This is beta!

slannmage

Every beta i've ever been in has been completly pointless because all that ever happens is the developers don't listen to the players and fix nothing that we're asking for. Then they make it open beta for everyone to play and decide if they like the game or not and if they should buy is, so most people login and then jsut go "this game sucks" and logs back out. Then SOE *cough* i mean the company releases the game half finished and very buggy and then the game slowly dies.

People don't give games a second chance so the first impression counts to if the mmorpg will do well or not unless noone knows about it like what happened with EVE Online and that only done so well because theres nothing else out there that does what it's doing.

The main problem i have is i report bugs during the beta and i make forum posts and yet the developers never post back and the bugs or features i want never get fixed/added. So i really don't see the point of having a beta if the games just going to be released in a completly crap state. I mean everyone says "this is only early beta and theres a whole year left of development" however the main problems never seem to be fixed even in 3 years of the games like and a mmorpg never really changes once the base has been set so their argument falls flat for me.





Give a example of Planetside all the bases were the same and i was saying how it gets old very fast and noone really ever wins so it needs sorting. I actually got several replies back from the producer cause he was a nice guy and basically he told me SOE is rushing it out and they have 3 months to work on a expansion with no testing. Then after i was told in 2004 that the whole team knows people want new bases and the caverns were a big mistake because they made the world even bigger when it was big enough already.

Just seems a problem from what the company funding the game wants and what the players want, they never listen to us.

MarleVVLL

If you've been covering Mythos' beta progression then you would know that Mythos' development team has gone head over heels for its player base, even to the point of taking out a patch and revising it because the beta players did not like it.

Blessings,

ianubisi

Who appointed you representative of what every player wants?

People seem to feel entitled to having their way, as if their thoughts were facts and not opinions.

CleffyII

I agree, the producer of PlanetSide was very nice.  Its too bad they kept rushing him and telling him "no",  Its like SOE was intentionally trying to make the game fail.

Bane82

Sharajat

I know hating on WoW is trendy and all, but Blizzard was actually quite good about adding features that people wanted.  The problem is that Blizzard stopped communicating with its players about two years ago, so people would be bitching about some problem for months (or in some cases years... thanks Fear Ward), get used to it being there, and then randomly a patch would come out that would apply some fix to the problem.  Usually with no notice or commentary from any blue.  Also it turns out that people on the forums don't actually have any idea what makes a game fun, so things like The Burning Crusade are a result.

I think really Betas are very useful.  Look at Anarchy Online's launch if you don't believe it (if ever a game needed a beta).  It lets them test their code on many platforms, it fixes bugs, and it can change features of the game. 

The problem is some companies, not to name names, (rhymes with 'Phony Online Entertainment') rush the games out before anything has a chance to be fixed or tweaked. 

gillvane1

Beta is to see if the features function as intended, not necessarily to see if you like them or not .

 

MMORPG Maker

Pappy13

Originally posted by Sharajat


The problem is that Blizzard stopped communicating with its players about two years ago, so people would be bitching about some problem for months (or in some cases years... thanks Fear Ward), get used to it being there, and then randomly a patch would come out that would apply some fix to the problem.  Usually with no notice or commentary from any blue.  Also it turns out that people on the forums don't actually have any idea what makes a game fun, so things like The Burning Crusade are a result.

Ok, I'm really confused now.  You say Blizzard stopped communicating with the players 2 years ago, but then mention that it turns out the players on the forums don't actually have any idea what makes a game fun and as a result we ended up with the Burning Crusade.  Is that somehow a round about way of saying that BC was a great expansion? LOL

Aguy

Originally posted by Pappy13


 
Originally posted by Sharajat


The problem is that Blizzard stopped communicating with its players about two years ago, so people would be bitching about some problem for months (or in some cases years... thanks Fear Ward), get used to it being there, and then randomly a patch would come out that would apply some fix to the problem.  Usually with no notice or commentary from any blue.  Also it turns out that people on the forums don't actually have any idea what makes a game fun, so things like The Burning Crusade are a result.

Ok, I'm really confused now.  You say Blizzard stopped communicating with the players 2 years ago, but then mention that it turns out the players on the forums don't actually have any idea what makes a game fun and as a result we ended up with the Burning Crusade.  Is that somehow a round about way of saying that BC was a great expansion? LOL

 

I completely agree, if Blizzard took anything seriously that 99% of people on the WoW forums complained about, it would be a very screwed up game.

candygirl6

Originally posted by slannmage






Give a example of Planetside all the bases were the same and i was saying how it gets old very fast and noone really ever wins so it needs sorting. I actually got several replies back from the producer cause he was a nice guy and basically he told me SOE is rushing it out and they have 3 months to work on a expansion with no testing. Then after i was told in 2004 that the whole team knows people want new bases and the caverns were a big mistake because they made the world even bigger when it was big enough already.
Just seems a problem from what the company funding the game wants and what the players want, they never listen to us.

Beta is so wrong as a concept. It's basically letting people test content for you, so you can save on development costs.

