Absolutely. I'm also sorry you guys are having problems with the open beta client, because I just tried the CB client again with a new char on the first levels (1-10) and the thing flies. I get none of the problems you guys are seeing. Instances loading screens go from 1 second for things like the Tortage Inn to 4 seconds max for the bigger instances. Everything runs smooth and fast. The only minor trouble I get with the current client is that it freezes on me about once per hour (requires killing the process and restarting the game), but this is one of the usual beta things that get fixed easily. Playing with all the settings maxed out on a C2D 6400 2.13Ghz, nvidia 8800GT, 4Gb ram, vista x64.
That sounds really odd to me. It means that someone messed up somewhere and may be someone is getting fired right about now.
ok, parting shot....600k people have never logged on to that hardware. It needs to be tested and stressed to see if it will in fact put up with 600k people.
FC is simulating a worst-case scenario so that we don't have to have a real one come launch day.
Which of course, was posted quite a while ago when they mentioned that this would be a stress test, but no one pays attention to these things.
I understand what you're saying, but why are they collecting bug reports then if it's just a stress test? And why use an out-of-date build to test the servers? And why collect bug reports on an old version of the game? These are the questions I have at least.
most of the bug reports are pointless, with the rare exception where data might be helpful in the case of a problem that has persisted through all builds.
In this case, they filter out what they need, and toss the rest.
The real data they're gathering is not done through the bug reports, but through the debugger. It sends them a constant stream of information the entire time the game is on.
It's also a goddamn memory hog and I can't wait to be rid of the damn thing.
ok, parting shot....600k people have never logged on to that hardware. It needs to be tested and stressed to see if it will in fact put up with 600k people.
FC is simulating a worst-case scenario so that we don't have to have a real one come launch day.
Which of course, was posted quite a while ago when they mentioned that this would be a stress test, but no one pays attention to these things.
I understand what you're saying, but why are they collecting bug reports then if it's just a stress test? And why use an out-of-date build to test the servers? And why collect bug reports on an old version of the game? These are the questions I have at least.
most of the bug reports are pointless, with the rare exception where data might be helpful in the case of a problem that has persisted through all builds.
In this case, they filter out what they need, and toss the rest.
The real data they're gathering is not done through the bug reports, but through the debugger. It sends them a constant stream of information the entire time the game is on.
It's also a goddamn memory hog and I can't wait to be rid of the damn thing.
most of the bug reports are pointless, with the rare exception where data might be helpful in the case of a problem that has persisted through all builds.
In this case, they filter out what they need, and toss the rest. The real data they're gathering is not done through the bug reports, but through the debugger. It sends them a constant stream of information the entire time the game is on. It's also a goddamn memory hog and I can't wait to be rid of the damn thing.
So it doesn't matter which version of the game the debugger is running on? Which would lead me to believe that the versions are close enough so that the information received from the debuggers would be the same on both versions. Which looks like they are the same version to me.
I don't know about these things, I'm just saying how it looks to people, like me, who have no idea even how to run a server or how they collect information.
Originally posted by Wharg0ul The real data they're gathering is not done through the bug reports, but through the debugger. It sends them a constant stream of information the entire time the game is on.
This is not true, sniff your own network and you will see.
They aren't trying to scare anyone off, and the only people who ARE scared are the people too fucking ignorant to understand what is going on, and to read the goddamn notices, dev blogs, and other information that testers might need to know. People think they get to play the game for free, and then bitch when they actually have to test something. They are told that they are being allowed into a "stress test", and then bitch about performance.
Stupid. Either do the job you volunteered to do by joining the testing or shut up and wait for release.
Edit: and to think, I was just talking to other CB testers last night about how sorry we felt for you guys being stuck with a shit client in a stress test. Guess you deserve it.
Actually, the ignorant one is you. If what you describe is true, I find that very unusual that Funcom is still doing that at this stage of development. Focus testing should not still exist 2 weeks from launch. The usual practice in game development is from the time of "gone gold" to the time of launch is "crunch" time. Meaning no new features will be added to the game. The only thing developer do in this time frame is to stabilize the game and fix critical bugs. They should not still mess around with multiple code branches.
Unfortunately in this case, we know, they ARE still adding features to the game. Bar Brawls are still in develompent, for example.
The concept of stress test is not to test the client code. never said it was. Stress test is to test the network and server infrastructure and may be server code. How they behave under load. If you say they release an old buggy version of client for stress-testing purposes, that make no sense at all. Sure it does, if that client build has more of an impact on server stress than recent ones. You test with excessive load so that under regular load you know you'll be fine.You have to take whatever PR people tell you with a grain of salt. That's their functionality, to spin the truth.I'm not listening to PR people, I'm reading the CB forums, and corresponding with devs, so that I know what the hell I am doing while testing, and what they need me to do.
The release version of the game that you will buy from store is actually a much older version of the game than the one we are using right now. Judging from the open beta client, it will be a huge patch right at launch day. The OB client is older than the version I was playing last night. And can you tell me what version number exactly the release client is?
