What is the reasoning Behind Having Two PTR Clients for Dragonflight?

[icehunter43]

In a recent post by Blizzard they went over how the two different PTR clients for Dragonflight as well as Classic WotLK are structured.

And nobody seems to address the elephant in the room:
Why are there two separate PTR clients for Dragonflight testing when in the past there was only one client which got updated reguraly without unnecessarily splitting it between patches?

One of the PTR clients 10.1.0 is already live, it has no reason to exist as a PTR anyways. So why even split the new 10.1.5 PTR into another download, again, why not just update the old one like in the past 20 years?

[Dracullus]

10.1 PTR was up even before 10.0.7 released, patches release so fast now it could happen in the future. Also I'm no expect on this, but PTR goes through few phases before it goes public, usually vendor build is detected weeks before PTR starts, so for example Blizzard could prepare 10.1.5 build before 10.1 launched so it was ready as soon as they revealed it.

[VinceVega]

I.... don't understand the problem...

I would argue the people working on said PTRs know best what they need. And if they work on two different branches two different PTRs are probably not a bad idea.
What a weird topic to create^^

[God Save The King]

Blizzard seems to be running concurrent PTR clients this time. We saw something similar in Legion with fast paced patch cycles.

Let's say you have a team of engineers. You split them in 2, tell one half to work on 10.1.0 and the other half to work on 10.1.5. To do that easily, you'll need distinct branches of your code base, with all the approved 10.1 changes joining the in progress 10.1.5 stuff. You push 10.1 to the PTR and once it goes live, you push 10.1.5 shortly after to start testing that. That leaves a dead node on 10.1.0 PTR for a bit until they update their workstreams to remove it.

It'll probably be gone next major PTR update.

[ablib]

What a weird topic to create^^

This. OP just doesn't understand software development, or what it means to work in an enterprise setting.

I have a shit ton of environments to manage.

[zertul]

And nobody seems to address the elephant in the room:

The elephant in the room is you not reading the blue post, because they explicitly explain why they did it.
They literally explained why there's a 10.1.0 version too.
Just read the actual posting, it will remove a lot of elephants from your life.

[icehunter43]

The elephant in the room is you not reading the blue post, because they explicitly explain why they did it.
They literally explained why there's a 10.1.0 version too.
Just read the actual posting, it will remove a lot of elephants from your life.

There were only 2 statements of any relevance made in the blue post:

1. They are testing "concurrent testing environments"
2. The current 10.1.0 PTR client will be used for a future cycle and thus is offline

Both of these statements make 0 sense:

1. There is absolutely no need for a concurrent testing environment to begin with, as stated above 1 PTR client worked fine for the last 20 years, it will work fine for the next 20 too. 1 live patch, 1 PTR is the way things go.
2. They did this last cycle too, made as little sense then as it deos now, see Point 1. as to why

So all in all not only do you fail to provide any basis whatsoever for your statement, but you resort to ad hominem attacks out of desperation that you can not even prove your imagined point. I even had to provide said points just to disprove them. Please refrain from trolling threads in the future.

[VinceVega]

There were only 2 statements of any relevance made in the blue post:

1. They are testing "concurrent testing environments"
2. The current 10.1.0 PTR client will be used for a future cycle and thus is offline

Both of these statements make 0 sense:

1. There is absolutely no need for a concurrent testing environment to begin with, as stated above 1 PTR client worked fine for the last 20 years, it will work fine for the next 20 too. 1 live patch, 1 PTR is the way things go.
2. They did this last cycle too, made as little sense then as it deos now, see Point 1. as to why

So all in all not only do you fail to provide any basis whatsoever for your statement, but you resort to ad hominem attacks out of desperation that you can not even prove your imagined point. I even had to provide said points just to disprove them. Please refrain from trolling threads in the future.

You are seeing an elephant where there is not even a mouse.

I a) don't see what your problem is and b) blizz does not even HAVE to defend them using 10000 PTRs. If it is the way the work better then they are doing it. Maybe there never was a need but now there IS becaus their dev cycle changed.
Maybe it would have alwayse been better than one and they only realized it now.

This is such a stupid topic to get worked up over.... serisously.
And then you say people don't provide any basis... but you just say: " 2 PTRs is stupid because i say so and it has always been one before"
The whole world is static forever mh? NEVER chaneg anythign or get new insights or ideas.

