BETA: What does it mean?
Dick Correa
programmer of 20 years. I have worked on very large projects, and very
small ones. There are two that I have worked on that were much bigger than
EQ II. I worked for a government contractor, ANSER, and we developed models
for the Air Force. I also worked on a very large project in conjunction
with Motorola for the Baltimore County Public Safty systems. Fire, Police,
EMS, Dispatch. The following is a list of phases of each project and
contingencies for each phase.
Phase I:
Is a design phase. Normally the end users, a systems designers, and
hopefully, the programmers all get together and lay out how the project
should work. This takes an extremely long time and is very painful.
However, if you have a good SDD (Systems Design Document) then your project
should run smoothly. Although not set in stone, once this phase of the
project is finished, any revisits should be minimal and should NEVER cut to
the core of the project.
Phase II:
Is a programming/data/tool phase. All the programmer and database
people get together and decide how they are going to approach the project.
They decide on a set of tasks, what tools they need either bought or built,
and a very very rough time line is given. Tasks are assigned and work is
started. At this point if reality gets in the way of the design, all work
is stopped, and back to Phase I. I will say that if you have a good design
with the right people involved this should not happen. In the real world,
it always happens.
Phase III:
Programming is finished, we have run a little data through the
application and the building didn't burn down. We are ready for some
internal testing. Flesh out the bugs. This is usually called Alpha. At
this point, if we run across a design problem, then we are in deep doodoo.
We have been using tools, using data, that have been geared toward a
specific design. Phase I and Phase II should have taken care of design
problems. If we have to go back, most everything has to be looked at, new
tools, new data structures etc etc...
Phase IV:
We have found what bugs we can internally, it is now time to let the
unwashed in and have them beat up the application. Slowly!! This is usually
called Beta. It means, we are done except for some tweakage, and barring a
major catastrophe, we should be ready for live load testing very soon. This
is where Sony got confused. Sony let outside people in during Phase II not
here in Phase IV. How do I know this?
1. Bazaar was not implemented until recently. Why not? As a developer
I want it all tested at once. You don't phase in pieces during beta, you
bring the entire application up and let the chips fall where they may.
2. There was not one crafting quest. We were promised them. Where were
they? They were not there because crafting was not done. It is the only
logical reason. If you want to test the software in Phase II you need data.
Some of the data in this case is the quests for crafting. There were no
quests, ergo, no crafting.
3. The upper level zones were not finished. Sony did not figure on how
fast people would level. There were no 30 - 40 zones until half way through
what Sony calls beta. Although this is not a big deal since it is not a
design problem, it is an indication of the mind set. "Lets just get it up
and running we will work out the details later".
Points one and two are bad. What should have happened here is that all
testing should have stopped. Gone back to Phase I, taken a look at where
they were, taken some more time, and tried beta later on.
There is a basic problem with giving the application to the outside world.
You lose control. Internally you talk to each other, you work out the
problems. But once you let it out, you lose all that intreraction and it is
a formula for failure.
A very good example of why you should never design in beta. Bazaar was
implemented. In order to sell, you enter your apartment, add your items to
a "bulletin board" and then you were ready for selling. We could not enter
our apartments. They added a new feature, and it affected entry into your
apartment. Why should bazaar, make it so you can't enter you apartment?
Who knows? We are not in Phase II, we are in Phase IV and have no way of
asking the end user what happened. They fixed it. Of course. But my point
is, it should have never have happened. All of this would have shown up in
Phase II and III if the application had been finished.
My point is this. The application is not done. They are kludging and
piecing it together on the fly. This causes bugs, bad design decisions, and
inevitably the death of the software. Granted, they did this before to a
smaller degree in EQ, but there is one HUGE difference. Five years ago how
many MMOGs were there that we could turn to? Lets see... there was UO, and
uh.. well... ummm.. I'm sure there were otheres but I don't know them. Now!
How many are there? If EQ II has design as well as implementation problems
this time, Theres WoW, DAoC, 12 months away Vanguard and many many others.
Just ask Horizons what it is like to design on the fly and to release early.
Woops... Forgot about the last phase!
Phase V:
Usually called cutover, or golden. Software is done, no more 20 hour
days, we all go to the Bahamas for a well deserved vacation and let
distribution handle it. YAHOO!!!
Dick....
Wolfie
> Thats a good question actually. I can only give you my perspective
> as a programmer of 20 years.
Apparently you haven't worked on true modular systems yet.
I'm working on one where the first module went live in 2000.
The last module (in the current design) isn't expected to go
live until about 2010. But the first module has saved the
company a few million dollars a year already -- and each of
the dozen or so subsequent modules released already are
doing the same. Our customers sure weren't going to wait for
us to be "done" to implement the whole system at once.
> 1. Bazaar was not implemented until recently. Why not?
Because it's a module and NOT a core module. Welcome to
the modular world.
> 2. There was not one crafting quest. We were promised them. Where
> were they? They were not there because crafting was not done.
Right. Because it's a module and NOT a core module.
> 3. The upper level zones were not finished.
Right. Because they're modules and NOT core modules.
> Points one and two are bad. What should have happened here is
> that all testing should have stopped.
GIGO. MAYBE in a structured application; certainly not in a
modular one.
> My point is this. The application is not done.
Right. It won't be done when it hits release, either. No one
expects it to be. EQ isn't 'done' yet either but most people
would see it as a rather successful application.
> They are kludging and piecing it together on the fly.
GIGO. Modular systems need not work that way.
> This causes bugs, bad design decisions, and inevitably the death of the
> software.
Right, even if hyped. But ONLY In STRUCTURED code. That's
just not the case with well-designed modular code.
> Woops... Forgot about the last phase!
