New test realm patch notes.

[Raelynn]

Until we don't get a PvE server here, which allows uninterrupted testing of non-PvP content like the Epic Mounts quests, Blizzard can test their crap themselves. Sorry folks, but I believe that some folks at Blizzard need a serious kick in their butt  :angry:
[right][snapback]77620[/snapback][/right]

Sounds like a bad decision on Blizzard's part to me. I agree 100%. In order to effectively test non-pvp things, you need the chance to be able to test them uninterrupted. I'm not testing anything right now cause I'm really close to 60. Almost there...

[nobbie]

See, just yesterday, they have set up another test server for Europe, but instead of making it PvE, it's now a second(!) PvP server. So, you guys in the U.S. have 1 PvE and 1 PvP server, which is fine, and us Europeans have 2 PvP servers. It seems that Blizzard wants to cram their PvP system, or their personal "vision" of what WOW is, down the throat of us customers, no matter that the majority of the players don't like their PvP system at all. It's disgusting.

[lfd]

no matter that the majority of the players don't like their PvP system at all. It's disgusting.[right][snapback]77711[/snapback][/right]

I think you'll have a hard job proving that, given it's always the PvP servers that fill up first.

[nobbie]

I said that the majority of the players don't like Blizzard's current WOW PvP system, not PvP in general, at all. This is not based on speculation but a poll that a big German WOW fansite has recently made after the launch of PvP and the PvP "honor system" in the WOW patch 1.4.0. About 33% of the German players found the PvP system "Good", 45% "Not Good", and the rest didn't care, mainly because they are playing on either a PvE or RP server. I think that 33% "Good" is a bit meager to force all customers, even those on PvE or RP servers (see the Tarren Mill crap), to accept this system "as is" without further significant changes/restrictions. This is not WarCraft III.

[savaughn]

I said that the majority of the players don't like Blizzard's current WOW PvP system, not PvP in general, at all. This is not based on speculation but a poll that a big German WOW fansite has recently made after the launch of PvP and the PvP "honor system" in the WOW patch 1.4.0. About 33% of the German players found the PvP system "Good", 45% "Not Good", and the rest didn't care, mainly because they are playing on either a PvE or RP server.
[right][snapback]77729[/snapback][/right]

So according to the poll, a minority of the players dislike the current WoW PvP system. Not that I'd the results of that very limited poll in anyway reflects the attitudes of the vastly greater WoW community.

[Quark]

1st - please, for the love of outline users everywhere, reply to the post you're actually replying to!. It's getting tiring seeing 3 mains threads to a topic that everyone's following, then having 5 at the bottom that start with you.

2nd - I wouldn't trust what people think of Honor right now, anyway. Hell, half of them still haven't figured out that rank-climbing is level dependent.

3rd - if this poll was realistic, then why do observations run exactly like lfd said? PvP realms are the most popular.

[Artega]

See, just yesterday, they have set up another test server for Europe, but instead of making it PvE, it's now a second(!) PvP server. So, you guys in the U.S. have 1 PvE and 1 PvP server, which is fine, and us Europeans have 2 PvP servers. It seems that Blizzard wants to cram their PvP system, or their personal "vision" of what WOW is, down the throat of us customers, no matter that the majority of the players don't like their PvP system at all. It's disgusting.
[right][snapback]77711[/snapback][/right]

As for the Honor System, they're supposed to be adding in dishonor penalties at some point (was it 1.50?) That'll at least help alleviate some of the TM zerging you've been seeing.

I can't see why they would make two PvP servers without making a PvE server first. Like others have said, PvP servers fill up first, but it's not like you can't test BGs on PvE servers. And it's not like BGs are the only things going in with 1.50 - I'm looking forward to the Fury tree changes more than the BGs, actually :)

[Chesspiece_face]

As for the Honor System, they're supposed to be adding in dishonor penalties at some point (was it 1.50?)  That'll at least help alleviate some of the TM zerging you've been seeing.

I can't see why they would make two PvP servers without making a PvE server first.  Like others have said, PvP servers fill up first, but it's not like you can't test BGs on PvE servers.  And it's not like BGs are the only things going in with 1.50 - I'm looking forward to the Fury tree changes more than the BGs, actually :)
[right][snapback]77768[/snapback][/right]

They've set up so many PvP test servers because they are broadcasting these servers at E3 this week. specifically the capture the flag battleground (can't remember the name). They need to have enough PvP test servers going at once so they can have a consistent "feed" for the people playing and watching at E3.

if they only had one pvp test server going and it went down at E3 they would be SOL. having 3+ test servers going allows them more flexability in their presentation.

[Phoenix]

They've set up so many PvP test servers because they are broadcasting these servers at E3 this week.  specifically the capture the flag battleground (can't remember the name).  They need to have enough PvP test servers going at once so they can have a consistent "feed" for the people playing and watching at E3.

if they only had one pvp test server going and it went down at E3 they would be SOL.  having 3+ test servers going allows them more flexability in their presentation.
[right][snapback]77775[/snapback][/right]

But there's no reason why some of those multiple servers couldn't be "Normal" servers. Battlegrounds work exactly the same regardless of server type.

I can't see why they would make two PvP servers without making a PvE server first.

Yeah, neither can we. :huh:

[Chesspiece_face]

But there's no reason why some of those multiple servers couldn't be "Normal" servers. Battlegrounds work exactly the same regardless of server type.

I can't see why they would make two PvP servers without making a PvE server first.

Yeah, neither can we. :huh:
[right][snapback]77797[/snapback][/right]

Well E3 is only part of the reason they've done this i'm sure. A larger and much more simple reason is: it doesn't take that many people to test PvE content. It's simply resource management. For the most part the testing of quests etc can be done internally. The stuff regarding PvE that can't be done internally doesn't require much outside testing whereas the PvP aspect and Battlegrounds is essentially ALL outside testing. Why should they spend the time and money on additional PvE test servers if they only need 1 PvE test server to get the info they need. Anything above and beyond that is a waste of resources.

On the other hand they need as many people out there testing the PvP battlegrounds as possible to get the information required. Even though these test servers give people a taste of what's coming, that's not what they are there for.

[lfd]

The stuff regarding PvE that can't be done internally doesn't require much outside testing[right][snapback]77808[/snapback][/right]

...you aren't seriously suggesting Blizzard's internal testing department is up to the task of discovering all PvE bugs and issues themselves, are you? :whistling:

There are huge numbers of PvE-relevant bugs reported by players. The focus of this public testing seems in most people's eyes to be battlegrounds, but I haven't actually seen anything officially stating that - they just happen to be the biggest thing in the patch. It would seem to be that they want Warsong Gulch tested, but even so that could've been done on a PvE server; all they've learnt from having PvP test servers is that people will try to gank at the opposing faction's entrance, and that having one side's entrance in a safe/hostile area with the opposing faction's entrance in a contested area is perhaps a little silly. Anyone on a PvP server could have told them that for free, though.

So far the biggest problem with the test server that I've found has been the regular disconnects, which have prevented me getting into a battleground to test it.

[Chesspiece_face]

...you aren't seriously suggesting Blizzard's internal testing department is up to the task of discovering all PvE bugs and issues themselves, are you?  :whistling:
[right][snapback]77812[/snapback][/right]

Blizzards ability to successfully do internal testing isn't the issue. What is the issue is project management and how testing is done in these types of games for different features. Seriously, how many people does it take to successfully test a PvE quest? 10? 20? 40 at the most, theoretically, as that is the highest amount of people that can group together. Get them together and do the quest. Does this step of the quest work? Yes, move on. If: No, send bug back to developers. The only thing that additional levels of attention on that same issue will bring out is whether there are uncommon character/item interactions that break the same content that under normal circumstances works. As such there isn't any need for multiple servers to test this type of content.

PvP however is the complete opposite. Everything about PvP interactions falls in the margins. Thus you need every possible person out there casting spells and mixing abilities to find the places that don't work properly

As someone that has spent a lot of time doing testing on both MMO's and console games the fact that this game is out and as successful as it is alone tells me that Blizzard is quite capable of doing internal testing.

[lfd]

As someone that has spent a lot of time doing testing on both MMO's and console games the fact that this game is out and as successful as it is alone tells me that Blizzard is quite capable of doing internal testing.
[right][snapback]77815[/snapback][/right]

You know, it really annoys me when people pull the "I've done this, therefore you know nothing" crap. The number of bugs in the game tells me that Blizzard is quite incapable of properly doing internal testing. The number of people playing the game is irrelevant.

The only thing that additional levels of attention on that same issue will bring out is whether there are uncommon character/item interactions that break the same content that under normal circumstances works.

...what you seem to be saying here is "the only thing you'll find out by doing this is things that you won't find out by not doing it". Given that, isn't it better to do those things? There is _plenty_ of PvP on a PvE server, even outside of battlegrounds. You quite categorically do NOT need a PvP server to test PvP.

[Quark]

As someone that has spent a lot of time doing testing on both MMO's and console games the fact that this game is out and as successful as it is alone tells me that Blizzard is quite capable of doing internal testing.[right][snapback]77815[/snapback][/right]

I wouldn't be so quick to say that. How many times have they patched the game, only to introduce some really annoying disconnect bug that caused huge issues?

Actually, I'm going off on a tangeant here, but now that I think about it, I think I know what it's doing. Blizzard's code probably has a lot of failsafes that can be triggered through unexpected results. Get an unexpected result, disconnect the player. If the unexpected result was through cheating, they get kicked rightfully. If the unexpected result was part of normal gameplay, that means either the code for what's happening - like Mind Control, that's notorious for discs - or the code for the failsafe itself is wrong. A change in the code to make it more efficient or less buggy then starts triggering the failsafes like nothing, and you have massive disconnects in the game.

There's really only one person who can 100% completely test code, and that's the person who wrote it. I don't care what other people think, I've seen tons of bugs either skipped over, unnoticed, or simply not triggered because people didn't understand exactly what was supposed to happen in the first place. Then you hit problem number two - programmers don't test for bugs well. When a programmer tests a program, he typically goes through the expected processes. "I'll do this, then this, then that. Did it all work? Good." He did exactly what people are supposed to do. Real users don't act that way. They do the unexpected all the time. They break bounds, they do things in the wrong order, they click places no one expects to be clicked.

So, really, the best way you can test a program is to have someone who's really good at doing the inane. He finds an edge case and plays with it until he's certain nothing buggy happens. He must also have a good understand of what's supposed to happen, and has to collaborate with the programmer once he thinks he found something unexpected.


I'm not ready to bash Blizzard's QA overall. We have no idea how well they are doing, because we don't see the internal test builds. If they have bug-prone programmers, the QA is overloaded. If they have really good programmers, then QA may be slacking. However, I do think it's fair to criticize how certain things are going through. For instance, dwarf priests couldn't do MC discovery quest. They already had credit for it, even though they never touched the quest. Tauren females couldn't jump through the portal once they did it - they were too big. Since this is a quest whose reward is being constantly reused, it's critical to get that testing right.

This is where the test servers should theoretically shine. You get a huge addition to the edge case testing. Not because test server players are good at testing, but through sheer brute force and the fact that players aren't all the same. The more test servers you have, the better the amount of edge cases you get. The fact that European and American servers are completely seperate means player behavior has probably evolved to be at least somewhat different, so having a PvE test server over there only makes it more likely to find bugs.

[Chesspiece_face]

[QUOTE][quote=lfd,May 19 2005, 10:41 AM]
You know, it really annoys me when people pull the "I've done this, therefore you know nothing" crap. [right][snapback]77892[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Ok first of all I don't see how my statement has anything to do with your level of knowledge. I'm speaking from my own experience. I've spent many years doing both internal and external testing of games from pre-alpha to release. I've also been in an environment where i can see what happens when project management is incapable of balancing resources where they need to be. The amount of time I could take just going completely off on your generalizations and assumptions on the above quote are endless and to be blunt it really pisses me off to have my words so blatantly twisted.

[QUOTE]The number of bugs in the game tells me that Blizzard is quite incapable of properly doing internal testing. The number of people playing the game is irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

Well since you've already gone and brought intellegence quotients into this argument let me ask; What credentials do you have to make such a statement? I've given my experiences and why i feel it is reasonable for the developers to make the decisions they have. How are you basing your assessment of Blizzard's testing prowess? Because you play the game and you saw a bug? Have you played any other MMO's? Have you beta tested any other MMO's?

Also, the number of people playing the game is highly relevant. If the game was so heavily inundated with bugs and glitches people would not play. This is the most played MMO ever. And among other MMO's at this point in thier development it is one of the games with the fewest major bugs.

[QUOTE]...what you seem to be saying here is "the only thing you'll find out by doing this is things that you won't find out by not doing it". Given that, isn't it better to do those things? There is _plenty_ of PvP on a PvE server, even outside of battlegrounds. You quite categorically do NOT need a PvP server to test PvP.[/QUOTE]

No, what i'm saying is that it is not economical to test in that way for PvE content. And as for the PvP vs PvE server I can make reasonable assumptions all day as to why Blizzard might want to make them that way. Quite possibly they just wanted to get the most bang for their buck on PvP testing. If they take the shackles off by making it a PvP server they will get exponentially more PvP interactions than if it were a PvE server. They will also not have a PvP server full of people that want to do PvE stuff. I get back to my original argument; Why should Blizzard make a second PvE test server when all the information they need can be gathered from one server?

[Alarick]

Yay! Someone understands the concepts of white-box and black-box testing!

Seriously, this is the exact reason that both types of testing need to be done. Typically, the in house testing is more prone to be white box because of the more immediate access to the coders and code.

The open testing done by players is a large scale black-box test phase, and can releave things in both PvP and PvE that would be difficult to find if you are testing based on knowing what is supposed to go into and out of the "box."

In the end, I do hae to agree that there is little reason not to have PvE test servers. There are many people that want to test the non-PvP content, and many that just want the ability to get into the PvP content without non-consentual PvP littering the way there.

[Raelynn]

Upon re-reading your post, I need to say you changed your idea two paragraphs below what I decided to write against.

[lfd]

Ok first of all I don't see how my statement has anything to do with your level of knowledge [... t]he amount of time I could take just going completely off on your generalizations and assumptions on the above quote are endless and to be blunt it really pisses me off to have my words so blatantly twisted.

The reason it came across like that to me is because you directly contradicted something I had to say and then said (paraphrasing), "and I've got all this experience". This reads to me as though you're simply dismissing what someone else has to say because you consider your experience to elevate your own opinions and assumptions to a higher level of validity than those of someone else. I did not intend to twist your words, and your own post is there for everyone else to read and make their own judgement about.

Well since you've already gone and brought intellegence quotients into this

I did no such thing. My point (made when angry, so doubtless not very clearly) was that I disliked people writing off the opinions of others on the grounds of their own experience. You have no idea of my own experiences in the field, and they should not be of any importance in a logical discussion. You can use them to support your own assumptions (which you did), but you cannot use them as evidence against someone else's possibly equally likely assumptions (which you also did, or at least I read as you doing - my apologies if this was not what you intended).

What credentials do you have to make such a statement?

I've been on both sides of the software writing and software testing teams for coming up to eight years, during which time I've seen both sides done both very well, and very poorly.

I've given my experiences and why i feel it is reasonable for the developers to make the decisions they have.  How are you basing your assessment of Blizzard's testing prowess?  Because you play the game and you saw a bug?  Have you played any other MMO's? Have you beta tested any other MMO's?

Playing the game and seeing a bug allows me to make some judgement of Blizzard's testing prowess, yes. There are typographical errors littered throughout the 'gossip' sections of many of the NPCs. That's not a difficult bug to spot, and spelling mistakes (I saw "abailable" on an NPC last week) should NEVER get through thanks to the miracles of spelling checkers.

I've played Ultima Online, but not beta-tested anything aside from WoW. Let me know when that information is relevant.

If they take the shackles off by making it a PvP server they will get exponentially more PvP interactions than if it were a PvE server.

I do not think you mean "exponentially". I would also draw your attention to the fact that the US appear to have two test servers, one PvE and one PvP. What's all that about, then?

They will also not have a PvP server full of people that want to do PvE stuff.  I get back to my original argument;  Why should Blizzard make a second PvE test server when all the information they need can be gathered from one server?

Why should they make a second PvP server when they could make it a PvE server like they did with the US test realms, and thus keep both their sets of free testers happy?

Judging by the enormous queues outside the battlegrounds, they don't have a server full of people that want to do PvE stuff.

[TheDragoon]

So according to the poll, a minority of the players dislike the current WoW PvP system.  Not that I'd the results of that very limited poll in anyway reflects the attitudes of the vastly greater WoW community.
[right][snapback]77755[/snapback][/right]

Just for fun, let's look at this a bit more.

45% of players dislike the honor system
33% of players like the honor system
28% of players don't care about the honor system

If taken as 3 separate options, then the number of players who dislike the honor system is the plurality winner, but no one wins a simple majority.

If, however, the players that don't care are taken as abstaining from the vote, then the players that dislike the honor system have both the plurality and simple majority (since blank votes don't count against a simple majority).