Play-Testing Community

[Reiloth]

Taken from the Backstab Thread (As it's unrelated and off-topic from there)

Though, I do wish staff would let us contribute to the guild changes upcoming:  paper and reality are usually vastly different.

What I think many game communities have, that Armageddon does not, is a 'testing community'. A group of players who the Staff trust to try out big changes, and give them real time feedback. While Staff are too players, so they have valuable insight from both sides of the pond, expanding that pond to a larger group (Say 10 people), trying out changes on the test port, and tweaking from there would probably help bridge the gap between paper and reality.

I don't think Staff have missed their mark often (Though one might mention Armageddon Reborn, despite it being my wish that still happened). The subguild changes have mostly been great, but the Magick subguilds leave much to be desired in most instances. It's a well-intentioned change that I think could have benefitted from some real-time playtesting, by the playerbase.

I've seen Staff much more willing to adjust on the fly now, more than ever before -- A good recent example would be the Banking changes. They were rolled out in one version, there was a discussion with the playerbase, and adjustments were made that presented a compromise. I think with large changes, like foundational changes such as sub-guilds and guilds, opinions will vary wildly, and actual playthrough knowledge will be scarce. The difference between a Warrior being OP compared to an Assassin, or the other way around, will be a very narrow margin. While this isn't a game about balance (It isn't a MMORPG with party gathering and question marks over people's heads), there needs to be a trade off of strengths and weaknesses that I imagine will be very difficult to get into the sweet spot.

I mean to be perfectly honest, the guild changes can either really turn people on, or really turn people off. So as the people who are going to play those choices, I think we have a good case in being involved with how they turn out. Elsewise, you might find people are so utterly turned off that they start playing another game (!!!). Changing foundation stones can really polarize people. ArmageddonMUD has mostly avoided this by not making these sorts of drastic changes for most of its existence -- But to change almost all of the core foundational 'classes/guilds/subguilds' within a year or two is radical to say the least. Exciting on one hand, and sort of intimidating and inducing skepticism on the other.

For all I know, though, Staff already has play-testers and hasn't said anything about it, and the play-testers haven't said anything about it because of a NDA (heh). So, could be a moot point.



Do you think ArmageddonMUD could benefit from a 'play test' community? What criteria would there be in being involved? Should it be something that a 'Builder' should help out with, as they are vetted by Staff, and still mostly in the Player function?

[Riev]

The trouble is, some of us are REALLY good at gaming the code. I find those people most interesting, because they find ways to make the wonky code work for them but they end up being banned and wouldn't likely agree to help out. Others are so RP heavy, that they won't care whether their whiran can fly or not, because its about the transformation and rejection. They probably wouldn't be AS USEFUL in testing things out.

I think what we need are staffers who ARE obsessed with the code, but could be trusted to not just divulge everything. Someone who can see that "this combination is vastly inferior and not just at PvP but general survivability". A playtesting community would be a help, but with 200-250 people playing at any given time, throughout the course of an entire week, I don't see it being viable and more likely would take away from the RP opportunities in the main game.

I would much rather Staffers continue to tap the playerbase for insight. What DOES make a warrior, a warrior? With the subguild changes, why would one make a warrior over an assassin/gladiator? What about the main guilds sets them apart as unique skill sets?

I do sometimes wonder, with how long some staff have been around either AS staff or players, how jaded or comfortable they are with things just "being that way". Even "high karma" players have to be twinky with the code, or do things that might not make sense on the surface, to get to a place they need to. I'm not PROUD of the twinking I've done in the past, but I've always tried to make sure I have an IC reason other than HAHAHAH STILTS DIE ALWAYS.

A group of trusted individuals actively testing things in a separate environment (even make a shard where they can't access the regular rooms, like just a staffer's room, etc) would be nice, but I GENUINELY assume this is what staff already does beforehand, at least to make sure it doesn't codedly break the server.

[Desertman]

We are a small enough community in total that any release into the main population really is sort of its own play test.

We are also a very vocal community as a whole and staff is very present in our conversations on pretty much everything.

For this reason I don't think this is needed.

We aren't exactly Blizzard with the inability to accurately gauge the response of our community to something as a whole because it is so vast and as such we need focus groups.

If something stupid, or great, goes in, we pretty much all know one way or the other how just about everyone feels about it right away.

(With that being said I'm not opposed to a play-testing group. I just don't think it's needed. If one were created I wouldn't care.)

[Beethoven]

I want to think staff understand the playerbase and have a good idea of what we'll like, but they straight-up removed Nilazi

[valeria]

I'm pretty much with Dman on this one.

[path]

I play test the community.

As long as the staff is willing to be open minded to adjustments (as in the banking situation you mentioned), I don't think this is necessary. I honestly don't care if we have wonky magicker subguilds as long as staff is willing to have some straight talk with a few of the players who've branched fully through them after a year or so to see how things are playing out.

