Dont do closed alfa/beta testing.

[Dr!mscape]

Сlosed alpha testing has a problem in the form of the fact that all the players who participated in the test will defeat those who just bought the game. And then there are negative reviews and a refund and the death of the game. It is better to fix the game with patches, etc. than to allow a certain number of players.

[Arby]

That never happens lol.

[Mailstorm]

Originally posted by Arby:

That never happens lol.

Yes it does. Almost all the time.

[Cumdog Trillionaire]

if you think a small group of players who do closed alpha test will somehow be in everyones lobbies making them wanna leave the game idk what to tell you lol...

[Le Buzz]

Sad to see how little it takes you kids to give up. I can easily see my self starting winning games after a few hours, even if I'm late to the party. Try starting Tarkov mid-wipe and you'll have a reason to cry for a refund

[Dr!mscape]

Originally posted by Le Buzz:

Sad to see how little it takes you kids to give up. I can easily see my self starting winning games after a few hours, even if I'm late to the party. Try starting Tarkov mid-wipe and you'll have a reason to cry for a refund

In the post, I did not say about myself, I just said that the main contingent of consumers will be dissatisfied with the players who will destroy new players in the dust. And if you want to feel real pain, try playing quake 3 or max payne 3 in multiplayer with grandpa's/pros)

[Allwynd]

Originally posted by YohAn:

Сlosed alpha testing has a problem in the form of the fact that all the players who participated in the test will defeat those who just bought the game. And then there are negative reviews and a refund and the death of the game. It is better to fix the game with patches, etc. than to allow a certain number of players.

Here's another Jester reward for you, enjoy the points, I hope you buy some nice Steam profile stuff with it.

This is stupid, because it's not true, second of all, testing the game, finding issues and providing feedback is much more valuable to a developer and the product than launching something broken, bugged, boring and unfun just so it can be "fair" to everyone so everyone gets to learn the game at once.

This argument also becomes false for all the people that discover the game much later after it's being launched. Even if the developer does as you ask and don't do betas and launches the game in full release, some people are going to discover the game 3, 6, 12, 24 months after it launched and when they start playing, they will get defeated by players who have played longer than them. How do you propose this is fixed?

- Inventing a time machine and supplying every new player who started later with one so they can go back in time and play since launch?
- Resetting the game each time a new player joins the game?

What about CS:GO - the most popular shooter on Steam? The game became F2P in 2017, so is it unfair that some people got to play it since 2012? Should the game be reset for that?

Your argument makes no sense.

You are thinking too deep into it and imagining probable scenarios becoming a reality when they might not happen at all.




TL;DR

The game needs alpha, beta, early access tests. The developers needs all the feedback they can get to test everything - servers, performance, gameplay loop, balance, replay value, bugs, exploits, crashes, etc.

A shooter game is very simple, you can learn to play it in a few hours, the first few days you might get defeated by better players, but in a few days you will become good if you really like the game and want to learn to be better.

Also, you are wrong.

EDIT: After looking at your profile and your fake CS:GO achievements unlocked by some software judging by the date/time they are unlocked at, my opinion of you has dropped even more. https://steamcommunity.com/id/yohan1337/stats/CSGO

[Dr!mscape]

Originally posted by LAMBDA471:

Originally posted by YohAn:

Сlosed alpha testing has a problem in the form of the fact that all the players who participated in the test will defeat those who just bought the game. And then there are negative reviews and a refund and the death of the game. It is better to fix the game with patches, etc. than to allow a certain number of players.

Here's another Jester reward for you, enjoy the points, I hope you buy some nice Steam profile stuff with it.

This is stupid, because it's not true, second of all, testing the game, finding issues and providing feedback is much more valuable to a developer and the product than launching something broken, bugged, boring and unfun just so it can be "fair" to everyone so everyone gets to learn the game at once.

This argument also becomes false for all the people that discover the game much later after it's being launched. Even if the developer does as you ask and don't do betas and launches the game in full release, some people are going to discover the game 3, 6, 12, 24 months after it launched and when they start playing, they will get defeated by players who have played longer than them. How do you propose this is fixed?

- Inventing a time machine and supplying every new player who started later with one so they can go back in time and play since launch?
- Resetting the game each time a new player joins the game?

What about CS:GO - the most popular shooter on Steam? The game became F2P in 2017, so is it unfair that some people got to play it since 2012? Should the game be reset for that?

Your argument makes no sense.

You are thinking too deep into it and imagining probable scenarios becoming a reality when they might not happen at all.




TL;DR

The game needs alpha, beta, early access tests. The developers needs all the feedback they can get to test everything - servers, performance, gameplay loop, balance, replay value, bugs, exploits, crashes, etc.

A shooter game is very simple, you can learn to play it in a few hours, the first few days you might get defeated by better players, but in a few days you will become good if you really like the game and want to learn to be better.

Also, you are wrong.

