[project1dev] Re: We have a QA department yay!
- From: Alan Wolfe <alan.wolfe@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: project1dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 14:53:41 -0700
thats awesome
that will come in handy later for sure (:
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Matthew Freeland <mattthefiend@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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:
