You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Hi everyone!
What about that, and what we can do in test server, what is DEV plans about that?
Can we discuss?
Test server for testing things would be more played on than the main server. That's my own real fear.
Dev's can control access, and limit the time the server is active, to specifically test certain items; so it won't be a 'free-4-all' fun pvp.
Wouldn't that double the cost of running the game. test server would need to be mirror of perpetuum world.
That's twice as much server size, with only the same income from subs.
Wouldn't that double the cost of running the game. test server would need to be mirror of perpetuum world.
That's twice as much server size, with only the same income from subs.
No.
The main cost of running the game is human (Programming, designing new content, making maps/models). I bet their office rent is much more expensive than running another server.
The hosting cost compared to these is tiny.
The only real expense would be the initial buying (or maybe even renting) of the server.
only 1/3 more - if they test with a mirror of the actual world -> they have their DEV server already running for internal tests.
a PTS could also just be a test of new features on a single Island, with a test layout (actually best way to test things with a small amount of player). The only thing that should be mirrored to the test server, is the actual Player extension configuration - so it wont degrade to a Fitting test enviroment to rule the live server (as seen often enough in other games)
With a test server active they'll be around 5 people left on the live server..... 
You'll need a larger population to get productive testing. I'd rather see more communication between the devs and the community before you stand a test server up. A lot of these new content problems, as well as other patch problems, could be resolved with simple two way communication...
With a test server active they'll be around 5 people left on the live server.....
it would be nice if that would be true.
but the guys doing communication are always the same, and not those who can speak for everyone.
You can see many posts from me on forums -> usually trolled and derailed by those who feel like the suggested things could hurt their current dominant tactics in pvp, while i haven't seen or heard of any real "tactical" movements since the game went live.
two way communication is NEVER as simple as it may look like....
The Test server should have a name.
The name should be called...."ALF".
Can you guess what that stands for?
+1 to test sever IF its not to much for the team to already handle.
You can see many posts from me on forums -> usually trolled and derailed by those who feel like the suggested things could hurt their current dominant tactics in pvp, while i haven't seen or heard of any real "tactical" movements since the game went live.
two way communication is NEVER as simple as it may look like....
i like to use this derailer:
http://www.nolancompany.com/Main/Pictur … -DW-5L.jpg
its design is simple & elegant
on topic.. a test server would be a great idea.. but if we did have 1 ide think only have it active for a limited time would be best for a population of this size.
Maybe the last problem what was about proximity probes, didnt happen if would be test server, when the Developers think that improvements can implemented ingame they use the test server for some day 1-2 hour testing time and then they and players can make a conclusion what needed to change. And just after implement ingame. That was my original idea about test server and that why I have been thinking about it.
i like to use this derailer:
http://www.nolancompany.com/Main/Pictur … -DW-5L.jpg
its design is simple & elegant
on topic.. a test server would be a great idea.. but if we did have 1 ide think only have it active for a limited time would be best for a population of this size.
EPIC FAIL
http://www.nolancompany.com/main/rerail … ailers.asp That is a Re-railer facepalm
You wanted something more along these lines http://www.westernsafety.com/nolanrailp … g8-pd1.jpg
Yeah testing on a dedicated test server the weekend before a patch would be nice hold a lotto or sign up and have 25-50 people verrify that they can test on that date and time and what they will be testing and seed the test server with what you need tested if they need a only a light bot and 20 proxy detectors or a heavy with an arty cannon strapped to it.
RE: "It s the time for test server?"
So, do we need one now?
I think with the Detection probe stuff up & with how walls are working it seems the devs need a hand with some logic... & an other set of eyes to check stuff for glaring issues that seem to be missed way to often. the live surver isnt a test server.
If it is (with in reason) then give me my money back.
Just being less secretive about stuff would help, publish patch notes in advance, gather feedback. Some things need to be seen first and tested, but I'd have thought some of the problems with the original proximity probes could've been picked up just by looking at the proposed stats, etc.
Posting patch notes in advance could be hard, they change stuff first and then do a conversion of a list into patch notes... still they could think of changing that methodology
Doesn't need to be the final notes, just like "Hey guys, next patch we want to put these probes in with X stats, what do you think?" Us "Nooooooooooooooooooo"
Just telling us about something isn't enough. There will be 3 or 4 different opinions on the theorycrafting use of the new feature, with all sides 100% positive they are right. They'd still have to actually deploy them to see how they _actually_ are used.
Specifically about the probes, the devs understood that high masking would make them unspottable, that was what they intended. Getting player feedback on that wouldn't have changed thier masking value. Devs knew there was no limit to the number that could be deployed, so telling them players will spam them across the map, wouldn't have been news, ect. ect.
People like to post that the devs are clueless, but they play the game too (?), and I can't imagine they don't sit around and theorycraft the same way the forums would before implementing something.
The same is true for WoW, when they post an intended change. 4320 million posts pop-up about how its fantastic and another 4320 million say its a game breaker.