 

Sharajat

Originally posted by Pappy13


 
Originally posted by Sharajat


The problem is that Blizzard stopped communicating with its players about two years ago, so people would be bitching about some problem for months (or in some cases years... thanks Fear Ward), get used to it being there, and then randomly a patch would come out that would apply some fix to the problem.  Usually with no notice or commentary from any blue.  Also it turns out that people on the forums don't actually have any idea what makes a game fun, so things like The Burning Crusade are a result.

Ok, I'm really confused now.  You say Blizzard stopped communicating with the players 2 years ago, but then mention that it turns out the players on the forums don't actually have any idea what makes a game fun and as a result we ended up with the Burning Crusade.  Is that somehow a round about way of saying that BC was a great expansion? LOL

 

I said it stopped communicating.  I didn't say it stopped listening.  Read my post.  If you played WoW, you would know that changes were communicated very, very poorly, if at all.  Nothing quite like reading that the shaman mana issue was being looked into, and then having the developers REDUCE shaman mana regen, or the complete lack of communication about virtually any of the major changes they made (Imp Sap removed, Fear Ward, etc.).  They just change things that people want changed - but on a random schedule, with no rhyme or reason, and pitiful communication.

Gaurus

    The problem in most of the betas for MMOs today is the attitudes of the beta testers. Beta is not a chance for you to tell the developers what you think needs to be changed, it is a chance for the developers to see if the game's features are playable and that there are no major bugs like falling through the world. Beta is not for changing the game's major features and world designs, by the time a game is in beta much of the major systems are already in place. In many betas you will not even know what it is the developers need feedback on. Now one game I beta tested for (Starts with a V ends with anguard) had little communication during the beta stage and was already a sinking ship before it hit that stage.

Pappy13

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Pappy13


 
Originally posted by Sharajat


The problem is that Blizzard stopped communicating with its players about two years ago, so people would be bitching about some problem for months (or in some cases years... thanks Fear Ward), get used to it being there, and then randomly a patch would come out that would apply some fix to the problem.  Usually with no notice or commentary from any blue.  Also it turns out that people on the forums don't actually have any idea what makes a game fun, so things like The Burning Crusade are a result.

Ok, I'm really confused now.  You say Blizzard stopped communicating with the players 2 years ago, but then mention that it turns out the players on the forums don't actually have any idea what makes a game fun and as a result we ended up with the Burning Crusade.  Is that somehow a round about way of saying that BC was a great expansion? LOL

 

I said it stopped communicating.  I didn't say it stopped listening.  Read my post.  If you played WoW, you would know that changes were communicated very, very poorly, if at all.  Nothing quite like reading that the shaman mana issue was being looked into, and then having the developers REDUCE shaman mana regen, or the complete lack of communication about virtually any of the major changes they made (Imp Sap removed, Fear Ward, etc.).  They just change things that people want changed - but on a random schedule, with no rhyme or reason, and pitiful communication.

But why would they listen if by your account the people on the forums don't actually have any idea of what makes a game fun?  They'd be stupid to listen to people that don't know what they are talking about...wouldn't they?  And if they did listen, since the people don't know what makes a good game, wouldn't they be doomed to make a bad game?  Wouldn't that mean it was really the forum posters who are to blame for BC and not Blizzard?

So which is it?  They made a bad game because they didn't listen or because they did?  Or are you saying they made a good game because they didn't listen...or because they did?

Sharajat

Originally posted by Pappy13

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Pappy13


 
Originally posted by Sharajat


The problem is that Blizzard stopped communicating with its players about two years ago, so people would be bitching about some problem for months (or in some cases years... thanks Fear Ward), get used to it being there, and then randomly a patch would come out that would apply some fix to the problem.  Usually with no notice or commentary from any blue.  Also it turns out that people on the forums don't actually have any idea what makes a game fun, so things like The Burning Crusade are a result.

Ok, I'm really confused now.  You say Blizzard stopped communicating with the players 2 years ago, but then mention that it turns out the players on the forums don't actually have any idea what makes a game fun and as a result we ended up with the Burning Crusade.  Is that somehow a round about way of saying that BC was a great expansion? LOL

 

I said it stopped communicating.  I didn't say it stopped listening.  Read my post.  If you played WoW, you would know that changes were communicated very, very poorly, if at all.  Nothing quite like reading that the shaman mana issue was being looked into, and then having the developers REDUCE shaman mana regen, or the complete lack of communication about virtually any of the major changes they made (Imp Sap removed, Fear Ward, etc.).  They just change things that people want changed - but on a random schedule, with no rhyme or reason, and pitiful communication.

But why would they listen if by your account the people on the forums don't actually have any idea of what makes a game fun?  They'd be stupid to listen to people that don't know what they are talking about...wouldn't they?  And if they did listen, since the people don't know what makes a good game, wouldn't they be doomed to make a bad game?  Wouldn't that mean it was really the forum posters who are to blame for BC and not Blizzard?

So which is it?  They made a bad game because they didn't listen or because they did?  Or are you saying they made a good game because they didn't listen...or because they did?