[Reiloth]

Very true -- With a community as small as ours, play testing live is probably the simplest solution. And i'm sure when they do want to test some stuff like this out, they tap people on the shoulder and get their opinions, and they're likely people who aren't going to Shadowboard everything.

By the way this was a rhetorical question -- "Would it be..." not "I think it would be great if we did have a play testing community". More just thinking hey, we don't have one, would we benefit from one?

I think at least with the Guild Revamps, having some playthroughs from players might provide invaluable insight before everything is drastically changed. But with other changes, i'm completely fine with things being play tested as we go, and Staff being open to compromise (And players being much more open to compromise, even, than Staff).

[Molten Heart]

Staff do play test changes, as I understand it. Is it being suggested that more play testing needs to be done before they are released?

[Reiloth]

Staff do play test changes, as I understand it. Is it being suggested that more play testing needs to be done before they are released?

Hmm, not exactly. I don't think Staff are doing it wrong by any means. I'm just curious, as many other games over the years have had play testing for large game changes. As you've pointed out (and I thought aloud to myself in the OP), it's likely Staff already does this on a limited basis, it's just not official.

[Yam]

I think playtesting everything on the player port would be fine if the game didn't have permadeath. As it stands I think certain changes should be playtested by players on the test port. Preferably by players who have extensive current experience with the code being changed. I'm thinking specifically of things like the poison refactor, kryl scripts, and some magick changes/fixes.

[BadSkeelz]

Two things:

1) Players will always complain

2) The period immediately following code changes is one of the few times when new players and old players, with their spreadsheets and skill timers, are on somewhat equal footing regarding the code.

With these two facts in mind I'm not a fan of giving "players" privileged accessed to upcoming changes or allowing more input. They'll just use their knowledge to further game the system. Therefore, our current system is fine.

[RogueGunslinger]

Considering staff seldom(if ever?) revert a change I think a testing realm would be a good idea.

[Desertman]

A good example of this already existing would be when Charge was changed and Trample went into the game.

I had a long-lived breed ranger at the time who fought exclusively mounted. It was his -thing-. It would make sense when this change went in that he actually would have mastered it A LONG TIME AGO (he was over a RL year old) if the skill had codedly existed for the duration of his life.

So, when the skill was made live it was given to my character "for free" and bumped up enough to account for "him having used it his whole life as part of his mounted combat training".

I was told by staff that they were giving it to me because I was a trusted player, it made IC sense, and they wanted someone's honest feedback from the start on how it appeared to work and if it needed any tweaks.

[Reiloth]

A good example of this already existing would be when Charge was changed and Trample went into the game.

I had a long-lived breed ranger at the time who fought exclusively mounted. It was his -thing-. It would make sense when this change went in that he actually would have mastered it A LONG TIME AGO (he was over a RL year old) if the skill had codedly existed for the duration of his life.

So, when the skill was made live it was given to my character "for free" and bumped up enough to account for "him having used it his whole life as part of his mounted combat training".

I was told by staff that they were giving it to me because I was a trusted player, it made IC sense, and they wanted someone's honest feedback from the start on how it appeared to work and if it needed any tweaks.

Right. This corroborates that it obviously happens, and there isn't anything official about it. Just sort of happens on a need be basis, which makes sense for a community as small as Arm's.

[Raptor_Dan]

/offtopic
Every time I read things about 'stilts', or skill-timers, and spreadsheets, I just get really sad.

I still drink cleaning fluid if no one tells my new PC what it is, or tricks them into it.

[Reiloth]

/offtopic
Every time I read things about 'stilts', or skill-timers, and spreadsheets, I just get really sad.

I still drink cleaning fluid if no one tells my new PC what it is, or tricks them into it.

Amen.

[evilcabbage]

that makes no sense because if you just smelled it icly it doesn't even SMELL like something you would drink.

it literally smells acidic and bad for you.

that's ludicrous.

[Reiloth]

that makes no sense because if you just smelled it icly it doesn't even SMELL like something you would drink.

it literally smells acidic and bad for you.

that's ludicrous.

Some people are stupid enough to not question what they're about to drink.

Or naively trusting.

Or just plain old dumb.

[evilcabbage]

i guess.

that's how robert johnson died, apparently.

[Reiloth]

Yeah, I mean David Carradine died while auto asphyxiating himself and masturbating. So, cleaning fluid doesn't seem all that stupid in comparison.

[RogueGunslinger]

It's just a bad example for the point being made though which is that you should separate OOC and IC knowledge. I think a good example of this is not having your 'rinther or random street-urchin know where the water-cave is.

I don't think being stupid enough to drink what is essentially bleach would be common enough to matter from character to character. I'm pretty sure cleaning fluid is a well known thing.

[Inks]

(There was a post here arguing flawlessly how underpowered backstab was, well detailed. Savage. Poignant.)

[Dakota]

No to the play-testing. The lines between the mystery of the game / code / behind the scenes are already much smaller than what they were. Which is good to a degree.

Keep some mystery.

[Inks]

Tsk. Edited.

To be fair mystery with the code is good.