Beta testing subforum?

[Melan]

Here is why I think a subforum with private areas for testing FMs would be a good idea:

1. at the moment, the private message system can only handle a very limited number of recipients, making wider betas or multi-author missions harder to manage
2. PMs also do not allow uploading images (with good reason, probably)
3. external beta forums - such as Shalebridge - require registration, which can be a hurdle for some people.

Since this board already has a private development area, I wonder if it may also host separate ones for testing purposes -- probably archived or even removed after a mission is released.

[Sotha]

Nice idea, but my attitude is neutral towards this.

 

I personally manage just fine with the PM system: a maximum of few testers in good enough for me and I've no plans for co-authoring. Therefore I'm just happy with the system I have at hand now.

 

But if someone else would benefit of such a subforum, why not!

[Serpentine]

Yeah, I agree that it'd be nice to keep them on this board as there is so much interplay of threads here and reports in testing... and PM's are quite annoying.

 

If modetwo and the others dont mind it but don't want to admin the area, I'd be happy to help(given the permissions). I assume you can create sub-sub forums, i.e TDM Board -> FM Betatesting -> Blargmap, such that permissions could be given to only have rights in the FM Beta area... since less moderation is better moderation

[greebo]

I can set up such a forum if there is a need for this. It will take a bit though as the Admin CP has a smaller technical problem.

[Aprilsister]

Organization!

[grayman]

I think this is a great idea.

 

It would be a good place to not only deal with FM betas, but also code change betas.

[Fidcal]

But this method too will need setting up permission for every beta tester separately on every FM they beta test. So each time you come to beta test you will need to request a forum be set up then gather names of beta testers then submit them to get permission.

 

Unless you mean a single beta forum for all FMs in which case everyone who ever beta tests any FM will see all FMs which is effectively public.

 

Unless you have an elite beta testing team of say 20 or 30 who have the sense to ignore threads for FMs they are not beta testing themselves? Is that the plan?

[Bikerdude]

Totally as the 3 person limit on PM thread is just a complete pain in the arse.

 

@ Fids - Yandros can do it over on his forum then we should be able to do it over here.The thread starter has admin rights only in that thread and can add and remove people, edit/delete posts etc.

 

Sooner rather than later please!!!

Edited December 29, 2010 by Bikerdude

[Melan]

The first. Shalebridge, created specifically for betas, handles it by giving subforums and local mod powers to FM authors - who handle individual invites themselves.

[nbohr1more]

That was one of the few things that seemed appealing about Moddb's Desura... Controlled Betas.

 

That said, I would be grateful for a Fan Mission forum that isn't cluttered with Beta testing threads

[Serpentine]

The permission system is fine, since the author would more or less have the group selected before asking. A few changes here and there arnt a huge concern for myself, but thats why I want to try get the administration side away from busy people

 

The Shalebridge idea also works, but it's a one shot thing and you need to make sure the initial subforum and user group permissions are quite exact (i.e no stray adminship)

[Aprilsister]

Having voted "yes" I retract...

 

There's no reason to keep anything private. I thought you just wanted a place separate from the FM subsection. A place to reduce clutter in the FM section. A place where testers could feel free to post without worrying about spoiler tags... What's with people needing privacy? You're creating FMs for a game. You aren't fomenting revolution.

 

If people want to be spoiled, let them. If people don't want to be spoiled, then let them choose to stay out of the beta-testing threads.

[Serpentine]

Having voted "yes" I retract...

 

There's no reason to keep anything private. I thought you just wanted a place separate from the FM subsection. A place to reduce clutter in the FM section. A place where testers could feel free to post without worrying about spoiler tags... What's with people needing privacy? You're creating FMs for a game. You aren't fomenting revolution.

 

If people want to be spoiled, let them. If people don't want to be spoiled, then let them choose to stay out of the beta-testing threads.

 

Playing all your cards at once makes for a boring game. Think how these days you know everything about a game before its released and how that makes the experience less novel. The same applies here and it's one of the things that TDM gets very right. People are interested because there's a small constraint on info and that builds desire, just as you are expressing. There's also a lot of noise that comes in with public access, even if its read-only. To allow people the chance to experience and make up their minds before reading preconceived ideas from a 3rd party is always a wise thing in an environment where there are few harmful risks.