>
> Phase V:
> Usually called cutover, or golden. Software is done, no more 20
> hour days, we all go to the Bahamas for a well deserved vacation and
> let distribution handle it. YAHOO!!!
Except in the modular world where Phase V means taking the weekend
off and going to a kickoff meeting for the next module on Monday...
There's no reason to believe EQII was developed with a structured
methodology OR that it has the problems inherent in highly-modified
structured code. Crafting is a module; the bazaar is a module;
etc.
Simply put, there's NO reason why the core modules can't be in
beta -- or even live -- when new modules are added, something
they've been doing with EQ itself for quite a while. You're leaping
to conclusions with VERY little support...
Dick Correa
"Wolfie" <dbgb...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:Nfvcd.5757$1f....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Dick Correa wrote:
>> Thats a good question actually. I can only give you my perspective
>> as a programmer of 20 years.
>
> Apparently you haven't worked on true modular systems yet.
> I'm working on one where the first module went live in 2000.
> The last module (in the current design) isn't expected to go
> live until about 2010. But the first module has saved the
> company a few million dollars a year already -- and each of
> the dozen or so subsequent modules released already are
> doing the same. Our customers sure weren't going to wait for
> us to be "done" to implement the whole system at once.
>
>> 1. Bazaar was not implemented until recently. Why not?
>
> Because it's a module and NOT a core module. Welcome to
> the modular world.
I would certainly agree with that except for the fact that implementing a
module should affect another module adversely. In a truly modular design
you have a core, and a set a modules that are nodes off the core. One node
should not afect another node unless the core is faulty. Going by your
definition each mod is an entity unto itself, not dependant upon each other
except for data flow.
>
>> 2. There was not one crafting quest. We were promised them. Where
>> were they? They were not there because crafting was not done.
>
> Right. Because it's a module and NOT a core module.
I diffrer with you here. Crafting is a core module as it is part of the
player engine. Crafting is dependant on too many game factors to be
considered part a mod and not a core.
>
>> 3. The upper level zones were not finished.
>
> Right. Because they're modules and NOT core modules.
You are right here. Zones are just data tied to the engine.
>
>> Points one and two are bad. What should have happened here is
>> that all testing should have stopped.
>
> GIGO. MAYBE in a structured application; certainly not in a
> modular one.
Unless the engine running the mods is flawed, which is what is happening in
EQ II.
>
>> My point is this. The application is not done.
>
> Right. It won't be done when it hits release, either. No one
> expects it to be. EQ isn't 'done' yet either but most people
> would see it as a rather successful application.
EQ is done. They may add new zones, new quests, but the core engine is
done. Even instancing was an add on mod to the core engine. The core
engine being the 3D handler.
>
>> They are kludging and piecing it together on the fly.
>
> GIGO. Modular systems need not work that way.
>
>> This causes bugs, bad design decisions, and inevitably the death of the
>> software.
>
> Right, even if hyped. But ONLY In STRUCTURED code. That's
> just not the case with well-designed modular code.
>
>> Woops... Forgot about the last phase!
>>
>> Phase V:
>> Usually called cutover, or golden. Software is done, no more 20
>> hour days, we all go to the Bahamas for a well deserved vacation and
>> let distribution handle it. YAHOO!!!
>
> Except in the modular world where Phase V means taking the weekend
> off and going to a kickoff meeting for the next module on Monday...
>
> There's no reason to believe EQII was developed with a structured
> methodology OR that it has the problems inherent in highly-modified
> structured code. Crafting is a module; the bazaar is a module;
> etc.
>
Listen you could be right, and I hope you are. However, these are only
points pertaining to the mechanics of the game. Its the game play itself
that the boards are humming about. Its an interesting problem, one I hope
is addressed before release.
Wolfie
> I would certainly agree with that except for the fact that
> implementing a module should affect another module adversely.
Yet it happens all the time. Data flow is trivial to screw up in
modular systems. We use messengers which only read XML
specs at startup, for instance -- guess what happens when you
don't restart the messengers after changing a module and adding
an XML element needed by another application? The CODE
may be *perfect* but still have "support" issues. Beta is when
those issues are worked out, of course.
> I diffrer with you here. Crafting is a core module as it is part of
> the player engine. Crafting is dependant on too many game factors to
> be considered part a mod and not a core.
It's still a module. Take out crafting and you still have a perfectly
workable game. All those other factors are just data flow.
> Unless the engine running the mods is flawed, which is what is
> happening in EQ II.
There's simply no indication of that.
> Listen you could be right, and I hope you are. However, these are
> only points pertaining to the mechanics of the game. Its the game
> play itself that the boards are humming about.
Then talk about those issues, not the ones where there are perfectly
valid reasons for what's happening. Beta testing on something like
EQII can be easily (and best!) accomplished in phases -- adding
components during beta testing doesn't mean ANYTHING other
than they were added during beta testing rather than at rollout.
Don Sly
Modules have a place in 10 year business plans. Not in games.
/extreme example incoming
Buy our game today and be an artisan class.
Oh sorry you can only create a character for the first 3 months.
Our game is modular.
Oh yes you want to move in the game and not just take screen shots.
You must wait a month
Our game is modular.
Oh and yes you can be an artisan but no quests for you for a year.
Our game is modular.
Oh and yes we have a great economic design for buyers and sellers.
Sorry doors not implemented until 2008
Our game is modular.
/extreme example complete
I buy games and expect them to work as advertised.
If they advertise it.
Its a CORE not an expansion.
Sounds like the game is being pushed to early. Perhaps to the fastest death
ever.
I have played games that aren't even in beta yet that sound more finished
than EQ2
Now I am debating whether to preorder or not to preorder..
With barely a the recommended specs doesn't sound worth it.
Dick Correa
"Don Sly" <tdNOs...@PLEASEsasktel.net> wrote in message
news:10n57v0...@corp.supernews.com...
