There were a ton of really incredibly stupid questions in the live chat. Things like "Are you guys wearing pants?". Over and over again too.
The problem with getting any new AAs any time in the future, after the beta has already begun, is that they won't be tested adequately and will be guaranteed to be full of bugs at launch. It's like having 11 months to do a job, handing in last year's project as your "rough draft", and saying you'll get all the new content done and tested in 1 month.
This seems unsubstantiated. For Mages last year Companion's Aggression, Companion's Durability, Companion's Sturdiness, and Companion's Agility were all added after beta opened. Additionally, Theft of Essence received significant changes later on in beta. Other classes received additional AAs or AA changes as well, including a fairly significant rework to Necromancer's Lingering Decay line. I'm sure there were some bugs somewhere, but I promise all of the Mage AAs were working correctly at launch. I don't think adding AAs later on means those AAs "will be guaranteed to be full of bugs at launch." Admittedly more AAs are currently missing than were missing during EoK beta, but this beta will also be 8 days longer than EoK's was. AA data is supposed to be implemented by November 1st, which is 8 days after RoS beta launched. As such, I don't see an appreciable difference in the amount of time we'll be able to test new AAs. I am a bit concerned that there will be a general lack of actually new AAs, but I'm reserving judgement on that until all of the RoS AAs are implemented.
Unsubstantiated? Inadequate testing and the results of such are not new or unique to EQ. But if you are in any doubt, just take a look at the 12-pages of "new bugs" reported when the last expansion was released (and keep in mind that many of those bugs WERE reported during beta and not fixed): https://forums.daybreakgames.com/eq/index.php?threads/live-update-bugs-11-16-16.236585/ EDIT: I shouldn't have limited my earlier statement to just AAs - it really holds true for any content they add after the beta has started. A majority of their beta-testing players will log in, take a look, run into a bunch of bugs, and then never log in again until the expac is released. If content is added too late in the beta, it won't get tested at all.
None of this defends the position I responded to, I'd suggest you re-read what you wrote: "The problem with getting any new AAs any time in the future, after the beta has already begun, is that they won't be tested adequately and will be guaranteed to be full of bugs at launch." It's obvious that inadequate testing leads to bugs. It's obvious that a new expansion will have bugs. Neither of those facts support the idea that "getting any new AAs any time in the future, after the beta has already begun" will lead to AAs that "won't be tested adequately and will be guaranteed to be full of bugs at launch." To support that hypothesis, A) you would need to prove that there will be inadequate testing of any new AAs added after beta started and B) that those AAs would then be guaranteed to be full of bugs. A) is likely true if AAs are added very late into beta, but I would argue that plenty of AAs that have been added after beta launched have been adequately tested in the past. It's very dependent on the amount of time we have to test those AAs, not whether they're in at launch. B) is veritably false, given AAs were added last beta after beta launched and were not full of bugs at launch. If you had suggested that it's better to have AAs in at the start of the beta to allow for more time to test, I would agree with you. That isn't the position you put forward, unless I misunderstand the meaning of "any" and "guaranteed."
Good, we agree on that and it is the main point I am making. That is only "obvious" if the expansion does not have adequate testing. In fact, I would argue that "adequate testing" is defined by not having any bugs. I respectfully disagree. I think those two "facts" DO support my prediction that adding content later in the beta (after the initial excitement and biggest wave of beta testers have left the beta server) will result in more bugs. And I think EQ's past history also supports my statements. And yes, I guarantee it
First, I'd like to note that you're welcome to argue about content in general, but I am only referring to AAs and will continue to do so. Your original claim specifically referred to AAs, and bringing in other forms of content changes the discussion to the point you're no longer defending your original claim. Except your original post did not make that point. Inadequate testing leading to bugs is a reasonable point, and if that's what you actually meant then I agree. But this point being true does not make your original point true; it's fallacious to equate the two. While I think it's practically unheard of for software to launch without "having any bugs," I also think this is unrelated to your original point. First, I'm still talking about AAs, even if you've now decided to focus on "content" as a whole. Secondly, the existence of bugs does not mean the same as "full of bugs." I think we can agree, though, that "adequate testing" at least prevents something being "full of bugs." I agree that having less time to test content means more bugs. That is not what you predicted, as again, more bugs is not equivalent to "full of bugs." Furthermore, I gave specific examples of AAs added after beta launched last year that were not full of bugs. In fact, those AAs worked perfectly fine. I would love to get more time to test things, and I think doing so will lead to a more polished overall release. That does not mean I agree with what you initially stated, which was that "any new AAs" added after beta started (i.e. after October 24th) are "guaranteed to be full of bugs at launch." I think the fact that you keep using significantly less hyperbolic wording than your original claim suggests you're aware that, as stated, it was inaccurate. You're welcome to revise your claim and we might agree at that point, but please don't pretend that you're defending your original claim while doing so.
I think you need a win today. If proving that my hyperboles are, in fact, hyperboles is making you feel better, then you can have this one!