[ablib]

Even more proof the OP doesn't understand business, development or enterprise thinking: It's always been this way, so why change it?

lol. too funny.

[Aucald]

There were only 2 statements of any relevance made in the blue post:

1. They are testing "concurrent testing environments"
2. The current 10.1.0 PTR client will be used for a future cycle and thus is offline

Both of these statements make 0 sense

Concurrency in testing environments makes perfect sense and is often used in software and application development of every kind. Basically put, they feel a need for public access to a concurrent environment for some development reason you're likely not privy to - but I would imagine it involves testing out new tech in their game engine with a wide cross-section of client configurations (players and their PCs). PTR client 1 is running tech demo A, PTR client 2 is running tech demo B, and they contrast and compare bugs, logs, etc. It's not really hard to understand why output of that type would be valuable to the devs.

[icehunter43]

Concurrency in testing environments makes perfect sense and is often used in software and application development of every kind. Basically put, they feel a need for public access to a concurrent environment for some development reason you're likely not privy to - but I would imagine it involves testing out new tech in their game engine with a wide cross-section of client configurations (players and their PCs). PTR client 1 is running tech demo A, PTR client 2 is running tech demo B, and they contrast and compare bugs, logs, etc. It's not really hard to understand why output of that type would be valuable to the devs.

This is literally the only reason to have them in the first place.
But if that is the case why not communicate with us openly about it? Why write a blue explanation post explaining literally nothing?
If they had said "Yes the first client is running tech demo 1 and the other one tech demo 2 and we compare both" then okay I can work with that.
But only saying we are running concurrent tests and failing to even state for whatever reason, and even that 1 cycle too late - because they've been doing it for months now, is simply too little information too late.

I downloaded both, but got rid of the .5 one because there wasn't even enough content to test to warrant a second download.
Obviously, if they just had a updated a single PTR like they always have, this wouldn't even have been an issue in the first place.

[zertul]

1. There is absolutely no need for a concurrent testing environment to begin with, as stated above 1 PTR client worked fine for the last 20 years, it will work fine for the next 20 too. 1 live patch, 1 PTR is the way things go.
2. They did this last cycle too, made as little sense then as it deos now, see Point 1. as to why

Have you any basis besides "I do not like it" as to why this is not required? I happened in the past already, so your only argument "is has always been only one" has already been invalidated by yourself.
Blizzard provided you with an explanation and your only argument is not only invalided by yourself, it's only "I don't like it".
That may be the case, but that's not enough for any meaningful discussion.

So all in all not only do you fail to provide any basis whatsoever for your statement, but you resort to ad hominem attacks out of desperation that you can not even prove your imagined point. I even had to provide said points just to disprove them. Please refrain from trolling threads in the future.

That's projection par excellence there, my friend.

[icehunter43]

Have you any basis besides "I do not like it" as to why this is not required? I happened in the past already, so your only argument "is has always been only one" has already been invalidated by yourself.
Blizzard provided you with an explanation and your only argument is not only invalided by yourself, it's only "I don't like it".
That may be the case, but that's not enough for any meaningful discussion.

That's projection par excellence there, my friend.

Once gain, you fail to provide any point whatsoever, and not only that, this time you try to reflect your own backwards tactics onto others.
Instead of posting pointless replies, try to read the thread for once, maybe you will learn something new if you pay attention.

[Aucald]

This is literally the only reason to have them in the first place.
But if that is the case why not communicate with us openly about it? Why write a blue explanation post explaining literally nothing?
If they had said "Yes the first client is running tech demo 1 and the other one tech demo 2 and we compare both" then okay I can work with that.
But only saying we are running concurrent tests and failing to even state for whatever reason, and even that 1 cycle too late - because they've been doing it for months now, is simply too little information too late.

I downloaded both, but got rid of the .5 one because there wasn't even enough content to test to warrant a second download.
Obviously, if they just had a updated a single PTR like they always have, this wouldn't even have been an issue in the first place.

Because they don't need to communicate it with us - nor do they need to explain it, because it's both A.) not important, and B.) explaining it could also negatively affect the results of what they're trying to test. You don't need to download or play on both PTR servers if you don't want to - you can choose one, or both, or neither. They're not beholden to you to outline their testing doctrine, and in some cases, it behooves them to actively keep things closer to their chest and only reveal the purpose after the fact (if at all).