Um, this really isn't too hard to understand. 

Blizzard made a pretty good game.  Blizzard talked to its forum members, and took feedback.

Game got popular.  Forums turned retarded.  Blizzard kept reading them, on and off, but stopped meaningfully responding.

Burning Crusade got made, mostly as a result of these fan complaints.  They then nerfed all the hard out of the game, except for raiding, meaning that the average player has the following difficulty curve:

Super Easy - 70 instances

Easy - heroic instances

Pretty tough (needs solid coordination, specific classes, etc.) - Karazhan, Gruul

Really tough - everything else. 

That's a result of listening to the average player and letting the raiding division do their own thing.  The Burning Crusade ruined the game - too much solo play, and the curve that actively discourages players from raiding (Remember UBRS?  Introduction to raid mechanics without actually being punishing difficulty).

 

 

Kyleran

From a developer's perspective, separating the wheat from the chaff is the greatest challenge when reading all the issue that are reported, and tend to focus on items that occur the most frequently.

I'm sure they are deluged with reports and while they diligently try to resolve as many as possible, from a player perspective it may seem like they are ignoring the reports.

Not much likely to change, I'm not really interested in playing betas anymore (unless they are open, pre-release types) as they sometimes give me the wrong impression of the game. 

 

Godliest

---

Originally posted by Bane82

---

Could see that one coming from five light years away.

What do you base your opinion on? Open Beta is pretty much how the game will look at release, no large changes will be made there. And well, I don't really believe you. I've been in one closed beta and while it was to 99% free of bugs it did feel like the developers fixed the bugs I reported.

ramearess

Originally posted by gillvane1


Beta is to see if the features function as intended, not necessarily to see if you like them or not .
 
MMORPG Maker

Exactly what betas are for the only information the company wants is bugs/issues such as crashing, freezing or terminating. Other problems may be no exp from a action or can't talk to this storyline npc ......

suggestions may be welcomed but don't expect to see them in the game at release.

dirtyjoe78

Originally posted by Sharajat


 
Um, this really isn't too hard to understand. 
 
Blizzard made a pretty good game.  Blizzard talked to its forum members, and took feedback.
Game got popular.  Forums turned retarded.  Blizzard kept reading them, on and off, but stopped meaningfully responding.
Burning Crusade got made, mostly as a result of these fan complaints.  They then nerfed all the hard out of the game, except for raiding, meaning that the average player has the following difficulty curve:
Super Easy - 70 instances
Easy - heroic instances
Pretty tough (needs solid coordination, specific classes, etc.) - Karazhan, Gruul
Really tough - everything else. 
That's a result of listening to the average player and letting the raiding division do their own thing.  The Burning Crusade ruined the game - too much solo play, and the curve that actively discourages players from raiding (Remember UBRS?  Introduction to raid mechanics without actually being punishing difficulty).
 In my humble opinion
 

There Fixed

jimmyman99

Originally posted by ramearess


 
Originally posted by gillvane1


Beta is to see if the features function as intended, not necessarily to see if you like them or not .
 
MMORPG Maker

Exactly what betas are for the only information the company wants is bugs/issues such as crashing, freezing or terminating. Other problems may be no exp from a action or can't talk to this storyline npc ......

 

suggestions may be welcomed but don't expect to see them in the game at release.

Absolutely correct! I dont understand how people misunderstand this. Betas are for testing current content, not to create new one. Even if absolutely everyone will demand a jedi magical power for their pet monkey, doesnt mean that it will be implemented. Even the good suggestions may go unnoticed because its too hard to implement without breaking story/balance/performance/budget.

 

 

Pappy13

Well perhaps the problem is what people think a beta is for?  I'm a programmer and we have beta's as well.  The beta is to allow our users to try out the software before it goes live and tell us what's broken.  They don't however tell us how to "fix" it.  We the developers decide how to "fix" it.  And sometimes we tell the users that they what they perceive to be broken, is working as is intended and explain why to them.  Sometimes an understanding has to be reached because it could be that limitations in the software, time, manpower etc dictate that something works the way it does.  That doesn't necessarily mean it can never be improved, only that at the moment it's not going to be changed.

Maybe I'm just a lot more forgiving of Blizzard because I'm in a similar sort of field of work they are.  I help design, code and release software that attempts to solve business problems.  It's not perfect.  Whenever we can we improve it and we try to fix the bugs when we find out about them as quickly as possible.  We have to balance our time fixing problems with developing new enhancements.  It's impossible to give our users everything they would like to have because as soon as one thing gets fixed or developed, a user thinks of some way that it could be better.  It's a process.  That means it's ongoing constantly.  We continually try to improve it to meet the users demands, but we will never succeed in making them truly happy because they always want more.  But at some point we have to say "Ok, it's ready for release" and we release it.  The beta hopefully helped us release a better product.  It doesn't guarantee it's flawless or that all possible functionality is delivered, that wasn't the purpose of the beta, it's just part of the process to try to get the best possible product out the door.