I'm not saying that the devs shouldn't bring up some things for discussion, but to give us detailed specs and let us theorycraft the hell out of it is really giving us the power to second-guess them.
Concepts yes, details no. Letting us use them, live or on a test server, is the only real way to determine exploites or bugs.
Just telling us about something isn't enough. There will be 3 or 4 different opinions on the theorycrafting use of the new feature, with all sides 100% positive they are right. They'd still have to actually deploy them to see how they _actually_ are used.
Specifically about the probes, the devs understood that high masking would make them unspottable, that was what they intended. Getting player feedback on that wouldn't have changed thier masking value. Devs knew there was no limit to the number that could be deployed, so telling them players will spam them across the map, wouldn't have been news, ect. ect.
People like to post that the devs are clueless, but they play the game too (?), and I can't imagine they don't sit around and theorycraft the same way the forums would before implementing something.
The same is true for WoW, when they post an intended change. 4320 million posts pop-up about how its fantastic and another 4320 million say its a game breaker.
I'm not saying that the devs shouldn't bring up some things for discussion, but to give us detailed specs and let us theorycraft the hell out of it is really giving us the power to second-guess them.
Concepts yes, details no. Letting us use them, live or on a test server, is the only real way to determine exploites or bugs.
Assuming all this is true, why were probes ever deployed? Seriously, are you arguing the devs knew probes would be unspottable, spammed everywhere, with the result that every corp knew where every active bot was on beta and they still put them in game? I really hope that isn't true. I mean you talk about 4-5 different opinions on how to use them, but that isn't true, everyone knew exactly what to do with them, SPAM THEM EVERYWHERE. Completely predictable and avoidable.
Also I do think there is a tendency for Devs to think about a game slightly differently from players. When you design a feature with your own idea of how it should work it can sometimes be hard to see the other 'unintended' ways people may choose to use the system. Thats why you let people not involved with the design look it over.
Assuming all this is true, why were probes ever deployed? Seriously, are you arguing the devs knew probes would be unspottable, spammed everywhere, with the result that every corp knew where every active bot was on beta and they still put them in game? I really hope that isn't true. I mean you talk about 4-5 different opinions on how to use them, but that isn't true, everyone knew exactly what to do with them, SPAM THEM EVERYWHERE. Completely predictable and avoidable.
This is in hindsight, and what happened when they were implemented, so it's easy to say that it would have been predicted and preventable. The impact of implementing it though, was minimal, easily reveresed and corrected.
You can say the same thing about walls. Someone would undoubtably have predicted that walls would be spammed everywhere and that it would nerf roaming PVP. But, they have also made outpost ownership more viable and increased territory PVP. So do the devs NOT impement walls based on player feedback, change them to satisfy the roamers and negate the outpost benefit, or put them in as is?
The more I think about it, the less 'productive' a test server becomes, since it simply can't effectively simulate the game environment. It can catch 'bugs' but not how features will improve or change the emergent game play.
You can say the same thing about walls. Someone would undoubtably have predicted that walls would be spammed everywhere and that it would nerf roaming PVP. But, they have also made outpost ownership more viable and increased territory PVP. So do the devs NOT impement walls based on player feedback, change them to satisfy the roamers and negate the outpost benefit, or put them in as is?
I agree, whether walls for example are a good or bad thing is a value judgement. What I'm talking about is more like the devs say "Hey guys we're putting in X feature" and players say "You do realise that with X I could do Y?" Now maybe the devs say "Yes, we know and we're happy with that" or maybe they say "Hmm good point, we don't really want ppl to be able to do that" Now with walls, I have no idea what the devs opinion is, but with probes it would seem that the players were doing things the devs didn't want them to be able to do. Wouldn't it be better to catch that before it gets into the game? I'd think of it more as catching unintended consequences of a game mechanic change, rather than a debate on the desirability of an intended change to they way the game works. I'm not saying it would be a perfect system or anything, but I think at times it could be useful.
Not to get too far out field, but the 'changed' probes would be useless without walls to funnel players past them, and walls would be much less effective without probes to let corps know if someone was messing with them.
The point I was making with the walls is that it was Obvious and Inevitable that they would be spammed. If they were presented as a concept, many players would say that they were a bad idea, don't put them in, you'll ruin the game. While that statement is correct for probes, it's incorrect for walls, but there was no way to know for sure until they actually implemented them.
As it turned out, it's the combination of the two that make them work, where either solo would be fail mechanic.
Devs did tell us how I 2.0 was going to work, well ahead of time, and ALOT of people said it wouldn't work, it would ruin the game, and don't do it. Even after it was released, the same thing was said, and yes some players left because of the new mechanic. However, months later, with a reasonably small addition, walls/probes, the I 2.0 makes a lot more sense.
Don't misunderstand me, I'd like to know more about what is coming down the pipe, and certainly about the vision of the PVP. But its a double edged sword, giving too much information can create a wait-and-see attititude, while you really need people playing the game as it is now (and adjusting as things are added).