Somehow I doubt it.
Also, like I said above, after "gone gold" nothing new will be added to the game. So if they don't have DX10 and Spellweaving ready for testing right now, they will not make the launch. Well, there is still small chances that Funcom will pull something stupid and push the changes directly from internal to release. Judging from the Anarchy Online launch, that's possible. I don't know if any of you were at AO launch but it's actually went into MMORPG history as a gigantic disaster. AO was used everywhere for a long time as an example of bug infested MMO at launch.
And this is key. After that debacle (which I was there for), when AoC was getting ready for release I can pretty much guarantee that FC said to themselves "ok, let's come up with a game plan that will guarantee that it doesn't happen again".
So they came up with a structured system of tests and stress programs designed to avoid just such a situation.
This being the case, people cant understand why FC is doing the kinds of testing in the ways they are. We don't need to....it's their code, they know what they need, and what to do to accomplish it.
people are expecting the same kind of late-beta pre-release behavior and methods displayed by other companies to be used here. This is wrong.
Originally posted by Wharg0ul The real data they're gathering is not done through the bug reports, but through the debugger. It sends them a constant stream of information the entire time the game is on.
This is not true, sniff your own network and you will see.
don't need to, I can alt tab to the dos box and see it.
Originally posted by Wharg0ul well, I've been beta testing for some time time. seen several builds. I read the notes, announcements, etc, so I know what part we are testing when. FC will patch together a build for specific testing purposes. Happens all the time. It's happening today, in fact. The build I'm playing right now is not the same as the one I was playing yesterday. It is designed to test something different. I can tell it's an older build, becuse some features I've gotten used to aren't there, or are only partially implemented. FC chose the build to use for the FP stress test based on what they needed to accomplish with the first phase of the testing. They will probably use more than one build over the course of the process to test different things. Older and newer clients. They aren't trying to scare anyone off, and the only people who ARE scared are the people too fucking ignorant to understand what is going on, and to read the goddamn notices, dev blogs, and other information that testers might need to know. People think they get to play the game for free, and then bitch when they actually have to test something. They are told that they are being allowed into a "stress test", and then bitch about performance. Stupid. Either do the job you volunteered to do by joining the testing or shut up and wait for release.
Edit: and to think, I was just talking to other CB testers last night about how sorry we felt for you guys being stuck with a shit client in a stress test. Guess you deserve it.
God I can't wait for release so we can just stuff it in your face. It's your fault for not seeing the warning signs.
Obviously they should have called it a Open Stress Test then people wouldn't have signed up or gotten pissed if they did. These fileplanet subscribers are expecting to test the game not login so they can crash over and over again so funcom gets some cheap labor by sugar coating what it really was, that wasn't what it was for.
To call it Open Beta was Funcom's biggest mistake.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
ok, parting shot....600k people have never logged on to that hardware. It needs to be tested and stressed to see if it will in fact put up with 600k people.
FC is simulating a worst-case scenario so that we don't have to have a real one come launch day.
Which of course, was posted quite a while ago when they mentioned that this would be a stress test, but no one pays attention to these things.
I understand what you're saying, but why are they collecting bug reports then if it's just a stress test? And why use an out-of-date build to test the servers? And why collect bug reports on an old version of the game? These are the questions I have at least.
most of the bug reports are pointless, with the rare exception where data might be helpful in the case of a problem that has persisted through all builds.
In this case, they filter out what they need, and toss the rest.
The real data they're gathering is not done through the bug reports, but through the debugger. It sends them a constant stream of information the entire time the game is on.
It's also a goddamn memory hog and I can't wait to be rid of the damn thing.
you post between crashes or whats up?
yeah, this assertion crash outside the thirsty dog today is pissing me off. Hopefully whatever build they give up later tonight doesn't have it.
ya know what? I give up. people are too damn determined to bitch, whine, and predict doom to think about things logically or even use a bit of common sense. I'm done here, I have a stress test to do.
sorry i had to...when someone says they are done with a thread...it always seems to mean im going to refresh it in 1min to see replies and post again anyways
oh and URMAKER's comment about posting between crashes was priceless lol
ya know what? I give up. people are too damn determined to bitch, whine, and predict doom to think about things logically or even use a bit of common sense. I'm done here, I have a stress test to do.
sorry i had to...when someone says they are done with a thread...it always seems to mean im going to refresh it in 1min to see replies and post again anyways
oh and URMAKER's comment about posting between crashes was priceless lol
yeah, I know. CB servers just went down for 5 hours so they can change builds on us again.
Got nothing better to do. Maybe I'll hop into the FP beta and see how bad it is first hand.
Edit: bah....screw that..too much work involved switching clients.
Game runs pertty good for me on Vista x64, 4 gig ram, 8800 GTS (512 meg), E8400 (3.0ghtz)... Yes, I am seeing some of the problems mentioned in the new sticky regarding shaders, and zoning... but overall, it runs great!