If you don't like that, you're also perfectly within your rights not to participate in what is entirely a voluntary and optional testing environment. I generally don't myself, since I don't really have the time in addition to playing the live version of the game, and I also dislike the notion of testing a product for a triple-A developer for free. That's just my $0.02, of course.

[zertul]

Once gain, you fail to provide any point whatsoever, and not only that, this time you try to reflect your own backwards tactics onto others.
Instead of posting pointless replies, try to read the thread for once, maybe you will learn something new if you pay attention.

Once gain, you fail to provide any point whatsoever, and not only that, this time you try to reflect your own backwards tactics onto others.
Instead of posting pointless replies, try to read the thread for once, maybe you will learn something new if you pay attention.

[ablib]

Once gain, you fail to provide any point whatsoever, and not only that, this time you try to reflect your own backwards tactics onto others.
Instead of posting pointless replies, try to read the thread for once, maybe you will learn something new if you pay attention.

I'm going to hate myself for explaining this to you, because at this point you have clearly proven to either be trolling, or just totally ignorant of how this world works. I don't know Blizzard's intentions, but I can try to give a simplistic view for why I have many testing environments.

Testing Env 1: This is for current branch testing. Testing small incremental updates. Such as going from a version 1.0, to a 1.5.

Testing Env 2: This is for new version testing. Testing large changes. Such as going from version 1.0 to 2.0.

If I only had one testing environment, I would have to wait for 1.5 to go to PROD before I could update my testing environment to 2.0. This is going to significantly slow my world down.

With 2 environments, I can successfully test the small update to 1.5, while also having an environment for my users to test what all new features are coming in 2.0.

Again...the above example is just a simplistic explanation. I manage hundreds of environments. With each environment having many versions.


Blizzard has definitely been doing this internally for years. If anything, they're probably deploying this multi-PTR system to the public, to support their efforts to actually get content out faster. The old way wasn't working, so they took a step back and asked themselves, "how can we do this better"?

[icehunter43]

Once gain, you fail to provide any point whatsoever, and not only that, this time you try to reflect your own backwards tactics onto others.
Instead of posting pointless replies, try to read the thread for once, maybe you will learn something new if you pay attention.

Have you reached kindergarten level now?

- - - Updated - - -

Because they don't need to communicate it with us - nor do they need to explain it, because it's both A.) not important, and B.) explaining it could also negatively affect the results of what they're trying to test. You don't need to download or play on both PTR servers if you don't want to - you can choose one, or both, or neither. They're not beholden to you to outline their testing doctrine, and in some cases, it behooves them to actively keep things closer to their chest and only reveal the purpose after the fact (if at all).

If you don't like that, you're also perfectly within your rights not to participate in what is entirely a voluntary and optional testing environment. I generally don't myself, since I don't really have the time in addition to playing the live version of the game, and I also dislike the notion of testing a product for a triple-A developer for free. That's just my $0.02, of course.

I'd argue it's very important to communicate things like arbitrarily creating new PTRs for no reason, or if there is a reason as to why, then it's basic human decency at least in the modern western hemisphere of the world to give regards as to why.
For example: many post soviet countries don't communicate with the vast majority of their population at all, I'd assume transparency means something more in the west though.

Again, the only valid stance is in B, if potentially knowing of this could skew the results.

On the contrary to you, I like to give meaningful insight during test development whenever I can if I care about a particular game, thereby ensuring that the product reaches a level of satisfaction which would otherwise be unattainable. I don't care about the financial aspect at all, especially if I get to try out new features before anyone else on live.

The problem with your reasoning stating that I don't need to download the new PTR is specifically wrong, because I do. If I want to try something out, e.i.: tauren warlock, I'd now have to download an entirely redundant new client with all the extra data, when I could simply do that now if they updated the regular PTR. Yet I'm not wasting my space because somebody decided for shits and giggles "hey lets have 2 separate PTRs" just for the fun of it.

This very thread was created to suss out the "whys" as opposed to just blindly taking any bone being thrown at us.
To ask the question if it's not for shits and giggles, then "why?"

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know Blizzard's intentions, but I can try to give a simplistic view for why I have many testing environments.