Phew, Thank you Sly. I could not get my point across. Thank you for your
enlightenment. I was just looking over some of the better games and realized
this.
1. DOOM is hand optimized assembler and 'C' and its new release is
incredible.
2. Chris Egeter who I have been in contact and is the developer of
PowerRender. Hand optimized assembler and 'C'
3. Michael Abrash, the single finest systems coder in the world. Wrote a
book about hand optimization which I own and says the only way to make the
best game is to hand optimize.
So yes Wolf, in a non-game application sure, mods are great. No speed
worries, no memory worries, no drive worries etc. But a game! It taxes the
system to the fullest and everything should be hand optimized.
So, if EQ II is modular, then thats a mistake, because in games you want the
fastest and the cleanest, and the most direct route. By definition, modular
flies in the face of that.
Now my example:
I own a donut shop. I sell all kinds of donuts. I make my donuts pretty much
the same way with the same type of machinery. I want to add a donut, I
change the filling, add more icing etc etc. They are good donuts, but not
something that would make you crawl on your hands and knees for. Then one
day a guy comes in and says that he can up my production 100 fold, but I can
only make one kind of donut. But man it is the best donut you ever had. An
incredible tasting donut and I make milions of them in no time at all. If
I want to make a different donut, he has to design a brand new system, new
machines, etc etc. and it takes a long long time.
So you decide, do you want the best donut you ever tasted and as much as you
want, or do you want sugar raised?
David Navarro
>
> Modules have a place in 10 year business plans. Not in games.
A case can be made for EQ having more in common with a 10-year business
plan than a game...
> Now I am debating whether to preorder or not to preorder..
> With barely a the recommended specs doesn't sound worth it.
I'll probably fairly exceed the recommended specs by the time it comes
out, and yet... I don't think it will be possible to recapture the
feeling of being a newbie in a world of newbies, where nobody knows what
to expect. I don't think I could stomach to log into EQ2 for the first
time only to choke in the dust left by those with l33t B3tA inf0z
rushing to be the first to level 100 or whatever.
Early EQ was a very unique experience... I don't think it will ever
quite happen again.
--
Venerable Hanrahan, Storm Warden (Human), Fennin Ro
Molgarin, 40-odd Monk (Human), Fennin Ro
Pavlov's Dog and Schrodinger's Cat walk into a bar...
Wolfie
> Modules have a place in 10 year business plans. Not in games.
Nonsense.
It's in BETA. There's NO reason everything that will be in at
release should be in at the start -- or even the middle -- of
BETA.
> I buy games and expect them to work as advertised.
Then don't participate in BETA TESTING. The game isn't
finished by definition.
Wolfie
> So yes Wolf, in a non-game application sure, mods are great. No speed
> worries, no memory worries, no drive worries etc. But a game! It
> taxes the system to the fullest and everything should be hand
> optimized.
Uh-huh. You ARE aware that they have servers running the actual
game engine, right? All your PC runs is a client, mostly just a fancy
GUI. That client is just one part of the entire system.
> So, if EQ II is modular, then thats a mistake, because in games you
> want the fastest and the cleanest, and the most direct route. By
> definition, modular flies in the face of that.
By definition EQII *is* modular. It's a client/server application.
All you buy is a fancy GUI to an application running on their
servers...
David Navarro
> Then don't participate in BETA TESTING. The game isn't
> finished by definition.
Not disagreeing with your position, in principle, but I have to point
out that there's no definition of Beta as such. Beta is whatever the
developer agrees with the publisher, from "just show any old shit" to
"feature-complete, may be still buggy" to "gold standard, fit for
release". It varies from developer to developer, and even from project
to project.
--
Venerable Hanrahan, Storm Warden (Human), Fennin Ro
Molgarin, 40-odd Monk (Human), Fennin Ro
The post above may contain information, uninformation
and disinformation in variable amounts.
42
tdNOs...@PLEASEsasktel.net says...
conclusions with VERY little support...
> >
>
> Modules have a place in 10 year business plans. Not in games.
Technically if EQ had a 10 year business plan we might have had a more
logical progession than defeat the God's and other planar beings and
then advance to killing large lizards and expatriots from Disney's
Atlantis.
> /extreme example incoming
> Buy our game today and be an artisan class.
> Oh sorry you can only create a character for the first 3 months.
> Our game is modular.
> Oh yes you want to move in the game and not just take screen shots.
> You must wait a month
> Our game is modular.
> Oh and yes you can be an artisan but no quests for you for a year.
> Our game is modular.
> Oh and yes we have a great economic design for buyers and sellers.
> Sorry doors not implemented until 2008
> Our game is modular.
> /extreme example complete
Sounds like you played Star War galaxies...
Oh you can fly a space ship... er... in the first expansion.
Our game is modular.
But you can hang out in our mostly implemented spaceport cantina until
then!
> I buy games and expect them to work as advertised.
> If they advertise it.
> Its a CORE not an expansion.
> Sounds like the game is being pushed to early. Perhaps to the fastest death
> ever.
> I have played games that aren't even in beta yet that sound more finished
> than EQ2
>
> Now I am debating whether to preorder or not to preorder..
> With barely a the recommended specs doesn't sound worth it.
Why the debate? You seriously afraid you won't be able to pick up on a
shelf in the first couple weeks?
G
> Thats a good question actually. I can only give you my perspective as a
> ... The following is a list of phases of each project and
>
> Phase I: Is a design phase.
> Phase IV: We have found what bugs we can internally... This is usually
> called Beta.
>
> Dick....
I think there is a basic flaw in this line of thinking. Your whole
point can be boiled down to three short sentances:
-> "Beta" testing is supposed to mean the product is "feature
complete".
-> If that's not the case then you are essentially not testing parts
of the product that will evetually get released.