I have no idea what Funcom is doing... but overall I'm ecstatic, I know where my mmo dollars will be going for a couple of years! The only thing i dislike about the graphics is everything feels a big static compared to VAnguard with it's swaying tree's and what not...
As for possible having us using an older client, I'll add just this... As a developer, If i had a version of a program i was writing that has already been tested by small group (closed beta testers) but now I wanted to test out our servers, i would not give my most recent build, with changes from just a few days ago, to a bunch of non professional testers who were not bound by an NDA. They clearly feel they have a large enough closed beta group of testers to do the actual testing,... why expose themselves by releasing an untested build to stress test the servers?
I currently work for a small software company with no QA department, and it scares be to death every time I give them a new build and they install it at a hospital the next day! YIkes.... No one in their right minds, who didn't have to, would push out the very latest tip version of a build to a bunch of noob testers who are running around shouting "BOOBIES" go swimming! bug! OMFG!"
Personally, while there are still some rough edges, I think it's awesome! The biggest down side is the high hardware requirements are bound to hurt their subscription numbers....
Unfortunately in this case, we know, they ARE still adding features to the game. Bar Brawls are still in develompent, for example. They are adding features to the game does not mean that those features will make the launch. Those will be patch in at a much later date as an extensive patch usually.
Sure it does, if that client build has more of an impact on server stress than recent ones. You test with excessive load so that under regular load you know you'll be fine. No it does not. I am pretty sure that they are not messing with the net code at this point in time. So different build make virtually no different at all to server load. On the other hand, buggy client that crash all the time is actually make a negative impact on the stress test. It creates false data on players' gaming session. From business standpoint, doing that is stupid. You know why the NDA still exist for the closed beta people right? Then why in the hell they release a buggy client version to public and then lift the NDA on it. Isn't it a way to tell the world how incompetent they are?
I'm not listening to PR people, I'm reading the CB forums, and corresponding with devs, so that I know what the hell I am doing while testing, and what they need me to do.
It does not mean that you know what they did to the open beta client, do you?
The OB client is older than the version I was playing last night. And can you tell me what version number exactly the release client is? Somehow I doubt it. The release client is the April 22 build or older by one or two days.
people are expecting the same kind of late-beta pre-release behavior and methods displayed by other companies to be used here. This is wrong.
Not really, the best practices in the industry were there to reduce risk and mistake during development. That's why I use it as a typical behavior that developers usually do. It does not mean that FC is doing that exactly, should be pretty close though. Oh, btw, the thing that you thought "streaming information back to FC" does not send anything anywhere. They still rely on players submitted bugs.
Unfortunately in this case, we know, they ARE still adding features to the game. Bar Brawls are still in develompent, for example. They are adding features to the game does not mean that those features will make the launch. Those will be patch in at a much later date as an extensive patch usually.
Sure it does, if that client build has more of an impact on server stress than recent ones. You test with excessive load so that under regular load you know you'll be fine. No it does not. I am pretty sure that they are not messing with the net code at this point in time. So different build make virtually no different at all to server load. On the other hand, buggy client that crash all the time is actually make a negative impact on the stress test. It creates false data on players' gaming session. From business standpoint, doing that is stupid. You know why the NDA still exist for the closed beta people right? Then why in the hell they release a buggy client version to public and then lift the NDA on it. Isn't it a way to tell the world how incompetent they are?
I'm not listening to PR people, I'm reading the CB forums, and corresponding with devs, so that I know what the hell I am doing while testing, and what they need me to do.
It does not mean that you know what they did to the open beta client, do you?
The OB client is older than the version I was playing last night. And can you tell me what version number exactly the release client is? Somehow I doubt it. The release client is the April 22 build or older by one or two days.
people are expecting the same kind of late-beta pre-release behavior and methods displayed by other companies to be used here. This is wrong.
Not really, the best practices in the industry were there to reduce risk and mistake during development. That's why I use it as a typical behavior that developers usually do. It does not mean that FC is doing that exactly, should be pretty close though. Oh, btw, the thing that you thought "streaming information back to FC" does not send anything anywhere. They still rely on players submitted bugs.
Sorry, but almost your entire post can be proved to be crap by simple reading the CB forums.
Unless of course you don't have access to them?
By the way, a client from 3 months ago, patched with enough fixes to get it to work for the intended purpose would still show a more recent build date than it's core client code would actually have. Thus "newer" is relative.
And as long as your talking about logic (which I don't think you grasp), why would we be running a debugger if the goddamn data wasn't going anywhere?
They're not going to use brand new, fresh off the press code that may have fatal errors in it for people to play on during a stress test. What would happen if they gave you the absolute newest code, and it blew up the servers? Then there would be NO stress test, and everyone would go apeshit, saying "They can't even make the game OPPORATE during a BETA! I'm going to WAR!!!"
It's the same reason why you have Test servers when the game is Live. Test servers aren't just there to test Nerf's and Buffs people.... they're there to make sure the code won't break the Live game.