Testing Env 1: This is for current branch testing. Testing small incremental updates. Such as going from a version 1.0, to a 1.5.

Testing Env 2: This is for new version testing. Testing large changes. Such as going from version 1.0 to 2.0.

If I only had one testing environment, I would have to wait for 1.5 to go to PROD before I could update my testing environment to 2.0. This is going to significantly slow my world down.

With 2 environments, I can successfully test the small update to 1.5, while also having an environment for my users to test what all new features are coming in 2.0.

Again...the above example is just a simplistic explanation. I manage hundreds of environments. With each environment having many versions.


Blizzard has definitely been doing this internally for years. If anything, they're probably deploying this multi-PTR system to the public, to support their efforts to actually get content out faster. The old way wasn't working, so they took a step back and asked themselves, "how can we do this better"?

Ignoring the unnecessary whining, finally for the 3rd time you managed to write something meaningful to discuss. The problem is you assume having multiple test developments somehow speeds up production, while being totally oblivious to the fact, that one of the test environments is already live and that PTR is offline - whoops. We now have 2 things:
1. A redundant PTR which is outdated by now since live has been updated to an ever newer version since the old ptr went offline - (hot tip: Nobody cares anymore anyway since its already live)
2. A new PTR - The 1 effective testing environment

The problem lies herein: Blizazrd now has 1 effective testing environment to begin with. And in the current flow, once this one becomes redundant again, you would have to download the other one. And the cycle of deleting and downloading keeps on and on. Can you understand the problem now?

[Aucald]

I'd argue it's very important to communicate things like arbitrarily creating new PTRs for no reason, or if there is a reason as to why, then it's basic human decency at least in the modern western hemisphere of the world to give regards as to why.
For example: many post soviet countries don't communicate with the vast majority of their population at all, I'd assume transparency means something more in the west though.

Again, the only valid stance is in B, if potentially knowing of this could skew the results.

There's more than just hidden feedback that could explain multiple concurrent PTR builds, though. Perhaps they want to test new class/spec/race balance without additional changes while testing future content without said classes. Perhaps they want to test class balance at a previous point, while also testing it at a future point to compare/contrast. Maybe a proposed change could fundamentally affect an existing change, and they want to playtest both environments simultaneously? Possibilities could go on and on.

The notion that complete transparency is owed to us, or that we're entitled to it, is in my view misplaced. This isn't national politics, after all; it's video game development. Plus, you're not actually an employee of the developers, either.

On the contrary to you, I like to give meaningful insight during test development whenever I can if I care about a particular game, thereby ensuring that the product reaches a level of satisfaction which would otherwise be unattainable. I don't care about the financial aspect at all, especially if I get to try out new features before anyone else on live.

You can give insightful feedback without knowing *everything* about what testing is being done. And you still get to try out whatever new features are on the PTR before it hits Live or if it hits Live.

The problem with your reasoning stating that I don't need to download the new PTR is specifically wrong, because I do. If I want to try something out, e.i.: tauren warlock, I'd now have to download an entirely redundant new client with all the extra data, when I could simply do that now if they updated the regular PTR. Yet I'm not wasting my space because somebody decided for shits and giggles "hey lets have 2 separate PTRs" just for the fun of it.

Um, then don't download it. The knowledge seems to be easily available - I was able to find out what both PTR clients had on them with a simple Google search, so I'm not really seeing how this is a huge issue beyond the simple inconvenience of having to download different game build files.

This very thread was created to suss out the "whys" as opposed to just blindly taking any bone being thrown at us.
To ask the question if it's not for shits and giggles, then "why?"

You may want to amend your OP, then; because I and everyone else here are just reading this as you complaining about the annoyance of multiple clients (which seems to be the core of your argument). Yeah, it is a bit annoying if you want to test *everything*, but since you don't have to and it's entirely optional, that makes your complaint seem a bit unnecessary and irrelevant at the end of the day. I think most people feel you're complaining just to complain about things as opposed to legitimately asking why there are concurrent clients and if that's the best way to test a PTR build.

[icehunter43]

There's more than just hidden feedback that could explain multiple concurrent PTR builds, though. Perhaps they want to test new class/spec/race balance without additional changes while testing future content without said classes. Perhaps they want to test class balance at a previous point, while also testing it at a future point to compare/contrast. Maybe a proposed change could fundamentally affect an existing change, and they want to playtest both environments simultaneously? Possibilities could go on and on.

