Zos please consider creating an open test server for off cycle testing by players

boi_anachronism_

Patches of this size being incrementally built and allowing players to test these ideas pre-time crunch for y'all would really help flesh out some of these changes that are made quarterly. If you create an open pts and add things to test players will do it. We care deeply about the health of the game and are sad at the state of it as well as the division in the community. I just helped a few players clear vss for the first time last night, they were so happy and encouraged to keep raiding. I love that. I enjoy helping new raiders so much and I don't want to see these folks so discouraged by changes that will upend all their progress when it is avoidable. The community wants to work with you. Please help us help you.

- a vet raider

Necrotech_Master

as far as i know they only have 1 test server, and because of their release cycle they started the new pts about 2-3 weeks after high isle release (which is where a lot of the anger with the oakensoul change is coming from, this is effectively being nerfed less than a month after release, it just wont hit live until 2 months after release)

i do 100% agree though that this level of combat changes is not something that should have even been attempted in a 5 week PTS cycle, especially their "modifications" on the first one have mostly been dmg control and a seeming lack of direction (there were many things which have undergone 2-4 changes during the 5 week cycle, and there is a general feeling of unstability until at least the next major update in 2-3 months)

boi_anachronism_

I guess to be more specific what I'm saying is an open server, meaning don't just put a full patch on the test server and then open it for 4 weeks. I'm suggesting having an open, dedicated server that is always there where they make changes periodically that they may use in x y z patch quarterly or not. Like ok we know we want to redo empower in an upcoming patch, let's throw a potential change on the server and let it be tested before patch cycle see what data and feedback come out, that way we have some idea of where to go when it gets to the actual cycle. Maybe a week later they are brainstorming and say hey this skill could benefit from x, let's try it out and then when it comes to the actual pts weeks they are already aware of the potential issues and solutions so instead of week 5 massive changes they come into the patch cycle with some frame work. They plan these projects a few months out, no reason not to do this. It would help the health of the game, open communication between devs and players and help to rebuild trust overall. Point being things can be incrementally tested and then they have focus areas for patches instead of this throw *** against the wall and hope something sticks.

Tannus15

the problem with that is that they probably throw a lot of stuff at the wall to try out and then decide it's not good or didn't work out how they wanted and everyone will lose their minds over a concept they just wanted to try.

Kesstryl

Tannus15 wrote: »

the problem with that is that they probably throw a lot of stuff at the wall to try out and then decide it's not good or didn't work out how they wanted and everyone will lose their minds over a concept they just wanted to try.

I disagree because they did do an off cycle PTS with an experiment with reversing resources with light and heavy attacks, and the community tested it, gave feedback, and the proposed changes never went into an actual patch based on that feedback. The community testing, as far as I remember, did not lose their minds over it, and it was a win win for both the community and the devs. It was a step in the right direction, but they never repeated that with other ideas they think of in secret.

Tannus15

Kesstryl wrote: »

Tannus15 wrote: »

the problem with that is that they probably throw a lot of stuff at the wall to try out and then decide it's not good or didn't work out how they wanted and everyone will lose their minds over a concept they just wanted to try.

I disagree because they did do an off cycle PTS with an experiment with reversing resources with light and heavy attacks, and the community tested it, gave feedback, and the proposed changes never went into an actual patch based on that feedback. The community testing, as far as I remember, did not lose their minds over it, and it was a win win for both the community and the devs. It was a step in the right direction, but they never repeated that with other ideas they think of in secret.

that was a specific thing test for a combat framework change, which i'd love to see more of.
to just put everything out there that they try or investigate is just asking for constant panic and rage.

Necrotech_Master

Tannus15 wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Tannus15 wrote: »

the problem with that is that they probably throw a lot of stuff at the wall to try out and then decide it's not good or didn't work out how they wanted and everyone will lose their minds over a concept they just wanted to try.

I disagree because they did do an off cycle PTS with an experiment with reversing resources with light and heavy attacks, and the community tested it, gave feedback, and the proposed changes never went into an actual patch based on that feedback. The community testing, as far as I remember, did not lose their minds over it, and it was a win win for both the community and the devs. It was a step in the right direction, but they never repeated that with other ideas they think of in secret.

that was a specific thing test for a combat framework change, which i'd love to see more of.
to just put everything out there that they try or investigate is just asking for constant panic and rage.

i would say the bulk of U35 is combat framework changes, so really should have gone through the same process before making it to an actual PTS

but is hard to fit in those off cycle PTS because theres so little time between last release and the next PTS cycle due to the quarterly release schedule

CameraBeardThePirate

I dont know exactly what the structure should shift to, but it gets abundantly more clear with every patch that this current system of cycles of PTS notes doesn't work. Bugs and massive issues go unchanged, and changes have very little time to actually be tested and iterated upon.

Please, change the system. Make the PTS cycles longer, give us more heads up in regards to massive changes (and NOT just in a developer update, actual numbers are needed).

Necrotech_Master

CameraBeardThePirate wrote: »

I dont know exactly what the structure should shift to, but it gets abundantly more clear with every patch that this current system of cycles of PTS notes doesn't work. Bugs and massive issues go unchanged, and changes have very little time to actually be tested and iterated upon.

Please, change the system. Make the PTS cycles longer, give us more heads up in regards to massive changes (and NOT just in a developer update, actual numbers are needed).

i would honestly be fine if they wanted to switch to a twice a year release, honestly the 2 dungeon-only DLCs could just be merged with the more major DLCs and make those feel more meaty, but then also double the amount of time the PTS could be active for that cycle

Amottica

Testing of a major update should remain as it is. If we have a constant PTS constantly testing new things, it will become to commonplace to be effective. It would also require more resources from Zenimax to constantly have to maintain three different versions of the game, Live, PTS, and their private server.

Further, it would not make sense to test combat changes piecemeal since the big picture matters.

Necrotech_Master

Amottica wrote: »

Testing of a major update should remain as it is. If we have a constant PTS constantly testing new things, it will become to commonplace to be effective. It would also require more resources from Zenimax to constantly have to maintain three different versions of the game, Live, PTS, and their private server.

Further, it would not make sense to test combat changes piecemeal since the big picture matters.

they already maintain their PTS the entire year, and i would have to expect that 24 weeks (about 6 months of the year) is when its actually being used to dedicate to testing new major updates

but the PTS is not closed down during the other 6 months of time (the period after the release till start of the next testing cycle, and the period from the last PTS patch until release)

and thats the point, major combat changes are not something you "rush out" in a 5 week testing cycle, this current iteration should have been a minimum of 2 months, 1 month for initial testing/balancing and then a 2nd month just purely for additional refinement because theres too much there, they already clearly dont have the resources to be pushing out this big of an update with only 5 weeks of testing/changes, when there is so much missing the mark

pklemming

Amottica wrote: »

Testing of a major update should remain as it is. If we have a constant PTS constantly testing new things, it will become to commonplace to be effective. It would also require more resources from Zenimax to constantly have to maintain three different versions of the game, Live, PTS, and their private server.

Further, it would not make sense to test combat changes piecemeal since the big picture matters.

They had a persistent test server on EQ and it was highly successful, even to the point it managed to get a population who only played on Test.