[Megathread] Wildstar - Now F2P

[ShimmerSwirl]

Kitty, what exactly do you like about this game? For someone who claims to be a huge fan, you seem to hate pretty much everything we know about the game. They have already said raiding will cater to the hardcore, so tough luck casuals. There will be open world pvp, tough luck to anti-gankers. There will be trinity play, tough luck zergfest GW2 fans.

As much as you complain about people 'trying to bring the game down', you yourself seem to have no clue what the game actually is. It really does not seem like your cup of tea.

---------- Post added 2013-03-18 at 12:55 PM ----------

you mean back when it was insanely easy and casual compared to the other games and everquest players teased wow players for playing "the easy game" wow has always appealed to the casual, thats what made it popular in the first place

Yeah exactly, thats the period i'm talking about.

[Kelimbror]

I'm hoping they hand out beta keys too.

Me too. I can't wait to be a sane voice in the beta giving honest feedback from someone who has played all levels of the genre. I really can't wait to hear feedback on the solo player end game content though...specifically if there is a rewards system comparable to WoW's LFR : Real raiding. That is something I could totally get behind.

Though I might get sucked back into raiding if they have multiple difficulties and actually implement some of the things they've mentioned to add variety to the same encounters. I'm really curious how that is going to work. Seems like it will reward people who can actually pay attention and adapt to changes which means possibly a higher overall skill level of players. With the telegraphing system and potential lower difficulty encounters, it seems like a really good potential for someone actually getting better at the game.

[Elim Garak]

Me too. I can't wait to be a sane voice in the beta giving honest feedback

They actually do not need that, all they need is for "beta testers" to play the game so they can collect their metrics. All the serious stuff is tested in-house.

[SirRobin]

I'm really torn over Beta. I submitted an app but ever since AoC and WAR? I've been pretty burned out Beta-wise. So while I would like to "test and suggest." I'm not sure if I'm really up for it anymore.

[Kelimbror]

I'm really torn over Beta. I submitted an app but ever since AoC and WAR? I've been pretty burned out Beta-wise. So while I would like to "test and suggest." I'm not sure if I'm really up for it anymore.

I used to hate betas and still kinda feel meh about ones that don't keep progress, but for this game I am pretty excited just to see how it looks and feels and whether I can get myself fully hyped about it. A lot of betas I have been in actually ruined my enthusiasm for the game I was currently playing, but as a completely new experience I think it's exciting.

[Airlick]

Wow did pretty good when it catered to the hardcore players back in van/bc.

Because there was A LOT to do outside of raiding, for example farming in Plaguelands or getting high PvP rank - it was extremely time consuming, which is exactly what I'm talking about - casuals don't need to see end content AS LONG as they have things to do - after they run out of them, they quit if they can't ever get to see the later stages of content. Expansions in WoW were more and more focused on just getting to max level, farming up reps and starting raiding, in WotLK and further there was a MASSIVE lack of content outside raiding. There quite literally was nothing to do except of dailies and raiding (for non-PvPers, at least). As a result Blizzard had to start making raids easier to keep their subscriber base strong.

Obviously Wildstar could try adding occupying and fun content (not just dailies, like in WoW) and actually make raids somewhat 'elite' content, like in Vanilla, but again, it would be a bad decision - hard modes in ICC or better yet, Ulduar, were a perfect choice IMO.

[Dezerte]

I just don't really bother with betas anymore, unless I'm curious. Your feedback will be for the most part ignored, it's usually more of a glorified demo.

[SirRobin]

I just don't really bother with betas anymore, unless I'm curious. Your feedback will be for the most part ignored, it's usually more of a glorified demo.

Even those that are "real" Beta's can get ugly with factions arising and trying to pull the devs in one direction or another. The beta's where the devs just delete any thread they don't like are bad enough. The ones where the devs actually try to listen to the community can get a lot worse.

[Edge-]

They actually do not need that, all they need is for "beta testers" to play the game so they can collect their metrics. All the serious stuff is tested in-house.

If that's all you do during a beta test, you're doing it wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I totally know that most public betas are little more than marketing events. But that aside, feedback about the systems/mechanics in the game is always valuable. Their in-house/alpha testers may not notice that their menu system sucks ass, but if they get a massive amount of feedback during the first public beta event about how terrible their menu system is, you bet your ass they're going to look it over again.

Feedback is always valuable no matter what. And if you really are a fan of a game and want to see it do the best it can, providing feedback is very important.

[Elim Garak]

If that's all you do during a beta test, you're doing it wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I totally know that most public betas are little more than marketing events. But that aside, feedback about the systems/mechanics in the game is always valuable. Their in-house/alpha testers may not notice that their menu system sucks ass, but if they get a massive amount of feedback during the first public beta event about how terrible their menu system is, you bet your ass they're going to look it over again.

Feedback is always valuable no matter what. And if you really are a fan of a game and want to see it do the best it can, providing feedback is very important.

Their in-house testers - are professional testers. QA specialists.
They do not miss anything. Everything "beta testers" say on forums no matter how valid - is KNOWN.
Some trivial stuff may be found. but it's not critical and can be found after release and fixed
The majority of feedback comes from metrics, including UI flaws.

[Edge-]

Their in-house testers - are professional testers. QA specialists.
They do not miss anything. Everything "beta testers" say on forums no matter how valid - is KNOWN.
Some trivial stuff may be found. but it's not critical and can be found after release and fixed
The majority of feedback comes from metrics, including UI flaws.

I can tell you from first hand knowledge that yes, they do miss quite a few things. QA testers, both internal hired testers and alpha testers, aren't all knowing gods of testing. They miss things, they make mistakes, they fail to notice things. That's one of the main reasons beta exists. The fact that beta's have turned more into marketing tools than actual testing grounds is the industries fault, but that doesn't mean that feedback is summarily ignored. If they get random feedback about random things, they're not going to put too much stock in it. But if they get a flood of feedback about a specific system, mechanic, item, class, fight etc., if they're competent they're sure as hell going to look at it again.

I'm well aware that metrics are important as hell (what are people doing, for how long, what's the success rate of X, what's the most common build etc), but that's not the only thing that is important during testing.

[SirRobin]

Yeah, the "professionals" testers are no better than the developers. They miss stuff all the time.

[Elim Garak]

I can tell you from first hand knowledge that yes, they do miss quite a few things. QA testers, both internal hired testers and alpha testers, aren't all knowing gods of testing. They miss things, they make mistakes, they fail to notice things. That's one of the main reasons beta exists.

No that's why Alpha test exists. In-house one. Beta is for different feedback. Server stability, zone crowdness, streamlining of player experience. Exploits and balance issues - but not from feedback - from metrics. They have special people - that analyse statistics. They don't need a beta tester Bob to tell them that class B is OP - because their statistics show that class B is OP. The idea of "hearing feedback" during beta tests is always PR, was is and will be.
The only way for in-house testers to miss things is if there's no metrics system in place.

[SirRobin]

So how would you classify Mythic adding Keeps to WAR due to tester feedback? Or the inevitable "rushed" content that didn't get much of an Alpha because the developer is trying to make deadlines?

[Edge-]

No that's why Alpha test exists. In-house one. Beta is for different feedback. Server stability, zone crowdness, streamlining of player experience. Exploits and balance issues - but not from feedback - from metrics. They have special people - that analyse statistics. They don't need a beta tester Bob to tell them that class B is OP - because their statistics show that class B is OP. The idea of "hearing feedback" during beta tests is always PR, was is and will be.
The only way for in-house testers to miss things is if there's no metrics system in place.

Have you done in-house/alpha testing? I have. It's not the glorious gig filled with brilliant individuals who analyze every aspect of the game and never miss a thing. You seem to think that most of the alpha testers are professionals, when that's not the case. You get a mix of veteran testers and friends/family who frequently have little experience with the genre and no knowledge base to compare their current experiences again.

And you seem to think that beta testing was always as it is today. It isn't. Today, beta testing is more for marketing than anything else. That's a terrible practice and sadly developers continue to reinforce it. If you look at beta testing in other software areas, or even look at beta testing as little as 5 years ago, you see a very different story.

Yes, metrics from large scale beta tests are important. Yes, testing server architecture under heavy loads is important. But feedback during these periods does make a difference if the developer isn't so full of themselves that they believe their product is perfect (a few developers have made this mistake and ignored feedback, with disastrous results).

So if anyone gets into any beta tests for this, please please please provide any feedback you can. If you think that quest flow sucks, let them know. If you really like a certain mechanic, let them know. It helps make the game the best it can be, and I sure as hell want to see this game do well.

[papajohn4]

Yes, at the very least thats what your 15 bucks a month should get you. End game for casuals shouldn't be an endless rep grind or dailies, thats the fastest way to boredom and eventually lost subs.

Dailies are mayde because/for casuals. The company needs to keep people subed in order to generate money. One way to do this is put out hardcore content that is too difficult to finish (vanila, tbc) and let people advance on their own pace. I am not remember a single post in vanilla/TBC about "when they will release new raid?" That way there was not dailies or dailies that added much later was only for money and not as a way to progress.

The other way is t ocreate an easy content that everyone will see. But if people complete the content too fast why to keep subbing?The answer was the dailies...we will give them easy content that everyone can do but we will put it with dailies..

What you ask is utopia..no one will give easy content without make it keep for very long(dailies). Now you have to chose, you either want a challenge and you can try to beat that challenge or you want something easy but you have to login every day to push the button. either way, you will not "finish" the game before the new gear comes in...The only game that you can "finish" is GW2 and in my opinion is the reason why is B2P

Have you done in-house/alpha testing? I have. It's not the glorious gig filled with brilliant individuals who analyze every aspect of the game and never miss a thing. You seem to think that most of the alpha testers are professionals, when that's not the case. You get a mix of veteran testers and friends/family who frequently have little experience with the genre and no knowledge base to compare their current experiences again.

the one does not contradict the other..in-house/alpha testers cannot find all bugs/problems but that does not mean the companies give open beta for this purpose. It is pure marketing, because the time they release the open beta is always too late to be able to fix the reported problems. They only release the beta for Hype/marketing reasons. I have not remember one game I have participate that they fixed the bugs reported on open beta(open beta I mean the mass beta invites). The most recent was the swtor

[SirRobin]

...open beta...

Oh I agree that the Open Beta is pretty much just marketing nowadays. However, I'm talking about the Closed Beta's. I spent over a year in WAR's Closed Beta.

[Deleted]

it depends how big the friends and family beta was.. even with 200 employees taking part with an average of 5 invites thats still a decent number of testers.

open beta.. stress test, bugs and marketing. its how i see it now.. hell even games 99% finished and available to buy still label themselves as still in "beta"

[Kelimbror]

Ah, now we've moved on to very similar people stating that betas aren't for getting feedback on a game, that it's too late to make changes to a game, etc. This thread is a continual wonder as a challenge of how hard I can facepalm myself.

Sure closed betas are just illusions for marketing, because that's why changes are made to address specific concerns and bugs that come up on top of the game launching many times vastly different than it appeared in beta right? Or is that just coincidence?

[Elim Garak]

So how would you classify Mythic adding Keeps to WAR due to tester feedback?

Was it a bug missed by testers?

Or the inevitable "rushed" content that didn't get much of an Alpha because the developer is trying to make deadlines?

You said it - rushed content. It will be tested on live.

Have you done in-house/alpha testing? I have. It's not the glorious gig filled with brilliant individuals who analyze every aspect of the game and never miss a thing. You seem to think that most of the alpha testers are professionals, when that's not the case. You get a mix of veteran testers and friends/family who frequently have little experience with the genre and no knowledge base to compare their current experiences again.

When I say in-house - I'm not talking about devs inviting people to play the game in their office, I'm talking about full-time paid positions.
Not all Alpha testers are professionals. But in-house testers ARE. Alpha testers are there to give verbal feedback of how it feels.

And you seem to think that beta testing was always as it is today. It isn't. Today, beta testing is more for marketing than anything else. That's a terrible practice and sadly developers continue to reinforce it. If you look at beta testing in other software areas, or even look at beta testing as little as 5 years ago, you see a very different story.

Yes it always was as it is today, except that today there are more tools for automated testing.
The marketing thing is new, but it doesn't substract from beta test anything. It's just an additional perk that is used by publishers to hype the game.

Yes, metrics from large scale beta tests are important. Yes, testing server architecture under heavy loads is important. But feedback during these periods does make a difference if the developer isn't so full of themselves that they believe their product is perfect (a few developers have made this mistake and ignored feedback, with disastrous results).

It has nothing to do with thinking that product is perfect - otherwise why there's the metrics system?
Devs just know that verbal feedback from random people is unreliable. Hence the metrics. Metrics is what beta tests are all about. In terms of feedback.

So if anyone gets into any beta tests for this, please please please provide any feedback you can. If you think that quest flow sucks, let them know. If you really like a certain mechanic, let them know. It helps make the game the best it can be, and I sure as hell want to see this game do well.

They can see all these in the metrics. If people spend too much time questing in a certain zone - that means quest flow sucks.
If people use a certain mechanic a lot - they like it. And otherwise.
So my advice is this: don't waste dev's forum space with your feedback on how class A can be better and eventual flame-fest that begins right away... Just tell them if you like something or not. Like: "I like PVP in this game" or "I like character creator" or "I really don't dig exploration in this game"

---------- Post added 2013-03-18 at 11:50 PM ----------

Ah, now we've moved on to very similar people stating that betas aren't for getting feedback on a game, that it's too late to make changes to a game, etc. This thread is a continual wonder as a challenge of how hard I can facepalm myself.

Sure closed betas are just illusions for marketing, because that's why changes are made to address specific concerns and bugs that come up on top of the game launching many times vastly different than it appeared in beta right? Or is that just coincidence?

Beta tests ARE for getting feedback, just not the VERBAL feedback.