How would you pick Tespia participants?

What you do is hold registrations (like KMST) for those who WANT to participate in Tespia. Then you have those who register, on their applications, explain in full detail why they want to participate and how efficiently they would search for and report bugs. Then you proceed to pick the top applicants from the list to be your testers.

It's a more work-heavy process, but it would definitely turn out better than choosing people randomly, who probably don't even want anything to do with a test server.

If I was Nexon America?

Whoever bought the most NX.

What you do is hold registrations (like KMST) for those who WANT to participate in Tespia. Then you have those who register, on their applications, explain in full detail why they want to participate and how efficiently they would search for and report bugs. Then you proceed to pick the top applicants from the list to be your testers.

It's a more work-heavy process, but it would definitely turn out better than choosing people randomly, who probably don't even want anything to do with a test server.

kMST doesn't have registrations. It's a "pick me pick me -pulls random people from hat-" sort of thing, afaik.

kMST doesn't have registrations. It's a "pick me pick me -pulls random people from hat-" sort of thing, afaik.

Well, it's more or less "Registration." The players have to click a "pick me!" button thing to be legible for the test server. At least that way, it cuts out the people who don't want to play.

There should be some way to accommodate those people who do want to test things. I am sure a lot of people who wanted to get into Tespia for GMS didnt and a lot who couldnt care less got picked.

It means you're not poking around, getting in the details where bugs/glitches tend to pop up.

...In your history of MS would you say a majority of the bugs/glitches come from Quests?

I'm sorry but if you're below 120 how would you even know what important glitches to look for in terms of the larger amount of gameplay. The level requirement is fair because it comes with experience. Quests are pretty irrelevent and can be fixed easily, glitches unreported could take up to half a year to even be looked at..

This.
If you have never experienced 4th job how the heck would you scout that content for bugs and general oddities? It's not like you have experienced it until you have the skills mastered in terms of usage and know how the high level areas and bosses work. Quests are important though, because they take you around the Maple world and let you do stuff a pure grinder would never even try. You will then know how stuff works all over the place and would have a tremendously easier time to spot inconsistencies and errors. I think it is safe to say that a lvl 150+ quest specialist on average is capable of doing a much better job than a lvl 200 bishop without more than the most important quests done or a level 50 Page wise in the lore of MS.

What about people like me? I've played for 5 years, done thousands of quests, etc and I had a lv 175+ char, but now my highest is under level 80...

I'm sorry but if you're below 120 how would you even know what important glitches to look for in terms of the larger amount of gameplay. The level requirement is fair because it comes with experience. Quests are pretty irrelevent and can be fixed easily, glitches unreported could take up to half a year to even be looked at..

Both high level and low level content needs to be tested, and by appropriately levelled characters.
How would you test Episode 1 (GMS-exclusive content, btw) on a level 150 quest specialist? Even if the level caps for the quests and portals were removed (which would open the door to different bugs), if you one-hit Andras how would you be able to tell if there's something wrong with its attacks (e.g, 10 minute stun instead of 10 second)?

This.
If you have never experienced 4th job how the heck would you scout that content for bugs and general oddities? It's not like you have experienced it until you have the skills mastered in terms of usage and know how the high level areas and bosses work.

I believe in the copy-characters-over model of Tespia, not the level-up-NPC one. You know your existing character, whether it is level 50 or 150. Changed skills and mobs are going to throw you off to begin with, but you are still best qualified to test content meant for that job and level.
Maple has a lot of low-level content to be tested, including the entire character creation process, so I would not disqualify someone who only has low level chars. They will only get to test low-level content, that's all.

What you do is hold registrations (like KMST) for those who WANT to participate in Tespia. Then you have those who register, on their applications, explain in full detail why they want to participate and how efficiently they would search for and report bugs. Then you proceed to pick the top applicants from the list to be your testers.

It's a more work-heavy process, but it would definitely turn out better than choosing people randomly, who probably don't even want anything to do with a test server.

Questers are more likely to be sufficiently inquisitive to want to check out the new content. That's why I'd prefer them to grinders or socializers.
Using applications can yield much better results, but, reread the OP. I am assuming Nexon is too lazy / short-handed to go through that process. I'm trying to suggest something that wouldn't take much more effort than a random drawing, and still give significantly better results.

get nx wh0res.
end of story.

People with most login hours.

If I was Nexon..? "Introducing for a limited time only Tespia Entry Tickets! Get yours in the Cash Shop today!" Insert flashy banners and such promoting the buying of NX here. And here. And there too.

If I was Nexon..? "Introducing for a limited time only Tespia Entry Tickets! Get yours in the Cash Shop today!" Insert flashy banners and such promoting the buying of NX here. And here. And there too.

Oh God, dear God.

Nexon simply did this.

http://forum.nexon.net/MapleStory/forums...87886.aspx

I uh... I can't think of any bugs I've found that have been fixed.

I smell a Tespia opening coming up this week or next week. What do you think?

I uh... I can't think of any bugs I've found that have been fixed.

Uh....Nexon fixed bugs?

Both high level and low level content needs to be tested, and by appropriately levelled characters.
How would you test Episode 1 (GMS-exclusive content, btw) on a level 150 quest specialist? Even if the level caps for the quests and portals were removed (which would open the door to different bugs), if you one-hit Andras how would you be able to tell if there's something wrong with its attacks (e.g, 10 minute stun instead of 10 second)?

Such a vast amount of data in a limited time such as a week? No. This is where we decide what is more urgent, I'd rather never be able to asteroth PQ which is level what? Until 30? In comparison of being dced at something like zakum which is open content too me until level 50 to 200. Glitches such as ones that are content focused on <80 is essentially worthless excluding a few pq's which are very active and we'll be delt with anyway. Have you seen how annoying 1000 12 year old's are who lack the patience to train more than an hour? A nightmare to the ticket system, I assure you.

If such content needs to be tested than it shouldn't be all in one go, rather in segments. Make it so that only one character can be transfered at one point, such as the episodes you mentioned. To collect an array of data from 10-150 content would be impossible unless they forced players to play the game in segments. "For 1 week you will play level 10-70 content" and so on and so forth. Content that needs to be addressed is content every player will spend majority of their time, bossing, skelegons, OB4. Although the players population reflects that most characters are below 100 and only like what? 10% is above 150, the content that the 15x players use is what players at 11x can use.

I think there should be a mix of high and low-level characters. Having a 120+ cap is really dumb in my opinion, because content that was prepared for low levels would need to be balanced for low levels. Not to mention that there could be glitches that disappear (i.e. a certain level of x skill does not have a certain secondary effect).

Me? My highest leveled character is 101. But I've explored (or tried to explore) as much of the Maple World as I can because I'm not that motivated to train at the moment. I take the time to do as many quests as I can, not zooming to 4th job and playing with THOSE toys. Why the pineapple should I have to worry about getting to 4th job if I want to test everything, if I'm already trying out things at 101? I'd go so far as to say that it's an elitist move to put any sort of level cap above, say, 50. Go ahead and call me an inexperienced papaya, but from my point of view there should be both "inexperienced" and "experienced" players, as long as they're completely willing to test for bugs.

I'd go for
- At least 4 classes played past 2nd job (maybe got 4 different chars to 50+ in the account)
- At least one 4th job character
- Must have sent a ticket at least once
- Account older than 3 years
- Must have clicked the thing they use for random tespia selection for all the tespias before (that shows that they've wanted to test)

I would also have a "be a part of Southperry" as a req, because it shows some knowledge about the game beyond just playing, maybe at least "be part of one of the main fansites about the game".