[Farottone]

On the other hand, though, it would make sure that every song gets playtests when it needs them

 

Would it? I’d be extremely cautious with that assumption. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”> I see songs where the author specifically asks for things to check and none of those are checked: if we told an author “song XXX is yours, please test it before next Friday” would that make the author test it? As you said, it’s not a job (I agree with your assessment) so I’m not sure structuring it in a certain way makes it happen in a certain way. I’m not advocating chaos (to paint the full picture for people outside the admin group with no access to our forum, I was the one who raised the playtesting issue in the first place, so my position is not about less testing but about better testing) but I’m saying that given what we’ve seen and considering all factors, we need to come up with a solution that’s both effective (which is to your point) AND realistic. In example, I asked ws54 why he didn’t tested the Queen song that was in playtesting and let’s assume for the sake of this reply he says it’s because he was busy IRL (which is a very good reason. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”> ): we have a person who’s very eager to test those specific songs, who’s very committed but couldn’t do it anyway. Not sure this would change by simply structuring the request.

 

And this is, as you know but as other authors don’t, my reasoning for voting on shifting resources from a thorough but lopsided and incomplete playtesting to those sanity checks. I read people talking about an RBN style approach to testing: I hate to be my pragmatic self but we lack people to even give a quick pass on our songs, let alone a peer review system. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_wink.gif”> And as I pointed out privately, we have songs with QA down to easy level and songs with no QA at all. I say we need more people to test songs, but not for an RBN style system because for that we would need far more and far more experienced people (let alone the fact that I don’t think it works for our purpose, but that’s another story and a different issue altogether). We need more people because even with an optional playtesting we haven’t got enough testers, as those songs with no testing or no testing for specific issues show.

 

One thing: why haven’t we ever posted playtesters call-to-arms on SH, Reddit, FoF, etc.? I mean, we have a numbers problem but I don’t think we ever explored the possibility of widening the search. Maybe that could help a bit. Or maybe the guys coming from RBN could introduce us to some more people with that kind of skill willing to lend a hand.

[espher]

Would it? I’d be extremely cautious with that assumption. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_smile.gif”> I see songs where the author specifically asks for things to check and none of those are checked: if we told an author “song XXX is yours, please test it before next Friday” would that make the author test it?

 

This isn’t the first time you’ve made this point and I don’t understand how this still isn’t clear.

 

Ensuring that people do it is kind of the point of assigning tests. There’s a reason why many people in a given job/role in given tasks to do and not just told “do what you want as long as it helps”. If people don’t do it, sure, there are few “real” repercussions, since it’s not like they’re being compensated. The assumption is that if people were brought on board specifically for playtesting they would fulfill their obligations because it would be made apparent that this is what they are here for.

 

There is a big difference between “this is your responsibility” and “hey I’d like someone to do this for me”. It has “failed” to date because there has been no assigned responsibility or structure, so people just pick up what they want when they want, often irrespective of the authors’ wishes.

[Farottone]

This isn’t the first time you’ve made this point and I don’t understand how this still isn’t clear.

It has “failed” to date because there has been no assigned responsibility or structure

 

You’re 100% sure that things will be different once you tell people “Please, this is the song you need to test, test this, this and that”. I am on the other hand just wondering if things will be different, since we are already asking “please, to anyone testing this song, test this, this and that” and it doesn’t happen.

 

I don’t understand what’s not supposed to be clear. I have doubts, you have certainties. Why do you think my doubts are based on not understanding? I understand very well: you think that telling people what to do and assigning them tasks will make them do it. I don’t think it’s that easy because this is not a job and people have real life commitments.

 

To be clear: I *wish* it was like that. I truly hope we can find a fair amount of people who will do exactly what we need for playtesting in the timeframe we need, I just fear we won’t.

[espher]

If I bring someone in, and as a condition of bringing them on board say “we’re bringing you on board because we require you to playtest songs, and we will tell you what songs/instruments we want you to playtest”, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that they will only apply/be picked up if they can commit to this workload.

 

Every time doubts are expressed examples are given of how things work under the current system. “Nobody does this now”, or “I asked people to test instrument x and y and I got tests for instrument z”, or “half the songs go through playtesting and never get tested” are all elements of the current system, which was an “if you want to test things, come in and test things, we’re not going to force you to test things but we’d really like it if you could” system, which had just about no structure.

 

Ostensibly, with the other changes being made, this shouldn’t be a crazy workload on a per tester basis, especially if we’re trying to focus testing on areas of author weakness. If we’re putting out, let’s say, eight songs per release on average, and three of the charts on each song need testing/review, we only need twenty-four “assigned” tests in a given week. If we bring in a dozen testers and each person is responsible for two tests a week, I don’t think that’s an unreasonable workload — it’s certainly far less than the authors are putting in to deliver this content, and we also all have jobs and “real world” commitments. Of course, given the established author system, it’s likely going to be less than that, and many of these will be “polishing” passes and not necessarily rigourous testing passes.

 

If we’re making the mandate clear, and we’re enforcing it, and people know what to expect, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that we could get people to be “responsible” for testing, like, two charts a week. If people can’t commit to such a workload, they shouldn’t be getting involved in the first place — and if they say they can and actually can’t, they won’t be kept around.

 

It’s fine to have doubts, of course, but I don’t think expecting minimal to no change is a reasonable doubt to have.

[ws54]

I for one would have given all of the Queen songs a thorough test.

 

Now you’ve got me curious though. ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_biggrin.gif” /> Why didn’t you test the song I put through playtesting?

 

I did. I got 100% gold stars on Guitar on my first try ” src=”/wp-content/uploads/invision_emoticons/default_SA_biggrin.gif” />. There wasn’t much to test on Guitar/Bass. Actually, this week was hectic since I was releasing songs and I also had to go out of town,plus regular work. If the songs were there for the typical 3 weeks or so I certainly would have played them.

[ws54]

Thoughts? How would you guys react if we said “all authors must do X playtest(s) of others’ songs for each of their own songs, and they have to be on specific songs we assign”? Or the same idea, but only with dedicated playtesters and not authors (assuming we can actually find any)?

 

There needs to be some differences between authors and play-testers in this regard. Authors should generally be authoring and should be cut a little more slack. That said, I play-test all I can and especially if it is a song I would have authored myself someday anyway. There is a difference between asking “Hey can someone test this song?” and “Can YOU test this song?” (if you ever need emergency medical attention, don’t ever yell out “someone help me”… Say “You in the red shirt. Help me.”) People should be asked with plenty of allowance for tastes and real life getting in the way, but if they agree that they can do it then they would be expected to follow through.

 

I have a fairly wide range of styles. I mean, who else wants to author both Judas Priest AND Benny Goodman? But I also have several deal breakers and I won’t touch songs with obscenities of any kind, screaming, too much country twang, rap, or disco. And I’m not fond of gimmicky holiday/theme type stuff either. So while I’d have no problem testing a wide variety of songs, I would definitely have a problem if I was expected to test a song that fell into my list of hated styles.

[Author]

Posts