EDIT: After looking at your profile and your fake CS:GO achievements unlocked by some software judging by the date/time they are unlocked at, my opinion of you has dropped even more. https://steamcommunity.com/id/yohan1337/stats/CSGO

Why such aggression and the transition to personality? I just expressed my opinion about the game, which will require a good skill for the game in the future, yes, the gameplay is simple, but requires a reaction. If I offended you in some way, without insulting you, I'm sorry? Keep in mind that the very first players who buy this game will face alpha and beta testers who will tear them to shreds in public servers, take the money, leave an angry review, a chain will go that will kill the community. Only those who spend a long part of their free time on shooters will sit on servers. As a result, the developer simply will not pay for the game.

And yes, well, you compared the arena indie game in which players play on public servers and a casual shooter with a rating system. For some reason, I took into account that I had counted my achievements in CS:GO, which has nothing to do with the topic, and apparently thought that I was a fan of this game, for you personally, I will say that the achievements were received in 2016, and I personally consider cs now a garbage dump with cheaters and smurfs, but still sometimes normal matches fall out.

[Dr!mscape]

However, I'm already scared for the game, because it's already clear what kind of community it will have.

[Allwynd]

Originally posted by YohAn:

Why such aggression and the transition to personality? I just expressed my opinion about the game

It doesn't sound like an opinion, but like a request that absolutely has to be met.

Originally posted by YohAn:

Keep in mind that the very first players who buy this game will face alpha and beta testers who will tear them to shreds in public servers, take the money, leave an angry review, a chain will go that will kill the community. Only those who spend a long part of their free time on shooters will sit on servers. As a result, the developer simply will not pay for the game.

I already gave you an example with a different game, let's say it's not CS:GO but Rainbow Six Siege or Insurgency Sandstorm or Call of Duty. Whoever buys the game first will learn to play it faster, whoever arrives later to the party will have to get killed for 1-2 days before they learn. FPS games are easy to learn and there are multiple ways to learn them. Better games provide casual game modes like Team Death Match that allow you to experience the game in a very forgiving way so you can literally learn to play the game on a decent level in just 1 hour of playing.

Whether this game has Early Access or CBT or not, it doesn't change anything. Most likely with Early Access or CBT, the game will undergo many changes so the experience between the first day of Early Access will most likely be vastly different from the first day of Official Release. It's possible that those who have played more will have some headstart, but how long will that last before the new players catch up to them? Maybe some professional FPS players will join that will learn to be good on the first day.

Also if Early Access is so accessible that you can just buy it and immediately start playing, it doesn't mean anything as everyone can begin playing immediately at that point, if they so choose to wait for Official Release, that's their problem.

Also you're forgetting the scope of this game, don't expect that there will be droves of players. If it can have a stable population of at least 500 daily players, that will be a huge success. I would want the game to have thousands of players, but if I'm being realistic, I doubt it will, because it has a very niche setting that not many people are interested in.

[Jade]

If this game costs money that's already the death of the game, too many F2P competitors coming out rn to give this game a chance of living.

[ShaggyLives]

Originally posted by YohAn:

Сlosed alpha testing has a problem in the form of the fact that all the players who participated in the test will defeat those who just bought the game. And then there are negative reviews and a refund and the death of the game. It is better to fix the game with patches, etc. than to allow a certain number of players.

So you are asking a solo developer to not let anyone test his game, give feedback and help with bugs so that no one has experience when the buggy mess comes out for everyone? What happens when other players play 80 hours the first week and you only have time to play 10, will you ask for those players to get banned?

[InsightKnight]

By this logic you should never buy a multiplayer game if someone has owned it before you because they are too good for you to compete. Just admit you want access don't try and spin ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ yarn.

[Dr!mscape]

Originally posted by InsightKnight:

By this logic you should never buy a multiplayer game if someone has owned it before you because they are too good for you to compete. Just admit you want access don't try and spin ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ yarn.

> you should never buy a multiplayer game
> if someone has owned it before you because they are too good for you to compete
> Just admit you want access don't try and spin ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ yarn.
Another jerk trying to translate to my personality. I didn't say anything about myself in relation to the nolifers.

[Dr!mscape]

Originally posted by ShaggyLives:

Originally posted by YohAn:

Сlosed alpha testing has a problem in the form of the fact that all the players who participated in the test will defeat those who just bought the game. And then there are negative reviews and a refund and the death of the game. It is better to fix the game with patches, etc. than to allow a certain number of players.

So you are asking a solo developer to not let anyone test his game, give feedback and help with bugs so that no one has experience when the buggy mess comes out for everyone? What happens when other players play 80 hours the first week and you only have time to play 10, will you ask for those players to get banned?

I don't mind that he gathered a group of testers (who really specialize in this) in terms of the development element, I assume that if he gives access to a relatively large number of random players closed early beta access, then I'm afraid that these same players will stay there and will tear up new players. Like, I don't mind suffering against nerds, who spends hours, playing games, but i said from the side from just ordinary players who want to RELAX while playing the game will just leave it and game dies.

[T.TV/AssassinOffi]

Originally posted by Le Buzz:

Sad to see how little it takes you kids to give up. I can easily see my self starting winning games after a few hours, even if I'm late to the party. Try starting Tarkov mid-wipe and you'll have a reason to cry for a refund

I agree! Honestly the only way to be good at a game is to play against those who are better than you, nowadays kids just give up before they've even tried. Which is sad but it's the parents fault for not telling their kids to never give up and to keep going.