 

At the end of the day, if the author wants it public, it very well could be public - but since at the moment it takes place off board or in PM you have nothing to lose and only to gain from a better tested FM and a happier author.

 

There's also a distinction between privacy and secrecy - while we like to keep some things on the down-low(returning to the idea of a pleasant surprise), we don't exactly have any form of moderation or explicit secret policies.

[ocn]

I think it's a nice option for authors who want to keep things a little in the shadows before release for various reasons. Aprilsister does have a point however. I'd most likely be initially inclined to start a thread in a special secret forum, because my ego IS that huge. But I'd eventually opt to stay away, because I'd realize there'd be nothing special about my particular mission at all. Plus it might be a valuable vault of learning experiences for the curious of us if it weren't private. But posting would probably have to be restricted to the beta testers and the author, so as to not clutter the threads with various comments and queries. So then privacy might be the best way to go anyway. Seems I'm back to where I started, just like that night in the woods all those years ago. I'm going for yes.

[Aprilsister]

Think how these days you know everything about a game before its released and how that makes the experience less novel.

 

I don't though. Because just as I am capable of reading things I am also quite capable of not reading things; just as I am capable of not responding to idiots (or responding harshly if I care to) -- this goes hand in hand with my arguments about censorship, it has nothing to do with, in any way whatsoever, please do not misinterpret, any implied or any such thing pertaining to you (I'm sorry I even felt the need to point that out).

 

Why am I so baffled? Why can't people control themselves? It just seems so weird.

 

Games I don't want to be spoiled on, I make sure I don't go clicking around reading up on... it's very simple.

 

Idiots who are not worth bothering with, I do not bother with... also very simple.

 

I really don't care that much about if this goes ~private~ (I mean "whatever") it just seems like such an unnecessary thing to do -- a hassle. Bizarre.

 

xD

Edited December 29, 2010 by Aprilsister

[greebo]

Ok, I set up a new private forum - who wants to be first and needs a beta testing forum for his FM?

[Fidcal]

Well I shall definitely need one for Manor Royale in a couple of months. Though I might want to do an early alpha with perhaps one or two testers. You can book me in now if you want.

 

So if an FM forum is set up then can the mapper invite participants without further permissions?

[Radiatoryang]

I'll need one for my FM... in a couple months.

[greebo]

So if an FM forum is set up then can the mapper invite participants without further permissions?

There's no way. But Springheel, NH and me can assign permissions on request. I don't think there will be an incoming flood of requests each day (though that would be cool for TDM, needless to say) so handling that manually is not a problem.

 

Each FM gets its own thread or two, and after the FM is released I can "unapprove" the thread, making it invisible if desired. For huge undertakings it's not a problem to set up an entire subforum.

[Aprilsister]

Yeah that's great! NH, Fidcal and Greebo will now have something to do in their spare time!

[grayman]

It would be a good place to not only deal with FM betas, but also code change betas.

 

 

I'd like to set up a beta test for the upcoming movement changes.

 

Can I do that in the "FM Beta" forum?

 

It looks like I can just start a new thread, but how do I invite people? I'd have to solicit outside the Forum, then get those interested invited.

 

 

[Aprilsister]

upcoming movement changes

 

 

!? !?

[greebo]

I'd like to set up a beta test for the upcoming movement changes.

 

Can I do that in the "FM Beta" forum?

 

It looks like I can just start a new thread, but how do I invite people? I'd have to solicit outside the Forum, then get those interested invited.

I can assign permission to people in the Admin Control Panel, but for things like you're planning it's maybe better to gather two or three people and deliver a custom tdm_game_test.pk4 (containing the binary.conf, gamex86.dll and any necessary script/def changes).

[grayman]

!? !?

 

Heh.

 

These are changes to reduce the number of times AI get stuck on func_statics, walls, each other, etc.

 

It also includes changes to keep rats from getting stuck.

[grayman]

I can assign permission to people in the Admin Control Panel, but for things like you're planning it's maybe better to gather two or three people and deliver a custom tdm_game_test.pk4 (containing the binary.conf, gamex86.dll and any necessary script/def changes).

 

Ok, I'll take the normal PM route, then. Thanks.