Focus testing should not still exist 2 weeks from launch. The usual practice in game development is from the time of "gone gold" to the time of launch is "crunch" time. Meaning no new features will be added to the game. The only thing developer do in this time frame is to stabilize the game and fix critical bugs. They should not still mess around with multiple code branches. The concept of stress test is not to test the client code. Stress test is to test the network and server infrastructure and may be server code. How they behave under load. If you say they release an old buggy version of client for stress-testing purposes, that make no sense at all. You have to take whatever PR people tell you with a grain of salt. That's their functionality, to spin the truth. The release version of the game that you will buy from store is actually a much older version of the game than the one we are using right now. Judging from the open beta client, it will be a huge patch right at launch day. Also, like I said above, after "gone gold" nothing new will be added to the game. So if they don't have DX10 and Spellweaving ready for testing right now, they will not make the launch. Well, there is still small chances that Funcom will pull something stupid and push the changes directly from internal to release. Judging from the Anarchy Online launch, that's possible. I don't know if any of you were at AO launch but it's actually went into MMORPG history as a gigantic disaster. AO was used everywhere for a long time as an example of bug infested MMO at launch.
The quoted post is Truth. Nearly every beta test I have taken part in has operated this way. This is how beta tests are run. If Funcom is doing things differently, they are setting themselves up for another bad launch.
Unfortunately in this case, we know, they ARE still adding features to the game. Bar Brawls are still in develompent, for example. They are adding features to the game does not mean that those features will make the launch. Those will be patch in at a much later date as an extensive patch usually.
Sure it does, if that client build has more of an impact on server stress than recent ones. You test with excessive load so that under regular load you know you'll be fine.
The OB client is older than the version I was playing last night. And can you tell me what version number exactly the release client is? Somehow I doubt it.
The release client is the April 22 build or older by one or two days.
It does not mean that you know what they did to the open beta client, do you?
No it does not. I am pretty sure that they are not messing with the net code at this point in time. So different build make virtually no different at all to server load. On the other hand, buggy client that crash all the time is actually make a negative impact on the stress test. It creates false data on players' gaming session. From business standpoint, doing that is stupid. You know why the NDA still exist for the closed beta people right? Then why in the hell they release a buggy client version to public and then lift the NDA on it. Isn't it a way to tell the world how incompetent they are?
I'm not listening to PR people, I'm reading the CB forums, and corresponding with devs, so that I know what the hell I am doing while testing, and what they need me to do.
people are expecting the same kind of late-beta pre-release behavior and methods displayed by other companies to be used here. This is wrong.
Not really, the best practices in the industry were there to reduce risk and mistake during development. That's why I use it as a typical behavior that developers usually do. It does not mean that FC is doing that exactly, should be pretty close though. Oh, btw, the thing that you thought "streaming information back to FC" does not send anything anywhere. They still rely on players submitted bugs.
Sorry, but almost your entire post can be proved to be crap by simple reading the CB forums.
Unless of course you don't have access to them?
By the way, a client from 3 months ago, patched with enough fixes to get it to work for the intended purpose would still show a more recent build date than it's core client code would actually have. Thus "newer" is relative.
And as long as your talking about logic (which I don't think you grasp), why would we be running a debugger if the goddamn data wasn't going anywhere?
FFS, use some common sense.
Warghoul...you urge people to use their common sense, so letm e excercise mine.
The game releases 18 days from now. I'll give you them the benefit of the doubt that they have a better client up their sleeves which is also expecting a few performance patches here and there for launch.
I don't know how many days it would take for them to print all these discs...so lets say 2 days...+ shipment time to the retail stores...1 day. So basically they have 15 days to fix anything before they have to get it printed and shipped out.
Now..to argue your point that they are "stressing the servers" then why would they need to have a debugger included in OB client? This would be pointless if they were depending on their CB users for those fixes. If you say that they are stressing the servers and clients...then why aren't they using the release client but an outdated client which potentially has more bugs..which they would be doubling up on work if they tried to fix the outdated client, and then fix the normal client...this in no way makes sense.
So lets get it straight. The OB is intended to test something right? From a client perspective or server perspective, neither is looking good.
I think you get too busy telling people to use "common sense" when you are pretty obtuse and not able to see from different perspectives.
Sorry, but almost your entire post can be proved to be crap by simple reading the CB forums.
Unless of course you don't have access to them? By the way, a client from 3 months ago, patched with enough fixes to get it to work for the intended purpose would still show a more recent build date than it's core client code would actually have. Thus "newer" is relative. And as long as your talking about logic (which I don't think you grasp), why would we be running a debugger if the goddamn data wasn't going anywhere? FFS, use some common sense.
You don't have any better arguments to come back?
What in my post can be proved to be crap by reading the CB forum? Your theory which I think you came up by your self that they pick the client version because it somehow "stress" the server more has absolutely no backing whatsoever and I just point it out.
Do you happen to know what occur when the game crashes? That's where the data go. They still rely on player submitted bugs. All those data sit there in memory doing nothing unless player send them back to FC. Where's your common sense?
The reason why they use older client version and now having to go through hell to merging code because
- They pick whatever version that is most stable several days ago and send it to File Planet.
- They decided to use this opportunity not just for stress test but for a marketing move as well, aka a demo before release. That's why they split the patch server and make it separate from the current closed beta thus making a different version for the open beta player to try on. That's why they drop the NDA for this test because they want publicity. Stress test is actually a lesser reason for this test. You can actually tell that those open beta servers are no where near their capacity and they actually open up more servers for the weekend.
PS: I just read the two people reply before me, and this "open beta" is not a very good move from FC. It's actually somewhat back-fire on them. So yeah, this open beta client may be a different version from the actual release candidate but I am not convinced that the release candidate will "magically" fix all the issues there are right now. They are not that much different apart.
Debugger in this case we really don't have one, because debuggers are interactive like GDB and the line, where you can setup breakpoints and check call stack data and the like. What our client programs have are loggers that take delta dumps (things that were last saved just before the interrupting state/operation) and with a simple network client sends it to the host server for analysis by the developers who can take the same states into the real debugger and run all the stuff related therein. Even though such loggers do take some memory, it's not enough to hog your CPU over the host program, not by a long shot. If it does, get another logger, because it's terribly designed.
Debugger in this case we really don't have one, because debuggers are interactive like GDB and the line, where you can setup breakpoints and check call stack data and the like. What our client programs have are loggers that take delta dumps (things that were last saved just before the interrupting state/operation) and with a simple network client sends it to the host server for analysis by the developers who can take the same states into the real debugger and run all the stuff related therein. Even though such loggers do take some memory, it's not enough to hog your CPU over the host program, not by a long shot. If it does, get another logger, because it's terribly designed. -- Brede
It actually dump everything to console and redirect standard out to a file later on. Odd way to do a logger if you ask me. No idea why they didn't get a better one.
Thachsanh, which beta versions have you paticipated in? Are you speculating, or speaking from personal experience, as I am?
And by the way, as of the day of the FP release, there was already a more stable, more advanced client version available. I would assume you would know this if you were in CB.
In fact, there are a few things you have said which leads me to believe that you are not in CB.
If that's the case, then you know a lot less than we do about the state of the game, and Funcom's testing habits.
If you are in CB, then spend some time reading, and educate yourself.
Originally posted by Thachsanh Originally posted by ladyattis Debugger in this case we really don't have one, because debuggers are interactive like GDB and the line, where you can setup breakpoints and check call stack data and the like. What our client programs have are loggers that take delta dumps (things that were last saved just before the interrupting state/operation) and with a simple network client sends it to the host server for analysis by the developers who can take the same states into the real debugger and run all the stuff related therein. Even though such loggers do take some memory, it's not enough to hog your CPU over the host program, not by a long shot. If it does, get another logger, because it's terribly designed. -- Brede
It actually dump everything to console and redirect standard out to a file later on. Odd way to do a logger if you ask me. No idea why they didn't get a better one.
Yeah, that's why I don't like this logger at all if that analysis you got there is right. In theory, you'd just have the logger take a small segment of the operation at its state (n-1 usually...) and save that to a log file, then send that log file plus whatever was necessary to the devs, but nothing else. Okay, enough nerdfesting here. :-P
Debugger in this case we really don't have one, because debuggers are interactive like GDB and the line, where you can setup breakpoints and check call stack data and the like. What our client programs have are loggers that take delta dumps (things that were last saved just before the interrupting state/operation) and with a simple network client sends it to the host server for analysis by the developers who can take the same states into the real debugger and run all the stuff related therein. Even though such loggers do take some memory, it's not enough to hog your CPU over the host program, not by a long shot. If it does, get another logger, because it's terribly designed.
-- Brede
It actually dump everything to console and redirect standard out to a file later on. Odd way to do a logger if you ask me. No idea why they didn't get a better one.
Yeah, that's why I don't like this logger at all if that analysis you got there is right. In theory, you'd just have the logger take a small segment of the operation at its state (n-1 usually...) and save that to a log file, then send that log file plus whatever was necessary to the devs, but nothing else. Okay, enough nerdfesting here. :-P
-- Brede
the real problem is the memory and page file footprint, which grows and grows the longer you play. After 5 hours, it's over 600mb.
Combined with uncompressed textures, it really put a punding on the system.
Originally posted by Wharg0ul Thachsanh, which beta versions have you paticipated in? Are you speculating, or speaking from personal experience, as I am? And by the way, as of the day of the FP release, there was already a more stable, more advanced client version available. I would assume you would know this if you were in CB. In fact, there are a few things you have said which leads me to believe that you are not in CB. If that's the case, then you know a lot less than we do about the state of the game, and Funcom's testing habits. If you are in CB, then spend some time reading, and educate yourself.
I don't doubt the QA team has a better client, but if they're a decent development team pulling off the last tested build (or even the last assumed 'nice' nightly build) from the svn repos would be dead easy and then compile the boy for us and patch. *geeks out* Hmmm, does geek out into Tortage? Sorry, I have to be silly about this because I think we're all taking games too seriously and that's scary.
Comments
That sounds really odd to me. It means that someone messed up somewhere and may be someone is getting fired right about now.
FC is simulating a worst-case scenario so that we don't have to have a real one come launch day.
Which of course, was posted quite a while ago when they mentioned that this would be a stress test, but no one pays attention to these things.
I understand what you're saying, but why are they collecting bug reports then if it's just a stress test? And why use an out-of-date build to test the servers? And why collect bug reports on an old version of the game? These are the questions I have at least.
most of the bug reports are pointless, with the rare exception where data might be helpful in the case of a problem that has persisted through all builds.In this case, they filter out what they need, and toss the rest.
The real data they're gathering is not done through the bug reports, but through the debugger. It sends them a constant stream of information the entire time the game is on.
It's also a goddamn memory hog and I can't wait to be rid of the damn thing.
FC is simulating a worst-case scenario so that we don't have to have a real one come launch day.
Which of course, was posted quite a while ago when they mentioned that this would be a stress test, but no one pays attention to these things.
I understand what you're saying, but why are they collecting bug reports then if it's just a stress test? And why use an out-of-date build to test the servers? And why collect bug reports on an old version of the game? These are the questions I have at least.
most of the bug reports are pointless, with the rare exception where data might be helpful in the case of a problem that has persisted through all builds.In this case, they filter out what they need, and toss the rest.
The real data they're gathering is not done through the bug reports, but through the debugger. It sends them a constant stream of information the entire time the game is on.
It's also a goddamn memory hog and I can't wait to be rid of the damn thing.
you post between crashes or whats up?
So it doesn't matter which version of the game the debugger is running on? Which would lead me to believe that the versions are close enough so that the information received from the debuggers would be the same on both versions. Which looks like they are the same version to me.
I don't know about these things, I'm just saying how it looks to people, like me, who have no idea even how to run a server or how they collect information.
This is not true, sniff your own network and you will see.
Actually, the ignorant one is you. If what you describe is true, I find that very unusual that Funcom is still doing that at this stage of development. Focus testing should not still exist 2 weeks from launch. The usual practice in game development is from the time of "gone gold" to the time of launch is "crunch" time. Meaning no new features will be added to the game. The only thing developer do in this time frame is to stabilize the game and fix critical bugs. They should not still mess around with multiple code branches.
Unfortunately in this case, we know, they ARE still adding features to the game. Bar Brawls are still in develompent, for example.
The concept of stress test is not to test the client code. never said it was. Stress test is to test the network and server infrastructure and may be server code. How they behave under load. If you say they release an old buggy version of client for stress-testing purposes, that make no sense at all. Sure it does, if that client build has more of an impact on server stress than recent ones. You test with excessive load so that under regular load you know you'll be fine.You have to take whatever PR people tell you with a grain of salt. That's their functionality, to spin the truth. I'm not listening to PR people, I'm reading the CB forums, and corresponding with devs, so that I know what the hell I am doing while testing, and what they need me to do.
The release version of the game that you will buy from store is actually a much older version of the game than the one we are using right now. Judging from the open beta client, it will be a huge patch right at launch day. The OB client is older than the version I was playing last night. And can you tell me what version number exactly the release client is?
Somehow I doubt it.
Also, like I said above, after "gone gold" nothing new will be added to the game. So if they don't have DX10 and Spellweaving ready for testing right now, they will not make the launch. Well, there is still small chances that Funcom will pull something stupid and push the changes directly from internal to release. Judging from the Anarchy Online launch, that's possible. I don't know if any of you were at AO launch but it's actually went into MMORPG history as a gigantic disaster. AO was used everywhere for a long time as an example of bug infested MMO at launch.
And this is key. After that debacle (which I was there for), when AoC was getting ready for release I can pretty much guarantee that FC said to themselves "ok, let's come up with a game plan that will guarantee that it doesn't happen again".
So they came up with a structured system of tests and stress programs designed to avoid just such a situation.
This being the case, people cant understand why FC is doing the kinds of testing in the ways they are. We don't need to....it's their code, they know what they need, and what to do to accomplish it.
people are expecting the same kind of late-beta pre-release behavior and methods displayed by other companies to be used here. This is wrong.This is not true, sniff your own network and you will see.
don't need to, I can alt tab to the dos box and see it.God I can't wait for release so we can just stuff it in your face. It's your fault for not seeing the warning signs.
Obviously they should have called it a Open Stress Test then people wouldn't have signed up or gotten pissed if they did. These fileplanet subscribers are expecting to test the game not login so they can crash over and over again so funcom gets some cheap labor by sugar coating what it really was, that wasn't what it was for.
To call it Open Beta was Funcom's biggest mistake.
FC is simulating a worst-case scenario so that we don't have to have a real one come launch day.
Which of course, was posted quite a while ago when they mentioned that this would be a stress test, but no one pays attention to these things.
I understand what you're saying, but why are they collecting bug reports then if it's just a stress test? And why use an out-of-date build to test the servers? And why collect bug reports on an old version of the game? These are the questions I have at least.
most of the bug reports are pointless, with the rare exception where data might be helpful in the case of a problem that has persisted through all builds.In this case, they filter out what they need, and toss the rest.
The real data they're gathering is not done through the bug reports, but through the debugger. It sends them a constant stream of information the entire time the game is on.
It's also a goddamn memory hog and I can't wait to be rid of the damn thing.
you post between crashes or whats up?
yeah, this assertion crash outside the thirsty dog today is pissing me off. Hopefully whatever build they give up later tonight doesn't have it.
sorry i had to...when someone says they are done with a thread...it always seems to mean im going to refresh it in 1min to see replies and post again anyways
oh and URMAKER's comment about posting between crashes was priceless lol
---sig---
Click this for lulz: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/173737/page/6
sorry i had to...when someone says they are done with a thread...it always seems to mean im going to refresh it in 1min to see replies and post again anyways
oh and URMAKER's comment about posting between crashes was priceless lol
yeah, I know. CB servers just went down for 5 hours so they can change builds on us again.
Got nothing better to do. Maybe I'll hop into the FP beta and see how bad it is first hand.
Edit: bah....screw that..too much work involved switching clients.
Game runs pertty good for me on Vista x64, 4 gig ram, 8800 GTS (512 meg), E8400 (3.0ghtz)... Yes, I am seeing some of the problems mentioned in the new sticky regarding shaders, and zoning... but overall, it runs great!
I have no idea what Funcom is doing... but overall I'm ecstatic, I know where my mmo dollars will be going for a couple of years! The only thing i dislike about the graphics is everything feels a big static compared to VAnguard with it's swaying tree's and what not...
As for possible having us using an older client, I'll add just this... As a developer, If i had a version of a program i was writing that has already been tested by small group (closed beta testers) but now I wanted to test out our servers, i would not give my most recent build, with changes from just a few days ago, to a bunch of non professional testers who were not bound by an NDA. They clearly feel they have a large enough closed beta group of testers to do the actual testing,... why expose themselves by releasing an untested build to stress test the servers?
I currently work for a small software company with no QA department, and it scares be to death every time I give them a new build and they install it at a hospital the next day! YIkes.... No one in their right minds, who didn't have to, would push out the very latest tip version of a build to a bunch of noob testers who are running around shouting "BOOBIES" go swimming! bug! OMFG!"
Personally, while there are still some rough edges, I think it's awesome! The biggest down side is the high hardware requirements are bound to hurt their subscription numbers....
just my 2 cents! Cant wait for release!
Not really, the best practices in the industry were there to reduce risk and mistake during development. That's why I use it as a typical behavior that developers usually do. It does not mean that FC is doing that exactly, should be pretty close though. Oh, btw, the thing that you thought "streaming information back to FC" does not send anything anywhere. They still rely on players submitted bugs.
Sorry, but almost your entire post can be proved to be crap by simple reading the CB forums.Not really, the best practices in the industry were there to reduce risk and mistake during development. That's why I use it as a typical behavior that developers usually do. It does not mean that FC is doing that exactly, should be pretty close though. Oh, btw, the thing that you thought "streaming information back to FC" does not send anything anywhere. They still rely on players submitted bugs.
Unless of course you don't have access to them?
By the way, a client from 3 months ago, patched with enough fixes to get it to work for the intended purpose would still show a more recent build date than it's core client code would actually have. Thus "newer" is relative.
And as long as your talking about logic (which I don't think you grasp), why would we be running a debugger if the goddamn data wasn't going anywhere?
FFS, use some common sense.
"Why use an older beta client for open beta?"
I guess it's simply because as of May/1st, this client is probably the most stable build they've got at hand to make public for their "open beta".
In the backround they may get a major patch ready for the dvd-version on release day, to get the "gold" version to a working level.
I can answer this question very easily....
They're not going to use brand new, fresh off the press code that may have fatal errors in it for people to play on during a stress test. What would happen if they gave you the absolute newest code, and it blew up the servers? Then there would be NO stress test, and everyone would go apeshit, saying "They can't even make the game OPPORATE during a BETA! I'm going to WAR!!!"
It's the same reason why you have Test servers when the game is Live. Test servers aren't just there to test Nerf's and Buffs people.... they're there to make sure the code won't break the Live game.
The quoted post is Truth. Nearly every beta test I have taken part in has operated this way. This is how beta tests are run. If Funcom is doing things differently, they are setting themselves up for another bad launch.
