How The BETA Should Work

On the presumption that there is a Beta, it should be implemented differently to how the Reach Beta was. The Reach Beta didn’t work as effectively as it should have been due to the lack of feedback on certain topics which the community didn’t like and they were back-pedalling post game release fixing, removing, and implementing certain ideas.

The Halo 4 Beta should start of with all of the ideas that 343i are interested in implementing right from the release, instead of adding new gametypes, customisation etc. whilst the Beta is running.

After a week of the Beta, the Community gives feedback on its likes and dislikes of all the new ideas, mechanics, weapons, aesthetics, add-ons etc., and have 343i review the feedback.

From the feedback, they tweak, change, remove and implement the ideas, criticisms, and problems there are and re-release the Beta for another week.

The feedback from the re-released Beta is then incorporated into the final game.

I would also like to see a Limited Forge Beta as there were bugs and faults in Reach’s forge that were never fixed.

Thanks for reading,
Peng C:

This sounds like it could work.

Well, for the time being we will have to wait and see if that is the case.

:smiley:

I could see this working, take Spartan vs Eliter Slayer in the Reach beta, that was added during the beta, not at the start, not allowing users to get a feel of it full enough for the final elite & spartan shield strength, if this was added at the start of the beta, we would have had much more accurate results.

The purpose of public beta testing is to find bugs from the game, find bugs from the networking system, observe the quality of the networking, and observe the general level of satisfication with the game. The community feedback has hardly any value and is only considered when there is a notably large amount of people asking for the same thing.

So, while you have good intentions behind your idea for beta testing, you have misunderstood the point of that testing phase. 99% of the important feedback from the beta is in-game data and glitch reports from the players. The 1% consists of urgent problems with gameplay balance and enjoyablity. That’s why they only do one beta because that’s all they need. And having another beta takes time and costs.

The most important thing to realise here is that the beta is NOT for criticising the game, it’s to help the developers gather valuable data to make the game less buggy. And most of that job is done by playing the game, not coming to tell about the experiences to the forum. Believe or not, but the raw data they get from their servers is ten times more valuable than the feedback they gather from players.

> I could see this working, take Spartan vs Eliter Slayer in the Reach beta, that was added during the beta, not at the start, not allowing users to get a feel of it full enough for the final elite & spartan shield strength, if this was added at the start of the beta, we would have had much more accurate results.

This was also the case with gametypes such as Generator Defence and Stockpile.

i agree with the way of testing, just not the ammount of time u get for it. 2 weeks play- bitch0- agree- disagree- insult because your stupid and i’m not. 1 week of tweaking another week of play. one more tweak last week of play

> The purpose of public beta testing is to find bugs from the game, find bugs from the networking system, observe the quality of the networking, and observe the general level of satisfication with the game. The community feedback has hardly any value and is only considered when there is a notably large amount of people asking for the same thing.
>
> So, while you have good intentions behind your idea for beta testing, you have misunderstood the point of that testing phase. 99% of the important feedback from the beta is in-game data and glitch reports from the players. The 1% consists of urgent problems with gameplay balance and enjoyablity. That’s why they only do one beta because that’s all they need. And having another beta takes time and costs.
>
> The most important thing to realise here is that the beta is NOT for criticising the game, it’s to help the developers gather valuable data to make the game less buggy. And most of that job is done by playing the game, not coming to tell about the experiences to the forum. Believe or not, but the raw data they get from their servers is ten times more valuable than the feedback they gather from players.

Quite the opposite there my friend, I have taken into consideration what purpose a Beta serves and a week in between allows them to fix what bug there are from playing and then in the second week, the other problems that potentially arise from the reparation of the previous ones can be highlighted.

A Beta works better than employee testing as the population is large allowing for the data collected to be analysed and the rate at which defects occur to be reduced (using statistical significance tests with an approximation to a Poisson distribution).

Also it is not a 2nd Beta as such, but a slightly modified initial Beta, so costs and time wouldn’t be a significant factor. If and when community feedback on gameplay issues can be implemented into the Beta v2, would be up to 343i’s discression.

Thanks for your constructive analysis :smiley:

I like this idea, but there would be a lot of people raging when they find their forge creations don’t carry over to the full game.

> > The purpose of public beta testing is to find bugs from the game, find bugs from the networking system, observe the quality of the networking, and observe the general level of satisfication with the game. The community feedback has hardly any value and is only considered when there is a notably large amount of people asking for the same thing.
> >
> > So, while you have good intentions behind your idea for beta testing, you have misunderstood the point of that testing phase. 99% of the important feedback from the beta is in-game data and glitch reports from the players. The 1% consists of urgent problems with gameplay balance and enjoyablity. That’s why they only do one beta because that’s all they need. And having another beta takes time and costs.
> >
> > The most important thing to realise here is that the beta is NOT for criticising the game, it’s to help the developers gather valuable data to make the game less buggy. And most of that job is done by playing the game, not coming to tell about the experiences to the forum. Believe or not, but the raw data they get from their servers is ten times more valuable than the feedback they gather from players.
>
> Quite the opposite there my friend, I have taken into consideration what purpose a Beta serves and a week in between allows them to fix what bug there are from playing and then in the second week, the other problems that potentially arise from the reparation of the previous ones can be highlighted.
>
> A Beta works better than employee testing as the population is large allowing for the data collected to be analysed and the rate at which defects occur to be reduced (using statistical significance tests with an approximation to a Poisson distribution).
>
> Also it is not a 2nd Beta as such, but a slightly modified initial Beta, so costs and time wouldn’t be a significant factor. If and when community feedback on gameplay issues can be implemented into the Beta v2, would be up to 343i’s discression.
>
> Thanks for your constructive analysis :smiley:

To my knowledge, Bungie already tweaked the Reach bet a bit in the middle. But generally, as far as my knowledge goes, all the bug fixes, fixes to major parts of the game like weapon functions, require a new build. Not something built from scratch, but kind of like a downloadable patch. Implementing all the necessary fixes and fixing the bugs takes a lot of time, much more than they can possibly have in one or even two weeks.

So, they can implement minor fixes mid-testing, but nothing major can be changed without taking the necessary time to do it. If I were to decide, they should do an initial public beta in early spring roughly at the same time Reach had it’s beta. Then they should make a more polished version of the game and release a second beta. But even then, the release schedule might get delayed as the would have to make a second beta build that had all the other features blocked (more like removed) from the users.

But thanks for the kindness. As I had made my post and reread it, I realized it sounded a bit more attacking that it should’ve had. But it seems it wasn’t.

I clicked on this thread with the mindset of oh, here we go, but was pleasantly surprised. I agree with your idea, and love the additional idea of a Limited Forge Beta.

pick me! pick me!

> I clicked on this thread with the mindset of oh, here we go, but was pleasantly surprised. I agree with your idea, and love the additional idea of a Limited Forge Beta.

It would be so awesome if they could give us just a snippet of what the Forge would be like and to make it perfect for release.

Hahah, I had the same reaction as DerFlaturator! I was like “People should just stop telling 343 how to do the job” and now I actually agree with you. But I think that they should give us more time for playing. :slight_smile:

Sounds like a great idea. It would give the Halo fans what they want, and make sure that Halo 4 doesn’t flop or have too many problems at release.

> Sounds like a great idea. It would give the Halo fans what they want, and make sure that Halo 4 doesn’t flop or have too many problems at release.

After 3-4 years in development, I made this post as hope as such that the Beta could be made this way so it plays brilliantly straight off without loads of updates post release.