The notion that complete transparency is owed to us, or that we're entitled to it, is in my view misplaced. This isn't national politics, after all; it's video game development. Plus, you're not actually an employee of the developers, either.

You can give insightful feedback without knowing *everything* about what testing is being done. And you still get to try out whatever new features are on the PTR before it hits Live or if it hits Live.

Um, then don't download it. The knowledge seems to be easily available - I was able to find out what both PTR clients had on them with a simple Google search, so I'm not really seeing how this is a huge issue beyond the simple inconvenience of having to download different game build files.

You may want to amend your OP, then; because I and everyone else here are just reading this as you complaining about the annoyance of multiple clients (which seems to be the core of your argument). Yeah, it is a bit annoying if you want to test *everything*, but since you don't have to and it's entirely optional, that makes your complaint seem a bit unnecessary and irrelevant at the end of the day. I think most people feel you're complaining just to complain about things as opposed to legitimately asking why there are concurrent clients and if that's the best way to test a PTR build.

Why test future content without those classes though? When they become available people will make them anyways specifically because they will be available, it makes no sense to exclude them when they will be especially hotly played in the beginning and in the future definitely. They wouldn't want to test class balance at a previous points either, because that data will be entirely irrelevant since Augmentation evoker is on the most up-todate (and currently only) PTR. A proposed change can be tested by comparing data from the same PTR form an earlier point with data from the same PTR at a later point. - Possibilities seem endless, but in reality, all benefit better by having a unified interlinked test environment as opposed to having multiple separate ones - those you can't get data from.

If I don't know *everything* I can't give reliable data, specifically because the data I would give could have been already changed on the other PTR thus rendering said information useless.

Sure, google is good for when the client is not up, but hey, you know as well as I that hands on experience is far superior to just reading about something, having to shuffle between PTRs is still only justified if there is a reason behind it, but since most likely no Blizzard employee is coming to actually answer it one can just speculate.

Despite some obvious ill-will form specific users, some very good points have already been brought up, but I still would like to hear more if anybody has a good guess, because I'm genuinely curious why Dragonflight broke up the perfectly functioning 1 live client 1 PTR client structure, and I know I'm not the only one who finds this breakup pretty uncalled for and rather repulsive.

[Aucald]

Why test future content without those classes though? When they become available people will make them anyways specifically because they will be available, it makes no sense to exclude them when they will be especially hotly played in the beginning and in the future definitely. They wouldn't want to test class balance at a previous point either, because that data will be entirely irrelevant once Augmentation evoker hits. A proposed change can be tested by comparing data from the same PTR form an earlier point with data from the same PTR at a later point. - Possibilities seem endless, but in reality, all benefit better by having a unified interlinked test environment as opposed to having multiple separate ones - those you can't get data from.

They can get data from any testing environment or build, even if you can't. Also, having interlinked testing environments can cause issues with concurrency in builds when you're testing modular features - which is why the build philosophy exists in the first place. Sometimes you want to test a feature, service, or update in an essential vacuum as opposed to having other, untested code unduly affecting it.

If I don't know *everything* I can't give reliable data, specificallíy because the data I would give could have been already changed on the other PTR thus rendering said information useless.

Not necessarily, no. Your feedback is still valuable to that specific build, especially if it exposes a heretofore unknown bug.

Sure, google is good for when the client is not up, but hey, you know as well as I that hands on experience is far superior to just reading about something, having to shuffle between PTRs is still only justified if there is a reason behind it, but since most liekly no Blizzard employee is coming to actually answer it one can just speculate.

I think it's fine to speculate about it, but I think grousing about the inconvenience of having to manage build downloads is, well, kind of pointless.

Despite some obvious ill will form specific users, some very good points have already been brought up, but I still would like to hear more if anybody has a good guess, becuase I'm genuinely curious why Dtragonflight broke up the prefectly functioning 1 live clinet 1 PTR client structure, and I know i'm not the onyl one who finds this breakup pretty uncalled for and rather repulsive.

And I think the whole "I find this repulsive" part is mostly what people are reacting to. Adding in the unnecessary appeal to emotion makes your argument much less clear, and much less professional sounding.