Lastly, I'll fall back again to the position that putting the probes in, and trying them, didn't have a major impact on the game. What is more vital then getting the players to sign-off on something before it goes live, is the ability for the devs to guage the impact of a live change and act accordingly.
Devs did tell us how I 2.0 was going to work, well ahead of time, and ALOT of people said it wouldn't work, it would ruin the game, and don't do it. Even after it was released, the same thing was said, and yes some players left because of the new mechanic. However, months later, with a reasonably small addition, walls/probes, the I 2.0 makes a lot more sense.
By any measure, I 2.0 was a failure, it did nothing it was supposed to do. Did it completely kill beta? No. Did it increase PvP? Not particularly, someone posted the numbers before, but I can't find them. Remember Zoom saying 100 Stability was a rare thing that wouldn't happen often? 11 Outposts at 100 stability right now, half of them have basically never dropped below 80 in the whole time I 2.0 has been active. "Deep Space Erections" own a 100 stability outpost, no one cares, hitting outposts is :effort: Karapyth got knocked down, I assume just for something to do, but MORTE own it again now and it will probably go back to 100 despite the fact they are basically never on Norhoop. The dynamic system seems kind of undynamic.
Your reinforcing my 2 points, 1st is that just theroycrafting about how I 2.0 would work, didn't coincide with what actually happened with 2.0, and 2nd that defending an outpost wasn't worth the reward. Outposts went to 100% because only the SAP loot was the target, and that showed up regardless of the outcome of the SAP, so you could come in with a masked bot and ninja the can. Occasionally, more than 1 player would be out there, and some pvp would happen (almost by mistake). When pressure was applied, in Karapyth, MORTE did leave, I don't know the specific but it was likely because owning an outpost didn't provde enough incentive to fight over it.
Now with walls and detectors, defending is easier, plus putting effort into developing an area gives players a sense of ownership and that combination provides incentives (morale and actual) to keep it.
A dedicated sustatined attack by a superior force will still result in loss of an outpost, but these battles are almost certainly now going to be about taking ownership of a station, and not just about getting PVP.
Its a little forward thinking, because at the moment, the corps and/or alliances capable of acutally holding an outpost against a concerted attack is zero. But, the number of corps/alliances capable of sustaining a concerted attack is also zero.
I can predict though, that if the capabilites of attacker and defenders doesn't change to support a model where some outpost change hands regularily(weakly held), while others are stablized (strongly held), then the game has no where to go.
By any measure, I 2.0 was a failure, it did nothing it was supposed to do. Did it completely kill beta? No. Did it increase PvP? Not particularly, someone posted the numbers before, but I can't find them. Remember Zoom saying 100 Stability was a rare thing that wouldn't happen often? 11 Outposts at 100 stability right now, half of them have basically never dropped below 80 in the whole time I 2.0 has been active. "Deep Space Erections" own a 100 stability outpost, no one cares, hitting outposts is :effort: Karapyth got knocked down, I assume just for something to do, but MORTE own it again now and it will probably go back to 100 despite the fact they are basically never on Norhoop. The dynamic system seems kind of undynamic.
Well actually the system is dynamic what is lacking is the people. how so? Ok lets use MORTE & Karapyth as an example (<3 vile :p )
Ok as it stands right now we have a large number of O.P. that hold at 100%. For now lets Ignore the "empires" (aka the alliances on hokk, Kent & nova. High stability O.P.s here make sense due to them being controlled by active & powerful alliances *strokes own ego* :P )
Karapyth will continue to be held by a corp that doesnt live on the Island as long as theres no 1 around that wants to First off invade & take that OP AND LIVE THERE! At the moment corps like M2S.. NEX ... 62nd can say "HEY! MORTE ISNT USEING THAT op LETS GO TAKE IT OFF THEM FOR LOLS" Fact is MORTE might lose the station but those attacking corps wont keep holding onto the station for very long either coz they dont live there. so after a week MORTE will retake that station. Is there anything wrong with that? IMO no.
However! If say "New corp thats started playing the game" & a few friends say "Hey we want to live on beta... lets take Karapyth". And they manage to do this the situation is now far more different. Now mighty MORTE can try to retake the OP but now its got defenders who live there! the situation has changed.
Is it more Dynamic... yes but only a little. see lasting Dynamic ownership really comes to the front of things when population > availability.
So New corp A now hold Karapyth But New corps B C D & omg Z want this station to. Now the new Sap system gets to shine!
As it stands right now we just lack the population to see the SAP system fully used.
As my Old man used to say to me when playing Football... "Son Ya got to treasure the ball" aka you have to really want it & fight tooth & nail for it. We dont have that coz... we all own our own stations mostly or have access to friendly ones.
Wait till we get more corps that come along & want what we have... Dom.. Norhoop & maybe even Alsbale are ripe for the picking. what lacks are corps that have the drive to take OPs & live there.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 3 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Generated in 0.060 seconds (81% PHP - 19% DB) with 24 queries
Copyright © Avatar Creations
