Anet, it's about time you got some public test servers

Every time there is a large patch there are problems. The constant disconnects, the errors, crashes have become what I dread the most. Please, for the love of this game, add some test servers and stop using the entire player base as a test bench. If a living world episode can cause this much of a headache imagine what will happen when the profession re-balance patch goes live. Just one server.... is it so much to ask for?

It was my understanding that they do have test servers though

Anet do have test servers. The servers just aren't public.

I know they have private test servers, but private test servers under some idealized conditions don't help anyone otherwise there wouldn't be this many issues time and time again. In fact it just leads to making the judgment that things were tested thoroughly enough which leads to complacency which is where we are now... and will be again in the future.

I don't know...would enough players play if there were no rewards whatsoever? What about the economy when recipes are revealed ahead of time? Does the playerbase want to wait extra weeks/a month for releases?Do other games that have public test servers launch releases with no bugs, no issues?

I think its more that Anet can take an awfully long time to fix things that are not game breaking. Its moot, public beta just is not their style.

I came to the forums to express my frustration at this because I am one of those players. I would gladly go through new content and changes to the game in order to find if there are any bugs, crashes, and so on. I can't promise to go through everything but I will go through what matters to me most and hope that others that join in do the same. Enough players have come to the forums asking about this that I am sure there are enough testers out there.

Also, not everything that is done needs to be measured with in-game rewards. In this case the reward in intrinsic. It is a value added by the player performing the task and the satisfaction it brings that other's would not have to go through the hardship and that the player-base as a whole benefits from the few that actually do. Given the massive changes that are proposed for all the professions, would you rather be able to see how the changes play out on a test server or would you rather have the changes go live immediately onto everyone with the next patch 4-6 weeks out? Assuming that Anet actually changes their patch release time-table as they suggested and don't stay with the current 4 month wait between patches. Is it an enjoyable experience to have to wait for so long for things that could have been discovered within a week on a public test server? Even if you accept it, do you wish that onto everyone else?

There would also be little to no delay between patches, except maybe the next patch. As a new patch is put on a public test server, most of the design team is free to move on to the next content patch, yet a small window remains open where things can be spotted and fixed. For example, take the recent patch that broke EBG with various tower walls missing/moved and the fact that now you were able to get into SMC (again) with the warclaw. Players would have spotted those things immediately much the same way it was spotted within minutes of it going live. So essentially players ARE testing things already, but they are doing it a live version of the game where such consequences become a detriment to all. And yes, there are some players that go onto public test servers to see if they can find some way to break the game in order to use to their advantage but those players are few and such secrets don't stay that way for long.

Additionally, for the in-game economy to be affected there has to be one first. This game sadly doesn't have an economy. A global tradepost with simple supply and demand doesn't cut it. Not enough crafted items are time gated and everything seems to be account bound. The only things traded are materials. If anything a public test server could help stabilize prices because you would no longer have the few players that can login right as a new patch hits find what the desired crafting materials will be and quickly hyper-inflate prices. For example, the recent Icebrood saga patch brought the illuminated boreal weapons that require Destroyer Lodestones. And due to what I just mentioned lodestones went from an average of 55s to 90s on the first day. This happened precisely because crafting recipes aren't known ahead of time which makes for a great opportunity for a few players to affect the market drastically. Also, the problems with crafting the Amalgamated Draconic Lodestone in the Mystic Forge would have been found rather than leaving players confused.

If the test servers are public, and you're going to test for them anyway, what would be the difference between "test" and live servers?

Seriously? Read (or re-read) second paragraph of my third post... The point is that if players who go on the public test servers find the broken things before it gets pushed out to live, then the rest of the player-base doesn't have to suffer through those crashes and other such things. On your end you would have a smoother experience playing because you are less likely to crash while loading, deal with broken meta events, get stuck on dialog during quests that for some reason or another doesn't want to advance, etc. Honestly, the more I read the responses here the more it seems like playing through broken content, having the game patched every hour after a realease, not being able to load into maps (or like WvW during server reset on tuesday), and not be able to complete story missions must be super enjoyable... as if it were a some kind of "feature" you really look forward to or something :confused:

If bugs only happen with really large populations, and some believe only a few (who don't care about rewards) will use the test servers, how does that help?If large populations use the test servers, what's the difference?If the Devs can move on, who will fix the bugs that crash the test servers? Or fix any bugs that are found, really?

