it is invaluable for that ability to have tools to facilitate testing...

I dont see the problem. Theres no need to be high, mighty, and greedy by saying (well I worked X amount of time to get where I am on a test shard)... its a superflous point... TEST... hehehehHe's right and it would help the game immensely.

Players that beta test MMORPGs have to start somewhere, Blight could give an opportunity for that.

I don't see anything wrong having a toon named "AdvTest" or "CraftTest" that has the abilities to increase/decrease and add/drop adventure schools along with increase/decrease crafting levels. All for the purposes of testing. It should be obvious to the other players the purpose of those toons, and if a player is abusing such abilities then the toon is deleted.

I use toon as that is what the avatar is, just a tool for testing. Really, it is not a good use of time to grind levels unless that is to guage speed of advancing.

Player gets beta testing experience. Developers have willing players to "check this, check that, and report." Win win I think.

There could be other incentives, but that is up to TulgAE.
I am wholeheartedly behind the idea of more=better testing. I'm a developer (not for HZ) in RL, so I understand the importance of good QA. I'm also a player of the game. I'lladdress acoupleof specific issues in this thread, but let's start outby stating realistically, that you will *never* stop bugs going live. There will always be something that gets overlooked, or some combination of circumstances that conspire to create an undefined result. It's the nature of the beast. If something really needs to be field tested, the best bet is to put it out in the field. Remember too, that Blight is not the first level test shard, Genesis is. Blight is simply the first shard with a player community on it.

I think, that *uncontrolled* testing, might be just as bad as no testing. The"setting up" of a character (e.g. modifying levels outside of normal channels)to test a particular task already happens on Blight. It is done, however, in a very controlled way, not simply at the whim of the player. I think this is justified. As a dev, I know that when trying to find the cause of a problem, you adjust one control at a time. Going through and changing several things at once, gives you no clue as to what effect is from what cause.

Another thing that must be considered is player bias. Many players have characters on both test and live and they are not the same kind of character. Are they on Blight to test or simply play another character? The motive of the player must come into consideration when obtaining feedback, just as programmer must understand a user's viewpoint. Regular players have a natural bias toward their main character (that's why you chose them :) ). A dev is someone who is paid to be impartial and to consider *all* players viewpoints.

There are obvious bugs and other not so obvious. A machine on a plot not working is more obvious than a balance issue, yet depending on your viewpoint, both could be called bugs. The new copying facility allows players to come help test any new content at their currrent level. To date, however, most (definitely not all)have simply come to experience what interests them. Look at the posts in the Blight server forum dealing with testing and feedback. Where do the most come from? Those that copy to Blight from live or those that regularly play on Blight?

I'm not trying to point any fingers and by *no* means am I suggesting that only Blighters truly test stuff. The thanks for ARoP completion alone proves that is incorrect and far too many livers to name herehave come over and helped test making substantial contributions.I am saying, however, that while the basic premise of this idea might be well-intentioned, I do not think it's current suggested implementation would accomplish anything.