Mysidia

Will these server of choice options be a one-shot deal? In other words, if I select Champion x 2 then will I never be able to select other servers with these 2 free slots?

I'm planning on buying at least one 5 for $20, but I'm concerned about that free slot server choice. I really feel that should be free across all servers.

Also, will the purchasable slots be server of choice or across all servers?

SOE was not the company that did Matrix Online did. That distinction belongs to Monolith. SOE's attempts were to save an already destroyed game -- in essence, they got a pale and tried to save the Titanic after it started sinking. You can shovel all the water you want out, but the huge gaping hole still existed.

While I agree with your point, might I say that telling people to "Grow up" isn't the best way to discuss. Those "selfish" arguments do have a point in that the selection process is flawed.

Along that same line, purging the testers is a valid idea. Personally, I would not go as far as to say one selection means no more selections. I would, however, say that to constantly add testers to a base number will overwhelm the intent of a "closed beta".

With that said, I'm going to add what I would suggest they do as a selection process.

- Include those who, in previous betas, gave feedback which in some what helped the development team. This can be bug reports, it can be good feature ideas, it can be encouraging testing. This way, you have a wide array of existing users that can reliably assist you. Those who give no helpful feedback should be removed from selection -- since this part is already selective, what does more selectiveness hurt?

- Select a random group across all servers. If you have 100 existing testers, choose an exponential amount from all servers. That way the existing base, while existing, is not the core of the beta. Fresh eyes, fresh ideas, possibly a better beta.

- Should Group B perform well enough, their inclusion in Group A is possible. Say Joe Bob reports a lot of aesthetic fixes and Bob Joe spots a lot of bugs. Both should be given that chance to be pre-selected.

This way, should a beta tester not perform well, they no longer take up a space that another tester could occupy. Test Server instructions, if they are not, should be included in every e-mail invite to the beta to ensure everyone has the ability to log in.

Since you are regularly adding and subtracting from A, the groups remain both fluid and manageable. Thus no exponential growth that defeats the purpose of closed betas.

Again, tl;dr: Fixed group A, random group B. If someone from B does well, they can become A. If someone from A or B doesn't help, they become group SOL.

[ QUOTE ]

Log onto Test every once in a while. Seriously. You want to know how a good chunk of these people are being picked? It's because they actually log on to the Test Server. If I were picking people for a closed beta, I would pick people that have shown that they can actually A: Log onto Test, and B: Copy over a character.

It's honestly that simple. The people who don't log onto Test and are picked for the Beta seem to be just random people picked out of a hat.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have logged on to test. I have not, however, logged onto test recently. The criteria for selection by Lighthouse said people who have logged onto test recently. By Lighthouse's post, the testers were chosen by two criteria: previous beta selection and recently use of Test server.

I simply believe that a more optimal way of selection would be to change the criteria from the above to a random selection across all servers. A random selection of participants across all servers would allow everyone equal chance and could include great testers. There are many great testers who play on a specific server, know how to get on Test, but rarely log on to it.

To exclude these potentially great testers really is a disservice that does not benefit NCsoft as much as a more random selection would.

Now, they may be selecting people randomly across all servers. If so, I applaud that and hope they eventually get rid of relying just on specific servers. Lighthouse's post, however, leads me to think that there's only these two groups allowed.

I find it to be a gross oversimplification of a closed beta environment to say they are only for bug hunting.

Closed beta environments allow for bug hunting, content revision, quality assurance, and reception testing. All of these things take place during a closed beta no matter what the game -- bugs, quality, and enjoyability are all gaged by a small focus group to refine the product.

As such, I really believe there needs to be a focus on representative samples in these testing environments. You need people to catch bugs as well as assure the product is reaching the intended target in retaining subscribers. This sample used to beta test is, sadly, far from representative.

There are countless variables which could attribute to smoother releases including the very perception that it is smoother. The simple matter of giving a small group could cause smoother releases, the people may simply be participants. The conclusion that a specific pool results in this smoother release is both rushed and problematic. We have only tested one alternative -- everyone.

As this is the case, a representative random selection of players would be much more helpful alongside the beta testers who have been "proven" to assist with bug reports. Instead of relying just on those who frequent Testing Room, a very unrepresentative sample, we should rely on people from all servers for quality assurance.

TL;DR: Stop relying on a fixed group of people. Give all players on all servers an equal chance. Allow people you haven't selected before to join. A new sample just may surprise you.

Congratulations on being extraordinarily, exceedingly anal about something that really did not need it.

While playing in the caves today I noticed a problem with, I assume, the alpha level stacking. Mainly, when using sonic blast sets I see the animation on the hanging ivy, but elsewhere I don't.

As others have said, I find Defiance to be a great idea in concept, but the practicality just isn't there. Death for a blaster of any level is always a problem. This new power will simply encourage Defenders to heal less for more damage (Statesman even went as far as to seemingly advocate this.). However, the 40% limit simply doesn't lend itself to practial use for a Blaster.

At 20%-40% I'm usually running for my life or frantically mashing on my Inspiration keys. I'm not blasting away, and even with an increase in power I would probably heal over blasting.

I think widening the range of percentage effect, but lowering the boost would be a great idea. 500% is, in my opinion, overdoing it. There are more in-depth ideas in this thread that could make Defiance more practical, and great for the concept.

I add my voice to those saying the sound needs to get a change. It sounds absolutely horrible as a female character.