Talk:Stress test

Move to Public beta

I think we should combine this and beta weekend event into public beta:

• For players, there's no meaningful difference: we get a chance to play.
• Every beta test involves stress testing; ANet will generally have a primary focus for each beta event (it just happens to be server stress for this one).
• The biggest difference between the first so-called stress test and the first BWE is that this takes place during pacific business hours.

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. These could still be left as search redirects. Mediggo 08:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both above. -- Sagi 08:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Cool. I'm going to put up a move tag on BWE, too, then. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

''Stress tests are closed or public beta tests of Guild Wars 2'' and you guys want to move it to Public Beta? I think [[Beta Event]] would be a better page, maybe with sub sections for closed and public. --The Holy Dragons 08:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, all kinds of betas are either closed or public, and it makes for the biggest difference between tests - who are able to participate. I'm also not really sure if stress tests or closed NDA tests count as "events." Mediggo 09:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm going to agree with Holy's logic and conclusion (though I question whether there'd be enough folks in a closed beta to accurately stress test the game, but I digress on that). I think all three articles (BWE, stress test, and closed beta) should be merged into Holy's suggested Beta event (I suggest lowercasing it) page. Konig/talk 09:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

how about the stress test part in the sub section of Public Beta? also I used the capital E in event because of the commonly used BWE where all characters are capitalized. --The Holy Dragons 09:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Whereas Beta Event and Beta Weekend Events are official terminology, "Public Beta" is not and should therefore follow sentence case capitalisation. - Infinite - talk 09:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The article could also be named "Beta test" and everyone would know immediately what that documents on. I don't care whether there is one article or four, as long as all types of tests are sufficiently explained. Mediggo 10:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could merge all the articles into one collective article on the Beta location. - Infinite - talk 10:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

[[beta event]], [[public beta]], [[beta test]] are all terms that will be instantly meaningful to readers. They each have their pros/cons: public beta is parallel to closed beta, "beta event" is a made-up abbreviation of "beta weekend event" (a term ANet made up to label the testing that would be available to those who own a license to the game), and "beta test" is standard for the entire software industry.

So, which one we choose is more a matter of personal preference than accuracy. (We can distinguish terminology within the article; we cannot easily distinguish by our choice of URL.) – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Beta Weekend and Beta Weekend Event are not the same things; The Beta Weekend Events are the events that are also accessible by pre-purchasers. Beta Events are/were not, and are also not a fan-made (or made up) abbreviation of Beta Weekend Events.

That clarified, I still feel Beta, or alternatively Beta test are potential article names, with the former being my preferred choice. - Infinite - talk 16:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

→ moved from Talk:Beta Weekend Event#Merge

I don't see how beta weekend event = stress test. they are different things. and I think that this page should show case each of the beta weekend events that are going to happen I believe Anet said on Facebook some place that the goal was to have one once a month.- Zesbeer 22:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @TEF then link the discussion on the merge tag.- Zesbeer 23:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

They can still all be documented on a single page. Essentially all of them are still beta tests. Mediggo 06:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Is there any objection to combining Beta Weekend Event and Stress test into Public beta (which is parallel to closed beta, the term that encompasses all the other beta tests).

• Public would list any testing that doesn't come with an NDA, including the upcoming Stress Test and all BWEs; currently, these all require owning a license/valid-game-code (i.e. pre-purchase).
• Closed would include any that require NDAs, including press, invite-only, etc.
• As of right now, there don't seem to be any other types (there are no hints that there will be public tests for those who don't already own the game nor further invite-only tests without NDAs)

– Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

as the subject below states neither test is or was public they are still closed tests which you need to prebuy or be invited which dose not = public. a public beta would be were anyone can download the client and play the game. i think stress test and bwe are fine pages and all the bwe's should be listed under bwe. and any stress tests should be documented under the stress test page. i honestly dont see why you guys are trying to merge to things that are completely different things.- Zesbeer 23:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's public in two senses: it's a available to anyone and it's not subject to the NDA. (Sure, you have to own a license, but it's hard to say that 100k users is "private.) The only announced stress test is using the exact same user database as the only announced BWE, so they aren't different things: on a practical basis, the "event" on the 14th is a continuation of the "event" on the weekend of 27 April. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

except for not really seeing as anet wants different things from both so. and it wont be a public event until ANYONE not just people who have bought the game. can play.- Zesbeer 23:48, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge as a sub-section of the main article, it doesn't need its own page. It's not like the last bwe was public as you had to pre-purchase the game. --1.124.42.145 02:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

By that definition of "public," over 4,000 theaters have held "private" screenings for The Avengers (movie). Similarly, (most) public museums and (many) public parks charge fees for admission. The release of GW2 will be "public."

My point, though, is that we only need two articles: one for invitation-only events and one for available-game-owners; there's no hint from ANet of any other type. It's true that goals for the 14 May test are more specific, but ANet was also stress testing during the April BWE. We also haven't distinguished between the different closed beta events, even though the press events were about publicity while the invited-player events were more akin to traditional pre-release testing.