-> This is a bad thing.
Fair enough. However, you are making a huge assumption that the
external beta testers from the general public (open or closed) are
actually being relied upon as the main testing resource for all parts
of the product. It's entirely possible that that's not the case.
Having spent several years working for a large PC software company, as
well as plenty of years working on projects such as you (Banks,
Government agencies etc), I can say for sure that they are not the
same. The main difference between corporate App Development, and
commercial software is that by definition there is no "User
Acceptance" Phase. The general public does not have to "sign off" on
the program before it's released.
As such, when it comes to shrink wrapped mass market PC software,
anything that involves the public at large is a very controlled event.
Just administering such an event is a large undertaking. At Lotus we
used to create milestone builds for external testing with VERY
specific goals. Being "feature complete" wasn't necessarily one of
them. It was almost always to 1) Show off the product and generate
some buzz, and 2) Help with testing things that lots of hands on lots
of keyboards are uniquely good at. Sure, the general public do find
plenty bugs that the QA testers don't sometimes. But it wasn't all
that unusual for internal QA testers to be several builds ahead of
what the public is playing around with. Maybe even a dozen builds
ahead. It's also very common for the public beta build to "fork" at
some point from the main build. The consequence is that the public
never even "see" many of the fixes that come from their feedback.
Anyway, I can't say with respect to EQ2. I'm not in the test. I don't
really know. Time will tell though.
Wolfie
"David Navarro" <da...@alcaudon.com> wrote in message
news:20041017230...@usenet.force9.net...
> Quoth Wolfie:
>
>> Then don't participate in BETA TESTING. The game isn't
>> finished by definition.
>
> Not disagreeing with your position, in principle, but I have to point
> out that there's no definition of Beta as such. Beta is whatever the
> developer agrees with the publisher, from "just show any old shit" to
> "feature-complete, may be still buggy" to "gold standard, fit for
> release". It varies from developer to developer, and even from project
> to project.
Yes, projects go to beta testing in various stages of completion.
Still, I'd stick to "a project isn't done when it's in beta testing"
definition -- "done" projects being "tested" are in "user acceptance,"
not "beta" --- even if they REALLY should be in "integration testing."
Rumbledor
> 1. Bazaar was not implemented until recently. Why not? As a
> developer
> I want it all tested at once. You don't phase in pieces during beta,
> you bring the entire application up and let the chips fall where they
> may.
As I mentioned elsewhere, there are several reasons they may have done
this. It is not an indication, in and of itself, of broken design.
> 2. There was not one crafting quest. We were promised them. Where
> were
> they? They were not there because crafting was not done. It is the
> only logical reason. If you want to test the software in Phase II you
> need data. Some of the data in this case is the quests for crafting.
> There were no quests, ergo, no crafting.
Refer to response to point #1. However, I'm sure there was some level of
development still being done. More on that in a moment.
> 3. The upper level zones were not finished. Sony did not figure
> on how
> fast people would level. There were no 30 - 40 zones until half way
> through what Sony calls beta. Although this is not a big deal since
> it is not a design problem, it is an indication of the mind set. "Lets
> just get it up and running we will work out the details later".
This is pretty common, and again, it's not an indication of bad practices
either, per se. Let's not forget that they are still in beta. They have
time (though it is certainly running short), and we have no more reason
to believe that the development remaining to be done on the high end is a
lot than a little.
> Points one and two are bad. What should have happened here is
> that all
> testing should have stopped. Gone back to Phase I, taken a look at
> where they were, taken some more time, and tried beta later on.
> There is a basic problem with giving the application to the outside
> world. You lose control. Internally you talk to each other, you work
> out the problems. But once you let it out, you lose all that
> intreraction and it is a formula for failure.
>
> A very good example of why you should never design in beta.
> Bazaar was
> implemented. In order to sell, you enter your apartment, add your
> items to a "bulletin board" and then you were ready for selling. We
> could not enter our apartments. They added a new feature, and it
> affected entry into your apartment. Why should bazaar, make it so you
> can't enter you apartment? Who knows? We are not in Phase II, we are
> in Phase IV and have no way of asking the end user what happened.
> They fixed it. Of course. But my point is, it should have never have
> happened. All of this would have shown up in Phase II and III if the
> application had been finished.
How about the possibility that is was simply a bug? I'm starting to get
the heebie jeebies here. You must be speaking from the grave, because the
only place I have ever heard that application development works as you
(and generally most textbooks on the topic) describe to the letter of the
project plan is in heaven. You *have* to expect a few bugs or just plain
unforeseen points of issue, otherwise the project manager's job would be
done after Phase II.
> My point is this. The application is not done.
To that I say, "Well, duh."
> They are kludging and
> piecing it together on the fly. This causes bugs, bad design
> decisions, and inevitably the death of the software. Granted, they
> did this before to a smaller degree in EQ, but there is one HUGE
> difference. Five years ago how many MMOGs were there that we could
> turn to? Lets see... there was UO, and uh.. well... ummm.. I'm sure
> there were otheres but I don't know them. Now! How many are there?
> If EQ II has design as well as implementation problems this time,
> Theres WoW, DAoC, 12 months away Vanguard and many many others. Just
> ask Horizons what it is like to design on the fly and to release
> early.
You are like Chicken Little on steroids, bud. O_o
> Woops... Forgot about the last phase!
>
> Phase V:
> Usually called cutover, or golden. Software is done, no more 20
> hour
> days, we all go to the Bahamas for a well deserved vacation and let
> distribution handle it. YAHOO!!!
To hear you tell it, 20-hour days should never be necessary. If you wind
up against the wall that badly, there must have been some mistakes made
in planning. Perhaps you should go back to Phase I and correct them. :P
FYI, I am also an applications developer, though you've got a few years
on me.