Using warclaw to get into SMC does not require a large population, seeing that assets were misplaced in EBG does not require a large population, seeing that the recipe for Amalgamated Draconic Lodestones is bugged does not require a large population, playing with Banner's and finding that they are bugged does not require a large population. The majority of problems can be found by a single player just trying stuff out. But all these headaches can be avoided for the player-base at large thanks to those that find them before the changes go live. Now imagine if with the recently proposed profession changes players can hop into WvW, PvP, and PvE and see how these changes work before it is pushed out onto live. Obviously the more players that join in, the quicker things will be found and tested. But still, it doesn't require a large number of them. And like other things players that test things tend to acquire experience on how to test or where things are most likely to break or be broken. It doesn't take that much time. It also creates a community of testers (maybe even their own sub-forum) where they can bring things up to the devs or coordinate amongst each other for content that requires a number of players like raids, strike missions, meta events, etc. The incentive to try out new content before everyone else is an opportunity many will jump to, and while yea some do it to post spoilers, that is something that is already done now while content is live. Those that want to be spoiled go and read said spoilers anyways. Yes, some issues do require server load in order to pop up, but the number of problems has been reduced to simpler server fixes. Also I am sure the entire development team isn't needed for bug hunting otherwise these quick patches that come out every hour or two after a major patch wouldn't happen so fast. They are minor fixes that only take a short while to get around to, and those small fixes can be pushed to live without having to go through a public test server. No need to put the fix there first, wait for testers and feedback, fix again, wait for more feedback and so on.

I guess the Devs are mistaken when they state that many bugs only appear when the release goes live. It's not like they don't already have Test Server with volunteers. You can even sign up for it, if desired. /shrug

I am sorry but I have found no such existing test server, at least not one visible to the public. And if I could join the testing group, that information is not easily accessible or is rather well buried. If there is such a way to test already, but it is impossible to locate, then it does no service to those that also want to test but can't find it. Maybe you could point me to where it is? Maybe that post can be requested to be stickied to the forums for others to see?

There is no public test servers. Above posters are talking about a private in-house one accessible to authorized QA testers.

I don't think having public test servers would prevent buggy releases, though. ESO has a robust PTS that offers weeks of testing for any player who wants to download it. The ESO PTS forums are full of analysis of issues and bugs. Yet the live releases almost never incorporate fixes to these problems beyond a minor tweak or two; major game breaking stuff still goes live. I see no reason why ANet would have any more spare devpower resources to use on such things than ZeniMax, especially as they haven't got any budgeted time for such things given the current lack of an integral PTS system.

These comments annoy me.. clearly from new players... Anet do what Anets wants to do, they do not care about what you me or the community thinks or suggests.. for years Anet has failed to listen, failed to engage the community only pacify us when necessary.

At least they could use EoTM for its reason to test things out.

@"Cpt Crunch.7058" said:Seriously? Read (or re-read) second paragraph of my third post... 

Your paragraph offers no distinctions, and even admits the two are identical. Maybe YOU should read what you've posted.

The point is that if players who go on the public test servers find the broken things before it gets pushed out to live, then the rest of the player-base doesn't have to suffer through those crashes and other such things. On your end you would have a smoother experience playing because you are less likely to crash while loading, deal with broken meta events, get stuck on dialog during quests that for some reason or another doesn't want to advance, etc. Honestly, the more I read the responses here the more it seems like playing through broken content, having the game patched every hour after a realease, not being able to load into maps (or like WvW during server reset on tuesday), and not be able to complete story missions must be super enjoyable... as if it were a some kind of "feature" you really look forward to or something :confused:

I wouldn't know, I haven't experienced that. Apparently you do. Maybe you should try actually learning how to test systems.

@Donari.5237 said:There is no public test servers. Above posters are talking about a private in-house one accessible to authorized QA testers.

I don't think having public test servers would prevent buggy releases, though. ESO has a robust PTS that offers weeks of testing for any player who wants to download it. The ESO PTS forums are full of analysis of issues and bugs. Yet the live releases almost never incorporate fixes to these problems beyond a minor tweak or two; major game breaking stuff still goes live. I see no reason why ANet would have any more spare devpower resources to use on such things than ZeniMax, especially as they haven't got any budgeted time for such things given the current lack of an integral PTS system.Except Anet do have a fully integrated PTS and they've let players use it plenty of times in the past.

