[project1dev] Re: We have a QA department yay!
- From: Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 21:47:45 -0700
The plan is either to sell the game on the web or to see if we can find
someone who wants to buy it and publish it so we don't need to have people
make donations or do micro sale stuff.
Since KOL is a game w/ a server they probly need the donations to keep
themselves alive!
For our multiplayer stuff we want to keep the traffic to the server as
minimal as possible.
We have ideas for future games that will need servers and some kind of way
to pay for the bandwidth, but that wont be for a while for sure (like
multiple games before we do anything like that i think)
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Achievements is a great way to go, for sure. We could even add tiny
> bonuses (seriously, tiny ones, so that people don't feel a need to get
> them) - I think WoW does this as a perk system? Hellgate was also
> doing this.
>
> Special items are also good - a lot of small companies make it so
> donators can pay and get some of these. I have observed that players
> in general are accepting of this if done correctly. For example, if
> the game is free from an unknown startup, if the items aren't
> overpowered to the point that people feel a need to have them, if you
> can trade these items within the game with the game currency, and if
> you only have limited runs of each item - all of these seem to work.
>
> Kingdom of Loathing is one of the most successful free web games that
> is completely driven by profits gained from purchased items. A lot of
> Korean games do this too.. Maple Story is the biggest I believe?
>
> What do you think of this? Should we just focus on the free game
> being high quality, and have that draw in players, and then maybe
> later we add features for donators?
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > yeah i guess it would be better if we limited mltiplayer to minigames,
> seems
> > like what everyone is kinda agreein on. Pretty kewl stuff though, it
> should
> > be rad bein able to have some multiplayer (:
> >
> > Since our game isnt gonna have a huge userbase, we'll have to make the
> > minigames fun on their own (obviously) but also make a reason for people
> to
> > keep playing them.
> >
> > Like acheivements, special items, some kind of leader board on the
> website,
> > etc.
> >
> > That will make it so there are more likely people to be "grinding" in
> these
> > minigames i guess, which will make multiplayer easier to happen.
> >
> > we might have to do something too like if you want to play game X with
> real
> > people, that you can join a queue or something and get auto matched based
> on
> > skill or something like that.
> >
> > I dont expect us to have a ton of players playing this game so we'll have
> to
> > make sure it's easy for people to find other people in the multiplayer
> stuff
> >
> > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:22 PM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I totally forgot about the rep points too.. that almost completely
> >> rules out multiplayer for story parts. This isn't bad though, because
> >> single player games shine in those areas. There isn't a mp game in
> >> existence that does the best of both worlds.
> >>
> >> Yeah, I am glad you picked up on my strengths Alan - this is what I
> >> have more experience with anyways.
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> > I've heard whispers in the wind about some difficulty settings /
> options
> >> > (;
> >> >
> >> > i think we'll wanna get like 2 or 3 full on testers to help you out as
> >> > we
> >> > ramp up more.
> >> >
> >> > What i think will be hard about testing this game is if we have that
> rep
> >> > system where your actions change things in the game, it will be really
> >> > hard
> >> > to test out all the combinations :P
> >> >
> >> > But you are 100% right... with good documentation and other such
> >> > organization it should make it alot easier for everyone and make the
> >> > game a
> >> > lot better in the end.
> >> >
> >> > I knew you'd be good at this stuff! (:
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I laughed muchily at the cons :P
> >> >>
> >> >> I am thinking testing this game won't be as tough as it could be,
> >> >> because you document things very well Alan. Part of testing is
> >> >> knowing what is possible in the game, and that is not an issue here.
> >> >> But that is not to say it won't be a challenge.
> >> >>
> >> >> You also need to think like 3 different types of players - casuals,
> >> >> normals, and experts. Casuals and normals are pretty similar, except
> >> >> only casuals will blow all their gold on items and use them a ton
> >> >> while normals think they're too good for that. Experts will do stuff
> >> >> like go through the game using the weakest gear possible with only
> one
> >> >> character...
> >> >>
> >> >> Speaking of this, do we plan on adding difficulty settings to this
> >> >> game?
> >> >>
> >> >> Anyway, for the more mundane stuff of testing (such as making sure
> you
> >> >> can't jump through any texture seams into infinity, collision with
> >> >> enemies and props, making sure the game doesn't crash when
> >> >> infrequently used models are present) I am going to post guidelines,
> >> >> and if anyone on the team is willing to help, it will be easy for
> them
> >> >> to pitch in.
> >> >>
> >> >> You also need to document what you test very thoroughly (I will also
> >> >> post about this), and communication is a biggie.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm really glad to help in this area!
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > Ok so our game is getting to the point already where having some QA
> >> >> > would
> >> >> > help.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In game dev, much like the government, the different departments
> act
> >> >> > kind of
> >> >> > like a balance of power.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Here's a tongue in cheek caricature of the different departments
> and
> >> >> > how
> >> >> > they work together hehehe
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Design:
> >> >> > Pros - makes the game BE AWESOME!
> >> >> > Cons - asks for impossible things on a whim then changes their mind
> >> >> > when
> >> >> > they see them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Art:
> >> >> > Pros - makes the game LOOK AWESOME!
> >> >> > Cons - uses up all your RAM budget and CPU time on a single,
> >> >> > perfectly
> >> >> > awesome, uber poly count animated model.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Coding:
> >> >> > Pros - makes stuff work
> >> >> > Cons - makes stuff NOT work, tells you everything is impossible,
> and
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > your art takes too much memory and CPU time (hahahah)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > QA:
> >> >> > Pros - Ensures that crazy special cases have been thought of, that
> >> >> > nothing
> >> >> > is broken, and that things make sense to players who have never
> seen
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > game before.
> >> >> > Cons - wants to do designs job for them
> >> >> >
> >> >> > (Kent you as a scripter live in 2 worlds, both in coding and design
> >> >> > hehe)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > LOL ok so now that I've offended everyone I'd like to announce that
> >> >> > Chris R
> >> >> > is going to be our Head of QA! (:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > YAY!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We'll probably be grabbing i think like 2 or 3 more testers as time
> >> >> > goes
> >> >> > on
> >> >> > and he'll be coordinating their efforts to make sure our game isn't
> >> >> > buggy
> >> >> > etc.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It's going to be a rough task for this kind of a game but I'm glad
> >> >> > he's
> >> >> > up
> >> >> > to it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You rock Chris thanks for taking this on! (:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
