Great News...

[Herby]

And we need to wait a week before testing can begin. Also there will be only one player testing instead of many. With only one player there is a lot less chance that he will stumble into bugs. The whole idea of a beta server is to have as many players as possible exercise the new code because they will be doing a lot of things that the devs may not have tested. The success of finding problems is directly proportional to the number of players that can test.

Then again, maybe they're not in a rush at all. They can just wait for the players to get to level 100 and see how things go, before rolling things out to live servers.

I think this thread needs to be moved to the Beta part of the forum, so as not to confuse people in the live servers.

[Andy]

I did not say that they should rush the change to the game servers right after they start testing. I think that that is why so many bugs got into the game servers in the past. But the longer we get to the test conditions the longer that it will take to be able to move the code. And the fewer the players that can test because they meet those conditions the more bugs that will potentially be moved to the game servers.

I will grant you that the players that do not meet the test conditions will be doing regression testing, but by having 10 or so test players that do meet the test conditions created they will be excising the new code while the rest of the players are doing regression testing. This is a basic principle in software testing. I have been a developer, tester, architect, and project manager for IBM for the last 20 years or so and I am familiar with the Agile methodology that they use since we used it and I am considered a SME (Subject Matter Expert) on it.

[Herby]

I did not say that they should rush the change to the game servers right after they start testing. I think that that is why so many bugs got into the game servers in the past. But the longer we get to the test conditions the longer that it will take to be able to move the code. And the fewer the players that can test because they meet those conditions the more bugs that will potentially be moved to the game servers.

I will grant you that the players that do not meet the test conditions will be doing regression testing, but by having 10 or so test players that do meet the test conditions created they will be excising the new code while the rest of the players are doing regression testing. This is a basic principle in software testing. I have been a developer, tester, architect, and project manager for IBM for the last 20 years or so and I am familiar with the Agile methodology that they use since we used it and I am considered a SME (Subject Matter Expert) on it.

That is some good credentials and experience that you have built there. Kudos to you. That would surely help in any of your future prospects and projects.

I, however, could be just an 18 year old kid with a credit card and a lot of spare time. I have no idea about software testing, development, Agile methodology, and was probably only in kindergarten when IBM stopped selling personal computers.

The only thing that binds us together is that we choose to play this fantastic game called Tynon.

[Andy]

We use Agile in main frame programming too and that is what I have always worked on. Programming is programming no matter what platform you are programming in. I did not mean to brag, just to point out why it is a good idea to create some test players in the beta server instead of waiting for one or two to get there in a week.

[Herby]

We use Agile in main frame programming too and that is what I have always worked on. Programming is programming no matter what platform you are programming in. I did not mean to brag, just to point out why it is a good idea to create some test players in the beta server instead of waiting for one or two to get there in a week.

My point is not to say what you're suggesting is a bad idea.

My point is, the developers could be in no rush. And they could wait for players to reach the intended goals naturally.

[Andy]

My point is not to say what you're suggesting is a bad idea.

My point is, the developers could be in no rush. And they could wait for players to reach the intended goals naturally.

But if they do that they will always be behind. There are players in the game server that are at a higher level that on the beta server. You need to have players in the beta server that are higher that the game server so you can test the changes before the players in the game servers get to that point.

[Wildflower]

Is there any news about new heroes?

I am sure they will find a way to adjust the levels without people losing their wins from the previous days, if that is wanted by the devs.
There are other ways to do it then a rollback.

[lamodomo_2092870]

Is there any news about new heroes?

I am sure they will find a way to adjust the levels without people losing their wins from the previous days, if that is wanted by the devs.
There are other ways to do it then a rollback.

I really WISH there were. I'm sick and tired of those 2 OP hero.

[Boroeast]

Good discussions!!!

I have merged the two threads to keep up with everything in one single thread.

Regards

Boro

[DaBooMan]

Herby ur missin the point, i do 4 labs a day, and sail 3 times with dbl gains, i also use 9 chests almost every day.
Close to 500k exp from each lab, 200k per sail and 450k in chests. Not to mention the credits lost.
Plus training is only 1 exp where as normal its 270ish, 540ish on a sunday. So compensation would be needed for the people who has past level 100 before the slower folk :P