--
Rumble
"The floggings will continue until morale improves."
-- Blackbeard
Rumbledor
> I buy games and expect them to work as advertised.
> If they advertise it.
> Its a CORE not an expansion.
> Sounds like the game is being pushed to early. Perhaps to the fastest
> death ever.
Though they may push it out early (can anyone say SWG?) I hardly think it
will cause any risk of a premature death for the game.
> I have played games that aren't even in beta yet that sound more
> finished than EQ2
...and I've played some that were less, from the sound of it. /shrug
> Now I am debating whether to preorder or not to preorder..
> With barely a the recommended specs doesn't sound worth it.
That is more of a concern for many. EQLive has already gotten to the point
where if you want to see all the bells and whistles, even a top end machine
will likely some trouble (granted, there are still remnants of legacy code
limitations with the graphics engine, I'm sure). I'm guessing EQ2 will be
pushing the limits even further.
Ken Andrews
news:yUtcd.16580$vZ5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Thats a good question actually. I can only give you my perspective as a
> programmer of 20 years.
Only 20 years? Newb.
Don Sly
machine runs what.
If they advertise artisan as a class with quests and an economy with in
house traders but do not have quests for artisans and ***just*** put in
doors or whatever so you could enter the apartment to get to trader
mode...well I wouldn't think it is beta ready.
Don Sly
> Quoth Don Sly:
> >
> > Modules have a place in 10 year business plans. Not in games.
>
> A case can be made for EQ having more in common with a 10-year business
> plan than a game...
Hey I hope they have a long term plan too. But the point I was agreeing too
was that if the game company promotes a feature as a main part of the game
and doesn't have it ready at beta or even at launch calling it modular
doesnt make the excuse warranted.
> > Now I am debating whether to preorder or not to preorder..
> > With barely a the recommended specs doesn't sound worth it.
>
> I'll probably fairly exceed the recommended specs by the time it comes
> out, and yet... I don't think it will be possible to recapture the
> feeling of being a newbie in a world of newbies, where nobody knows what
> to expect. I don't think I could stomach to log into EQ2 for the first
> time only to choke in the dust left by those with l33t B3tA inf0z
> rushing to be the first to level 100 or whatever.
>
> Early EQ was a very unique experience... I don't think it will ever
> quite happen again.
Absolutely. I will never forget clicking enter game and being on a Kelethin
pad.
1st MMOG etc etc etc...
I got the game 30 days after release and started on FR.
I still get all nostalgic when I find myself hearing Gfay music while
running thru the forest.
I have now come to the conclusion that those that want to be at max level
should really have an instant level 100 or whatever button. My playstyles
dont tend to mix well with theirs.
As far as how advanced we are in MMOG's I tried the Guildwars open trial
afew months ago.
By the second day there was allready an economy with only a few items but it
was only a 3 or 4 day public trial.
Don Sly
consider that part of any phase.
I think it has more to do with common sense planning.
I am not in Beta test.
I get information about games from beta testers once NDA's are over.
I find that more reliable and realistic than from the producer.
If it is a title I am interested in I try it no matter what any one says.
Sometimes I ask myself why didn't I listen to the ranters or why did I
listen to the zealots and buy this game.
Other times the things others didn't enjoy I actually have liked. /shrug
I do not like companies saying a b c is in the game only to discover it
really isn't.
Kind of like how rogues were in EQ at launch and alchemy was working as
intended for almost a year ( well a long time if not a year ).
Once bitten twice wary
Don Sly
"42" <4...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bdca8c4d32448059897e4@shawnews...
Not familiar with that phrase pick up on a shelf ?
More afraid I 'll like and upgrade a machine I cant afford to and then not
get any work done for a month....
Seriously though I wish there would be a downloadable demo to see how
playable on my rig it is.
42
tdNOs...@PLEASEsasktel.net says...
Missed a word. "pick it up on a shelf"
I can't see why you think you need to debate preordering.
When the game comes out the stores will have a zillion copies. Plenty
for everyone who wants one within the first couple weeks. And even in
the unlikely case that everywhere sells out, you can be assured their
are plenty more on the way.
You can see how others fare with their systems, and buy it or not
depending on the results/reports.
You hardly need to 'reserve a copy now' in order to even have a shot of
getting the game if you later decide you want it. Its a mass produced
video game, not an exclusive restaurant reservation.
This game is going to run for years, you won't be missing much if you
miss the first couple lag ridden days as everyone churns around in the
newbie yards.
> More afraid I 'll like and upgrade a machine I cant afford to and then not
> get any work done for a month....
>
> Seriously though I wish there would be a downloadable demo to see how
> playable on my rig it is.
Give it six months post launch. :)
Don Sly
Had preoder on the brain for the goodies.
And around here if I dont preorder it may take months for stock to show
up...
order/buy/preorder had same meaning while I was writing
Faeandar
wrote:
>>
>> Right. It won't be done when it hits release, either. No one
>> expects it to be. EQ isn't 'done' yet either but most people
>> would see it as a rather successful application.
>
>EQ is done. They may add new zones, new quests, but the core engine is
>done. Even instancing was an add on mod to the core engine. The core
>engine being the 3D handler.
Unless I'm mistaken didn't they upgrade the engine in a download
release sometime back? I think around Luclin or PoP? I forget now
because I didn't really care but I'm sure an engine update was done.
~F
Faeandar
>Don Sly wrote:
>
>> Modules have a place in 10 year business plans. Not in games.
>
>Nonsense.
I have to agree here. The face of gaming has been changed. No longer
are these 'buy the game and finish it' boxes. EQ has been a 5 year
application so far and likely another 3-5 more to come.
~F
Ben Sisson
name Faeandar <mr_ca...@yahoo.com>:
Twice. Once with Luclin and once with GoD.
--
Irate Customer: "You don't have very good customer service!"
The Gord: "I'm a reflection of that I'm forced to deal with. You aren't a very good customer."
Lance Berg
Dick Correa wrote:
While I understand generally what you are saying, I don't follow this
particular item. If I've set up a workshop electrical system, I don't
go around and plug in every tool and turn them all on at once, then turn
the power on to the shop; I start with no load at all and turn things on
one at a time, if they all work then I eventually go around to the point
where everything is on at the same time and I'm deliberately trying to
crash the system... but I don't start that way.
Why must you have everything on at once? Beta is a testing phase, I
don't see the point in insisting on having everything running, in fact,
even if you have everything ready, I'd start with the least I could, and
add stuff in till it breaks.
Of course, that isn't properly beta testing, its alpha testing... but I
don't think its the same thing as going back to phase II... at worst, by
your description, its going back to phase III instead of IV.
> 2. There was not one crafting quest. We were promised them. Where were
> they? They were not there because crafting was not done. It is the only
> logical reason. If you want to test the software in Phase II you need data.
> Some of the data in this case is the quests for crafting. There were no
> quests, ergo, no crafting.
>
> 3. The upper level zones were not finished. Sony did not figure on how
> fast people would level. There were no 30 - 40 zones until half way through
> what Sony calls beta. Although this is not a big deal since it is not a
> design problem, it is an indication of the mind set. "Lets just get it up
> and running we will work out the details later".
>
Trouble is, EQ (and I assume EQ2) aren't designed on this sort of plan
at all. They are intended to evolve, constantly adding in new quests,
new zones, new classes, new abilities. Does EQ now resemble EQ at beta?
Not much. Nor, I expect, will EQ2 five years from now. During beta
especially, I expect rapid changes taking place as they get things
finished or find that in "real world" environment some things aren't
ready for prime time, or at a minimum need to be adjusted.
> Points one and two are bad. What should have happened here is that all
> testing should have stopped. Gone back to Phase I, taken a look at where
> they were, taken some more time, and tried beta later on.
> There is a basic problem with giving the application to the outside world.
> You lose control. Internally you talk to each other, you work out the
> problems. But once you let it out, you lose all that intreraction and it is
> a formula for failure.
This doesn't make sense to me either. Beta, it seems to me, is the
place to test things out to see how they work with real players. If
there are unintended consequences (and there almost certainly will be,
programmers generally make horrible game testers) then now is the time
to play around and see if you can fix them. Killing beta and going back
to a relatively clean slate is a drastic step at this stage, where the
code more or less works but the vision itself and the design ideas that
went into it are being tested.
>
> A very good example of why you should never design in beta. Bazaar was
> implemented. In order to sell, you enter your apartment, add your items to
> a "bulletin board" and then you were ready for selling. We could not enter
> our apartments. They added a new feature, and it affected entry into your
> apartment. Why should bazaar, make it so you can't enter you apartment?
> Who knows? We are not in Phase II, we are in Phase IV and have no way of
> asking the end user what happened. They fixed it. Of course. But my point
> is, it should have never have happened. All of this would have shown up in
> Phase II and III if the application had been finished.
>
Here I agree with you, sort of. I don't have any problem with them
adding features during beta (after all, they will, I expect, be adding
them for years to come, and I don't want to wait 5 years for a game to
be released). But I don't see why, in addition to running an ongoing
updating beta, they don't have an ongoing updating alpha version, and do
simple tests like this before adding a feature to the beta.
> My point is this. The application is not done. They are kludging and
> piecing it together on the fly. This causes bugs, bad design decisions, and
> inevitably the death of the software. Granted, they did this before to a
> smaller degree in EQ, but there is one HUGE difference. Five years ago how
> many MMOGs were there that we could turn to? Lets see... there was UO, and
> uh.. well... ummm.. I'm sure there were otheres but I don't know them. Now!
> How many are there? If EQ II has design as well as implementation problems
> this time, Theres WoW, DAoC, 12 months away Vanguard and many many others.
> Just ask Horizons what it is like to design on the fly and to release early.
>
DAOC? Nobody is turning to that, if they want to play that they already
are. WoW is a concern, but its such a huge concern that they have to
balance "not ready yet" against "we need to time things like so in order
to compete against WoW". 12 months from Vanguard etc isn't a concern,
if EQ2's rollout is a little sloppy it almost certainly won't be 12
months worth of sloppy, in fact, I imagine they are busy planning an
expansion to be timed to keep EQ2 alive when Vanguard releases.
EQ2's principle competition, as far as I can see, is EQ, with WoW a
strong potential second place.
> Woops... Forgot about the last phase!
>
> Phase V:
> Usually called cutover, or golden. Software is done, no more 20 hour
> days, we all go to the Bahamas for a well deserved vacation and let
> distribution handle it. YAHOO!!!
This is certainly not part of the EQ/EQ2 model. Go live, thats when the
fit really hits the shan. Instead of 30,000 people in your beta test,
you've got 300,000, including many who've never played a MMOG before and
thus will be thinking of stuff so outlandishly stupid that none of your
alpha/beta team dreamed of trying it, and many who are there to grief,
and many who are immediately looking for get rich schemes so they can
sell the plat for real cash and... well, lots of every stripe, nothing
like the relatively well behaved and predictable beta players.
Further, you've already got your eye on expansion 1, maybe even
expansion 2; these things take time to put together, and yet they help a
MMOG game so tremendously that you have to keep putting them out there.
Its likely that the first EQ2 expansion is already planned and in the
process of being coded.
Grage
pat...@nordebo.com
> "Wolfie" <dbgb...@gte.net> wrote in message
> news:NOQcd.18522$vZ5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > Yes, projects go to beta testing in various stages of completion.
> > Still, I'd stick to "a project isn't done when it's in beta testing"
> > definition -- "done" projects being "tested" are in "user acceptance,"
> > not "beta" --- even if they REALLY should be in "integration testing."
> >
> When they haven't even considered how traders will enter apartments I don't
> consider that part of any phase.
They have considered it. They accidentally broke housing for some
(not all) players with the patch that introduced player selling.
These are not the same thing. I could enter my room just fine before
the patch, just not after, but now I can again (I think, I've been too
stingy with money to actually pay the rent).
geronimo
"Dick Correa" <who...@r2d2.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
Ryxcd.16626$vZ5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Don Sly" <tdNOs...@PLEASEsasktel.net> wrote in message
> news:10n57v0...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Wolfie" <dbgb...@gte.net> wrote in message
> > news:Nfvcd.5757$1f....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> Phew, Thank you Sly. I could not get my point across. Thank you for your
> enlightenment. I was just looking over some of the better games and
realized
> this.
>
> 1. DOOM is hand optimized assembler and 'C' and its new release is
> incredible.
> 2. Chris Egeter who I have been in contact and is the developer of
> PowerRender. Hand optimized assembler and 'C'
> 3. Michael Abrash, the single finest systems coder in the world. Wrote a
> book about hand optimization which I own and says the only way to make the
> best game is to hand optimize.
>
> So yes Wolf, in a non-game application sure, mods are great. No speed
> worries, no memory worries, no drive worries etc. But a game! It taxes
the
> system to the fullest and everything should be hand optimized.
>
> So, if EQ II is modular, then thats a mistake, because in games you want
the
> fastest and the cleanest, and the most direct route. By definition,
modular
> flies in the face of that.
>
> Now my example:
< snip totally unrealistic example>
> > I buy games and expect them to work as advertised.
You didn't buyt EQ2 yet Wolfie, did you ?
Dick, you seem to confuse design and code. You can make a game with a
modular design, and still hand optimize each module and the way they "talk"
to each other. Modular doesn't mean you're going to use DCOM or CORBA. I'm
pretty sure DOOM 3 IS modular : I bet we'll soon see is 3D engine reused in
other games.
As for MMORPG, with all the patches and the expansions they need, I'm pretty
sure they are ALL modular.
Jason Hawryluk
the design up front was correct).
Right or wrong?
jason
"Wolfie" <dbgb...@gte.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:Nfvcd.5757$1f....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Dick Correa wrote:
> > Thats a good question actually. I can only give you my perspective
> > as a programmer of 20 years.
>
> Apparently you haven't worked on true modular systems yet.
> I'm working on one where the first module went live in 2000.
> The last module (in the current design) isn't expected to go
> live until about 2010. But the first module has saved the
> company a few million dollars a year already -- and each of
> the dozen or so subsequent modules released already are
> doing the same. Our customers sure weren't going to wait for
> us to be "done" to implement the whole system at once.
>
> > 1. Bazaar was not implemented until recently. Why not?
>
> Because it's a module and NOT a core module. Welcome to
> the modular world.
>
> > 2. There was not one crafting quest. We were promised them. Where
> > were they? They were not there because crafting was not done.
>
> Right. Because it's a module and NOT a core module.
>
> > 3. The upper level zones were not finished.
>
> Right. Because they're modules and NOT core modules.
>
> > Points one and two are bad. What should have happened here is
> > that all testing should have stopped.
>
> GIGO. MAYBE in a structured application; certainly not in a
> modular one.
>
> > My point is this. The application is not done.
>
> Right. It won't be done when it hits release, either. No one
> expects it to be. EQ isn't 'done' yet either but most people
> would see it as a rather successful application.
>
> > They are kludging and piecing it together on the fly.
>
> GIGO. Modular systems need not work that way.
>
> > This causes bugs, bad design decisions, and inevitably the death of the
> > software.
>
> Right, even if hyped. But ONLY In STRUCTURED code. That's
> just not the case with well-designed modular code.
>
> > Woops... Forgot about the last phase!
> >
> > Phase V:
> > Usually called cutover, or golden. Software is done, no more 20
> > hour days, we all go to the Bahamas for a well deserved vacation and
> > let distribution handle it. YAHOO!!!
>
> Except in the modular world where Phase V means taking the weekend
> off and going to a kickoff meeting for the next module on Monday...
>
> There's no reason to believe EQII was developed with a structured
> methodology OR that it has the problems inherent in highly-modified
> structured code. Crafting is a module; the bazaar is a module;
> etc.
>
> Simply put, there's NO reason why the core modules can't be in
> beta -- or even live -- when new modules are added, something
> they've been doing with EQ itself for quite a while. You're leaping
> to conclusions with VERY little support...
>
>
>
Jason Hawryluk
is passed beta and into user acceptance witch was rejected, buy they stated
that we could not hurt the developers feelings with remarks????
"Wolfie" <dbgb...@gte.net> a écrit dans le message de
news:NOQcd.18522$vZ5....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
Wolfie
> If bazaar were truly modular it would not have broken the apt's
> (given that the design up front was correct).
>
> Right or wrong?
Wrong. The interface between modules is the easiest
(and most usual) place to have errors. Generally speaking,
they'd have someone in charge of housing, someone in
charge of the bazaar, etc. The problem described is as
simple as having the person in charge of the bazaar release
THEIR code and forgetting - since they didn't write it - to
release the (minor) part of the housing code which links the
two parts.
The design could be right, the code could even be right -- the
problem could simply be one of release management. In MY
experience that's one of the simplest and most common reasons
for errors being found in user testing that aren't seen during
integration testing, right up there with "why is the user doing
this task in "B, A, C" and not "A, B, C" order?"
Wolfie
> If they advertise artisan as a class with quests and an economy with
> in house traders but do not have quests for artisans and ***just***
> put in doors or whatever so you could enter the apartment to get to
> trader mode...well I wouldn't think it is beta ready.