Sorry, but almost your entire post can be proved to be crap by simple reading the CB forums.Not really, the best practices in the industry were there to reduce risk and mistake during development. That's why I use it as a typical behavior that developers usually do. It does not mean that FC is doing that exactly, should be pretty close though. Oh, btw, the thing that you thought "streaming information back to FC" does not send anything anywhere. They still rely on players submitted bugs.
Unless of course you don't have access to them?
By the way, a client from 3 months ago, patched with enough fixes to get it to work for the intended purpose would still show a more recent build date than it's core client code would actually have. Thus "newer" is relative.
And as long as your talking about logic (which I don't think you grasp), why would we be running a debugger if the goddamn data wasn't going anywhere?
FFS, use some common sense.
Warghoul...you urge people to use their common sense, so letm e excercise mine.The game releases 18 days from now. I'll give you them the benefit of the doubt that they have a better client up their sleeves which is also expecting a few performance patches here and there for launch.
I don't know how many days it would take for them to print all these discs...so lets say 2 days...+ shipment time to the retail stores...1 day. So basically they have 15 days to fix anything before they have to get it printed and shipped out.
Now..to argue your point that they are "stressing the servers" then why would they need to have a debugger included in OB client? This would be pointless if they were depending on their CB users for those fixes. If you say that they are stressing the servers and clients...then why aren't they using the release client but an outdated client which potentially has more bugs..which they would be doubling up on work if they tried to fix the outdated client, and then fix the normal client...this in no way makes sense.
So lets get it straight. The OB is intended to test something right? From a client perspective or server perspective, neither is looking good.
I think you get too busy telling people to use "common sense" when you are pretty obtuse and not able to see from different perspectives.
You don't have any better arguments to come back?
What in my post can be proved to be crap by reading the CB forum? Your theory which I think you came up by your self that they pick the client version because it somehow "stress" the server more has absolutely no backing whatsoever and I just point it out.
Do you happen to know what occur when the game crashes? That's where the data go. They still rely on player submitted bugs. All those data sit there in memory doing nothing unless player send them back to FC. Where's your common sense?
The reason why they use older client version and now having to go through hell to merging code because
- They pick whatever version that is most stable several days ago and send it to File Planet.
- They decided to use this opportunity not just for stress test but for a marketing move as well, aka a demo before release. That's why they split the patch server and make it separate from the current closed beta thus making a different version for the open beta player to try on. That's why they drop the NDA for this test because they want publicity. Stress test is actually a lesser reason for this test. You can actually tell that those open beta servers are no where near their capacity and they actually open up more servers for the weekend.
PS: I just read the two people reply before me, and this "open beta" is not a very good move from FC. It's actually somewhat back-fire on them. So yeah, this open beta client may be a different version from the actual release candidate but I am not convinced that the release candidate will "magically" fix all the issues there are right now. They are not that much different apart.
Debugger in this case we really don't have one, because debuggers are interactive like GDB and the line, where you can setup breakpoints and check call stack data and the like. What our client programs have are loggers that take delta dumps (things that were last saved just before the interrupting state/operation) and with a simple network client sends it to the host server for analysis by the developers who can take the same states into the real debugger and run all the stuff related therein. Even though such loggers do take some memory, it's not enough to hog your CPU over the host program, not by a long shot. If it does, get another logger, because it's terribly designed.
-- Brede
It actually dump everything to console and redirect standard out to a file later on. Odd way to do a logger if you ask me. No idea why they didn't get a better one.
Thachsanh, which beta versions have you paticipated in? Are you speculating, or speaking from personal experience, as I am?
And by the way, as of the day of the FP release, there was already a more stable, more advanced client version available. I would assume you would know this if you were in CB.
In fact, there are a few things you have said which leads me to believe that you are not in CB.
If that's the case, then you know a lot less than we do about the state of the game, and Funcom's testing habits.
If you are in CB, then spend some time reading, and educate yourself.
Yeah, that's why I don't like this logger at all if that analysis you got there is right. In theory, you'd just have the logger take a small segment of the operation at its state (n-1 usually...) and save that to a log file, then send that log file plus whatever was necessary to the devs, but nothing else. Okay, enough nerdfesting here. :-P
-- Brede
It actually dump everything to console and redirect standard out to a file later on. Odd way to do a logger if you ask me. No idea why they didn't get a better one.
Yeah, that's why I don't like this logger at all if that analysis you got there is right. In theory, you'd just have the logger take a small segment of the operation at its state (n-1 usually...) and save that to a log file, then send that log file plus whatever was necessary to the devs, but nothing else. Okay, enough nerdfesting here. :-P
-- Brede
the real problem is the memory and page file footprint, which grows and grows the longer you play. After 5 hours, it's over 600mb.Combined with uncompressed textures, it really put a punding on the system.
I don't doubt the QA team has a better client, but if they're a decent development team pulling off the last tested build (or even the last assumed 'nice' nightly build) from the svn repos would be dead easy and then compile the boy for us and patch. *geeks out* Hmmm, does geek out into Tortage? Sorry, I have to be silly about this because I think we're all taking games too seriously and that's scary.
-- Brede