The game splits your login per character, so you can be given a character slot that logs onto another server. Meaning have 5 normal character and 1 beta server character, on the same live game character screen. Anet can add or delete that character slot on any account, at any time. It has instanced (ie duplicated) account contents from the normal characters, that isnt affected by anything you do on that character.

Its just not a constant open system.

There's a test server for volunteers. I guess you can call them 'authorized QA Testers', but they aren't paid.
There was a link in the old forums to sign up. If truly interested, one could look there. It may no longer be accessible, though.You do have to live in the area, as you must 'test' in-house.

tl&dr; Testing is not as easy as it looks like. You can only use players in the final step. The release date of a game/program is a financial decision. If you want to contribute, play upon release and use the bug-report feature.

When I was a kid, I was taught that the ratio of [coding a program] to [fixing bugs] was about 1:3. That was more than 20 years ago. This ratio is barely covering the visual bugs, those that prevent the program to start, do simple actions and close without causing a meteor-shower in the office. The ratio depends on the complexity of the code, drastically increases the more complicated the thing is. Nowadays they are so complex, companies develop the different components in different teams, test & bug-fix in those teams and assemble the whole thing after that. Works, but there are a lot of things you cannot predict. Things that work great without problems while tested in the team, can cause horrible bugs once paired with the other pieces. In addition you face the problem, that it is not one coder who writes everything in the same style. There are rules and guidelines, but everyone codes in his own way. All of them do a great job, but some ideas may interfere with others. So the potential of possible bugs is just immeasurable.

The actual testing-part is where things get hot and quite expensive. A coder who is testing the program is occupied and cannot do anything else. You cannot use him on other projects or give him another task. He is just there testing the program. Trying out stuff, noting down errors. Why not using players here? Long story short, we are no coders. Even if it is not your segment of the game, a trained person can easily pin down a problem and create a ticket which can be fixed. The reports we send in are often vague and include a lot of errors themselves. If you would use players this early in the process, it would extend the bug-fixing time by factor 10 or more. As you may realize by now, using an Intern also does not work here. Testing this early in the process requires a basic understanding of what is going on.

Testing is done in several steps during the process. Upon writing the code and again once the whole segment of that coder is finished. When the segment is assembled to the component, it might be tested as a whole. And then again once all components are unified. The important question for the company is: Where do we stop testing?

A player would answer this quickly: When the game is 100 % bugfree!

Well, actually no. That is just not the case at all. With programs/games this large that task would be impossible. The amount of time required to make it 100 % bug free increases exponential with the size of the project. Look at the early games, look at the simple 8 bit grandfathers and grandmothers of gaming. Compared to Guildwars 2, those are microscopically small. They had large teams working on them, long development-times and even those contain bugs and massive exploits.

Every company has its own idea of a releasable project. The more time is invested into testing, the more money gets burned. Sounds harsh in your opinion, but we do not have monthly subscriptions. They are getting money for content only. So they cannot test everything. Even if they wanted to.

Using players as testers on a public test serverThe detailed content of a release remains secret until launch - for the community. A public testing server would ruin the surprise, hype and probably drastically lower the number of players joining/returning to Guildwars 2.

Play on patch day?I know some people in this community claim that one should "never play on patch day!" Because of all the bugs and exploits and crashes. But that is our best opportunity to actively contribute our part to the game. The bug-report system is easy to use ingame and has features like attaching screenshots and describing things detailed. It is not just technical stuff. We can also report balance/scale issues and similar stuff. If you have the feeling something is going wrong, write a report. Does not have to be long, just make sure to describe it well enough so they can replicate the situation 1:1.

If your problem cannot be explained with the bug-report feature, use the exploits@arena.net and send them an e-mail. I use both features frequently, they work. Just do not expect any answers. If the thing gets fixed, nice. If not, it might be on lower priority to them. Move on.

Thank you very much for the recent informative replies. I try to submit as many bugs as I can but time and time again it's disheartening to hear so many others go through problems every time there is a release at which point bug reports, while valuable, are too late. I was hoping for the possibility that as a community we could insist on having large patches be on some test servers so that many of the easily identifiable bugs and crashes can be resolved before they go out to live, or to see how massive changes (like the proposed profession balancing) to the game will work out before it goes onto the live server. I have seen that Anet has used test servers in the past, would be nice to have them available more often.