MAYBE that part wasn't - or MAYBE it was, they just didn't
want that (minor to most players) tested FIRST. We don't
know -- and it's really not important. One can test the vast
majority of a quest system on adventure quests, then add in
tradeskill quests as simple data, for instance.
Don Sly
"Lance Berg" <emp...@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:n5ednYeHE45...@dejazzd.com...
I have thought of Beta testing as everything is done and just needs a mass
person test.
I never really thought it could mean an early test system.
So where can a game buyer get realistic player experience feedback other
than beta ?
That's really what I look for to balance out what the publisher is
promoting.
It seems that's the real beta of MMOGs . Release date.
Don Sly
"Faeandar" <mr_ca...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5kr8n09k4ellell4q...@4ax.com...
have no quests until an expansion ?
errr module comes out ?
Or have only zones to fight in to level 5 until an expansion comes out ?
I wouldn't. Having an unfinished game and having a 10 year business plan for
the game and having a modular game and having expansions for the games are
all different..
The OP was saying the game wasnt done. The response was saying apps use 10
year modular plans.
I dont think a basic feature such as having quests in everquest is excusable
by saying the game is modular was one of my points
Don Sly
<pat...@nordebo.com> wrote in message
news:87fz4bw...@pluto.elizium.org...
ah.. different than what I originally thought I read
Don Sly
Except the problem is..
They have X man-hours to use. After launch balance issues will emerge.
The focus will be on nerfs and any unfinished classes , abilities, quest
will have to wait.
Been there. Done that.
If you were looking as an artisan trader as the sole reason to buy the game
you would be disappointed.
A heads up by beta testers or realistic posting by publisher saying the
artisan class will not be ready at launch prevents that.
Faeandar
Well, right out of the box there were alot of quests that worked.
Maybe not the ones you wanted specifically but alot of people were
questing to their hearts content from day one.
Some quests were broken, others just weren't there. This is where it
falls under the heading of never done, not just not done. A game of
this kind should never be done. Not just new content but bug fixes
and updates to existing pieces.
My take on the response to the OP was to try and give an example of
how games like EQ are not box sets come-as-you-are. It's almost a
living breathing entity that shifts and changes all the time. To
expect something the magnitude of EQ to work perfectly out of the box
is just asking for disappointment. I'm not siding with SOE on things,
just that this is not an easy undertaking and involves alot of people
working on different pieces and trying to bring it all together. It
IS going to have problems, no matter how much testing is done. Users
have a way of finding shyte that dev's just don't even think of.
A RL side note, if product vendors can't get their stuff working
perfectly out of the box (mind you, products that companies use in
production environments and use to make lots of money) why in the
world would we expect a game to surpass that?
~F
Wolfie
> The OP was saying the game wasnt done.
Right. It's in beta, not released.
> The response was saying apps use 10 year modular plans.
Well, my response was that it was (almost certainly) built in
modules and there's no reason to equate not having something
in at the start of beta with the game not being ready for beta
testing.
> I dont think a basic feature such as having quests in everquest is
> excusable by saying the game is modular was one of my points
I have no idea when quests were introduced in EQII, but there
wasn't any reason to have *tradeskill* quests in at the start. The
quest engine should be able to be certified on adventurer quests
with tradeskill quests simply being more data using the same code.
With a good design all beta would do for tradeskill quests would
be certifying the data - the engine would already be 'proven.'
pat...@nordebo.com
> Except the problem is..
> They have X man-hours to use. After launch balance issues will emerge.
> The focus will be on nerfs and any unfinished classes , abilities, quest
> will have to wait.
> Been there. Done that.
>
> If you were looking as an artisan trader as the sole reason to buy the game
> you would be disappointed.
> A heads up by beta testers or realistic posting by publisher saying the
> artisan class will not be ready at launch prevents that.
Considering the kinds of changes they do on a weekly basis, there is
plenty of time to put in lots and lots of crafting quests before
mid-November. If it will even release then, I still haven't seen
confirmation of that date from SOE.
Frank E
<tdNOs...@PLEASEsasktel.net> wrote:
>I have thought of Beta testing as everything is done and just needs a mass
>person test.
... given SOE's track record with EQ and SWG, I'd say the odds of that
ever happening are pretty much zero. My main reason for trying WoW
first and giving EQ2 a few months before I (maybe) try was the SWG
release. If they managed to fuck things up that badly at a time when
they weren't racing Blizzard to be first out the door, I have
absolutely no faith that EQ2 will be anything but a beta release when
it comes out.
>I never really thought it could mean an early test system.
>So where can a game buyer get realistic player experience feedback other
>than beta ?
Nowhere is it written that you have to buy a game on the day that it's
released <g>.
Rgds, Frank
Don Sly
"Frank E" <fakea...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2Z12QdYwnRizBL...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 16:37:32 -0600, "Don Sly"
> <tdNOs...@PLEASEsasktel.net> wrote:
>
> >I have thought of Beta testing as everything is done and just needs a
mass
> >person test.
>
> ... given SOE's track record with EQ and SWG, I'd say the odds of that
> ever happening are pretty much zero. My main reason for trying WoW
> first and giving EQ2 a few months before I (maybe) try was the SWG
> release. If they managed to fuck things up that badly at a time when
> they weren't racing Blizzard to be first out the door, I have
> absolutely no faith that EQ2 will be anything but a beta release when
> it comes out.
Too much wishful expectations on my part I suppose
> >I never really thought it could mean an early test system.
> >So where can a game buyer get realistic player experience feedback other
> >than beta ?
> Nowhere is it written that you have to buy a game on the day that it's
> released <g>.
>
Yes It Is. I am sure I have that memo here someplace....