I don't particularly care what we call the articles as long as we end up with two instead of (potentially) one for every event. 16:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I had suggested combining everything into a single Beta page a month ago and still think we should do that so we don't have to have big huge discussions like this over little technicalities. Anything pre-release would just go in a section on the single Beta page. Also, there was a stress test at the beginning of the week before the first BWE. If we are going to document one we should document both and the first one was hands down a closed event. 18:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

One article might be better still. A year from now, no one is going to be particularly interested in jumping between articles to read about outdated beta tests; it will be simpler (and sufficiently accurate) to present all the information in one place. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure a single page can sufficiently cover all the potential information? Yes, I agree that we need one page to cover the "meaning" or the general content behind all beta events. Sort of like a "List of beta events" or something. This page as a summary, providing type (i.e. closed or open), dates, duration, purpose, etc. any information we can put into a table.

Wouldn't each individual beta event deserve a separate page for additional information? They are specific individual events. I'm just thinking that it might get messy when you start condensing these info: How to join, who was eligible, how many servers, problems reported by players before and during the event, the finale event, image galleries specific to each beta event, links round-up of beta impressions, etc. I just don't think all of this would fit nicely on a single page, especially since we don't know how many beta events there might be.

Why not leave the event pages as they are right now and work on a summary page first? Another beta event or two will help flesh it out enough to determine if it's still worth merging. -- ab.er.rant 10:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with suggestions of merging all events into one thread. Beta weekend events are individual happenings, with unique things happening in them (Critter hunt, introduction of new things, first time people can access x or y, etc). This is interesting to read. Basically, ab.er.ant has hit the nail on the head in my opinion. I'd love it if the gw1 wiki had specific pages for the beta weekend events, but unfortunately they predate that wiki. We don't have to have a silly, single page stub for this stuff forever. -- NilePenguin 22:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't think they should move BWE to Public Beta. The official term is Beta Weekend Event, and that's what official sources refer to (and will continue to refer to). They are the things pre-purchase gives access to; if there's a truly public stress test at some point, or if people who signed up for the beta raffle will be allowed into certain events but not into others, having it all dumped into "Public Beta" will only foster confusion. -- NilePenguin 22:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I am for making it [[beta events]] and just listing each event we don't need separate pages for each. but i am against calling it public because there is still a barrier to entry.- Zesbeer 22:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to reiterate the fact that this info will be historical, I reckon we should list all beta events under one article and then list all of the different types as subsections. It will just be like the professions reveal page, where we update the info regularly, or similar to a news article, which is updated periodically. Either way, consolidating the information would be better for readers to seek out information. If they're looking for stress test specifically, then a redirect to its subsection will suffice. There really is no point in having separate articles because they're slightly different from the other. --Xu Davella 06:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

They're slightly different from the other only from a certain perspective. The important question I was trying to make with edit above is: Are we documenting the existence of beta events or are we documenting the actual beta event. If you're thinking of the beta events page as being similar to News, then you're essentially suggesting the former.

One of my main points above hasn't been addressed yet: "I'm just thinking that it might get messy when you start condensing these info: How to join, who was eligible, how many servers, problems reported by players before and during the event, the finale event, image galleries specific to each beta event, links round-up of beta impressions, etc." Add "new features introduced" and "notable changes/fixes" to this list. Of course, these info are really only worth it if we're documenting the actual beta event. -- ab.er.rant 09:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're getting at. In that case, sure, it's a good idea. I still think that stress tests should be consolidated as part of a main beta article at least. And then whatever for the BWE - sub-pages for each event, if you wanted to go into detail? --Xu Davella 12:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Every BWE/stress test/whatever test should just go in to 1 primary article, which I shall refer to as the summary page, something like News, where people can check to find out if there's a beta thing going on. -- ab.er.rant 04:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

With a better understanding of what the "public" meant, and that it was used sort of officially, I went ahead and created public beta. So we have something to work with instead of just discussing things here. -- ab.er.rant 04:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Public or closed?

It's public or it's still closed? 93.146.149.95 16:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

It's only available for the pre-purchasers, so no invites were sent out. --Lania 19:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Unless players are required to sign an NDA (which I doubt), it'll be a public event. I'm not sure what invites have to do with anything. --Thervold 14:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A "public" event is open to anyone without restriction, where a "private" beta has restrictions on who can participate. An "open" beta has no NDA and thus can be talked about, where a "closed" beta has an NDA. So tomorrow's stress test is an open private beta, just like the BWE. —Dr Ishmael 14:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The terminology has become a bit strange. The BWE blog entry ties "public" to meaning "no NDA." Furthermore, Martin Kerstein said on GW2 Guru to "purge the term 'Open Beta' from your brain," tying it to the idea of open access for anyone who wants to join. However, the events preceding the BWE were referred to as "closed beta events," so that makes things a bit confusing. --Thervold 15:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

It's really not confusing; there is no "open beta," because all beta events are scheduled for restricted entry only (you should replace "open beta" with restricted public beta). Public basically replaces "open" in the sense that whilst information is available to the public, not all public is allowed to participate in this stage of development. The events prior to BWE are all all under NDA; they are closed (not open for information to leave the stage of development). There is not a shred of confusion found in ArenaNet's terminology. - Infinite - talk 12:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Now I understand why the previous section proposed "public beta" as the page name. -- ab.er.rant 03:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

They are definitely consistent with their used terminology and thus that's not where the confusion lay. I was initially confused thinking closed/open would be opposites when in fact the antonyms used are closed/public. I sense I'm not the only one who's been initially tripped up by this. Even the wiki FAQ used "open" instead of "public" until I changed it just now. --Thervold 04:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)