Re: Massive Bug? Developers please check!
I think we need to have more people put up houses on Origin and actually play there on the days when new publishes come out.
Here's the problem with Origin... it was touted as a "live test" shard back in the day. Origin was supposed to get stuff for a week before the rest of the world. Origin's not exactly one of the booming shards, and those of us playing on regular production shards aren't going to give up our houses to place on Origin just for the sake of testing. Which leaves people who want to have the cool stuff first (but who also will likely lose stuff -- irreplaceably -- due to the bugs that appear and aren't caught). In short, there's no real good reason to play Origin, and thus, people don't.
Combined with the fact that QA seems to hold stuff up for a couple of weeks, meaning bugs were found, but then Origin gets the publish for 24 hours before we get it, and voila, still things slip through.
My real question though is this: How does QA miss some of these things? I mean, frankly, I'm willing to fly out to Virginia and take over QA at this point, because a simple checklist for each item that needs to be tested, identified by item type, and a subchecklist for each item would go a LONG way in combating all of these bugs.
For instance:
Pub 61 Checklist:
o 12th Anniversary Gifts
o Ticket Item
o Appears in 30+ day character backpack
o Does not appear in < 30 day character backpack
o Menu appears when ticket double-clicked
o Menu has following selections:
o Silver Sapling Replica
o Codex of Virtue
o Mailbox
o UO Banner
o Item selections behave as follows:
And so on...
Basically, they have a checklist that they can build by item type (could put together a basic program that does this, actually, for internal use). Then at least 3 QA people have to check off on each item to ensure that they are working as designed.
And each developer should follow the check-list prior to passing it on to QA.
I mean, basically, all deeded items should have:
o Places properly in house
o Redeeds properly from expected redeed tile when axed
o Does not break when unexpected tile is axed
o Can/not be dyed as expected (differs by case)
It just seems there are some holes in QA, really.