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

  • From: Matthew Freeland <mattthefiend@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 12:20:31 -0700

eeee sorry for getting into this late, but if you need quality QA people I
know a whole bunch of hardcore gamers who would love to get a chance at bug
squashing with us, as well my first job was as an AI development QA drone,
so I can help you out with it as well. :D

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> yeah it'll be good cause we can use any web server as our server, we don't
> have to write crazy server code, and integration with our website is a
> breeze.
>
> That's how i set it up w/ line rider and it worked really well (:
>
> you could upload / download maps and share content from the wii, DS or PC
> version straight to the website from inside the game.
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Chris Riccobono <crysalim@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> 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: