[project1dev] Re: We have a QA department yay!

  • From: Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 22:02:07 -0700

That sounds like the way to go, for sure.

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:59 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> well i was thinking more like we'd still have a central server that is the
> authority, but that the games would talk to it as little as possible.
>
> it'd just be a php script hooked up to a database and is where the important
> info is stored.
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> That's a good point.  A lot of games will support only locally created
>> servers which players must connect to (I serve, you join)
>>
>> We could try something like that and then just serve the host list,
>> like fps games do.
>>
>> Maintaining something like say, battle.net is only for the big devs
>> that already have a massive fan base, and for games that are designed
>> to be mp over sp.
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:47 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > 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: