There wasn't much information available about our first testing phase.
Well, this is about to change!
The first Auditor Phase was successfully held from April to end of June 2013.
About 100 users were invited to participate in the first testing stage. The group consisted mostly of forum members who had earned auditor status
http://www.eqclassic.org/autism.php.
I'm not going into details about the test playground, but there is a sample video by one of our members here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UGdDEWDd00The test server stability was excellent, even Yeahlight and me were surprised that we only had 2 crashes in the 3 month time-frame, which only happen right at the beginning btw. This in itself is evidence enough that after years of development without external testing, the coding quality produced for EQC is more than just good.
More developers doesn't necessarily mean more stable and complete code, if you don't understand the bigger picture and only part of a server mechanic, you are more likely to break things or implement it wrong. I know for people without development background this is not easy to understand, developing a server is not like building a house were you just add more workers and it will somehow be done quicker and not fall apart. A meal will also not cook faster if you just add more cooks.
Now for some statistics.
About 50 Users reported in total over 400 issues.
About 200 issues were valid and almost all have been fixed now.
6 Testers reported about 50% of the valid issues. These reported at least 10 issues each, and the No #1 reported 25 valid issues.
Here is a top 10 list of *valid* issues reported
Code:
| TreatsEQ | 25 |
| fatal_error | 18 |
| adeptation | 15 |
| Loki | 14 |
| Naeadil | 14 |
| Beledric | 10 |
| Deathrydar | 9 |
| Tiiden | 7 |
| Deattas | 5 |
| Deantodd | 5 |
Thanks to every tester and reporter, and especially to the above people - we were able to massively improve the server quality.
So, you are asking, what now ?I have updated the Roadmap to reflect the current project status. As you can see a few things cannot be simply just implemented without knowing what needs exactly to be done.
This is a reoccurring theme also for fixing issues, most of the time is spent on actual research and not on development. When you see the issues that were resolved, significantly more time went into verifying that the reported issue is valid and should be implemented in that way.
BTW: Since a few people still haven't grasped it, as long as
I didn't make a statement regarding this project - any reports are probably false. Additionally, any posts with my name in the subject will most likely not be read by me.