Live Review Process

[fluffmonster]

A dicussion needs to be had concerning the live review process.

The last several mods to go live were all reviewed by TDawg. It took a great deal of time. It was not unusual for weeks to pass before he got the time to look at the mod, and then inspect it, and then the ensuing question and answer with the builders. A big reason for it to take so long is that there was no guidance from builders given along with the mod.

HEEGZ, I suppose you are at liberty to do the go-live check as you will, but I would like to offer some suggestions and also let the nwn2 builders have some input as well.

Basically, I'm thinking that if builders submit some documentation along with the module it can greatly ease the review process. Such documentation would be useful for far more to the server teams themselves, but I'll not go into that right now.

I believe the primary concern of live review, aside from basic technical readiness of the mod, is things that affect game balance - sources of xp, wealth or items. If builders document these things, then live review can be something closer to a spot check and less a full-on detailed inspection. Here's the things I can think of:

Static quests: brief task description, location, permissions (who can get the quest), CR, reward.

Spawns: if there's something akin to an encounter table, that along with loose location description would probably be sufficient. Also, relevant reward with particular attention to magic items. I'm not exactly sure what would be best to provide here that would give sufficient information for a live review without being unduly burdensome.

Merchants: sell and buyback rates; permissions (any restrictions on who the merchant will serve); and any magic items (properties and prices).

This is just what I could think of off the top of my head in a brainstorming kind of way. If builders document this kind of stuff as its built, its much less work than having to go back through the mod once its done. I'm hoping at this point builders haven't done too much of this stuff and rather more landscape and interiors and such.

So, let's share thoughts. Its important to have an understanding between all parties as to what will be needed at the go-live review before too much more work is done.

[HEEGZ]

Hmm, I got a PM about this the other day and am waiting on a reply from Rusty about a few things. I figured anyone on the standards team was open game for helping test servers for Live. Standards Lead, currently Rusty, would oversee the review of each server and pass a recommendation to the DMA. I figure the more the merrier for helping check servers, with the DMA having the final say. I'm pretty open to suggestions, so feel free to comment with anything you guys think needs to be addressed. I'll post some more thoughts later as I'm short on time atm.

[Rusty]

I had sent HEEGZ a PM of my initial thoughts on the subject before I had seen this thread, but they are broadly aligned with those of fluff.

Although we face a large number of servers applying for Live status at once, much of the work that has been done/is ongoing for both Standards and the ABR should make the process of server review considerably easier than it was for NWN1 servers. In particular, standardised palettes, scripted loot, and a general recognition of wealth and XP standards ought to reduce numbers of friction points.

I had suggested to HEEGZ that a document outlining both build standards and a server review process ought to be made publically available (effectively, Wikified) as soon as possible and that I would do this as and when the relevant decisions had been made. I also emphasised that the process of review is made considerably easier by the co-opting of build teams into the process. The more information builders provide, the better; and, as fluff has noted, it is considerably easier to document this as the module is being built than it is afterwards. Any feedback or advice is, of course, most welcome.

[Rotku]

What about include a printable checklist, for players? Something that they can just have by their computer when Beta-ing and just tick or cross different things.

[Audark]

Whatever we need to do I'm willing,

so if we have

Every static quest briefly described - with rewards
Every merchant (with emphasis on magic items) detailed
All Spawn Points or Groups detailed,

that should ease pressure immensely?

Also in my discussions with Ronan, the scripted loot is going to hopefully remove the wealth end of concerns over spawns, leaving xp to keep track of, which i believe is much simpler.

lastly may I suggest that detailing every merchant may be unnecessary. Perhaps detailing all merchants who sell/buy magic items, items over a certain gp value, or who have strange sell and buyback rates for some reason.

I don't really see the need to detail every mundane armorsmith and fletcher on server, but even this is a minor alteration to fluffs intentions.

[Rusty]

I am considering furnishing every NWN2 Server team with a spreadsheet in which to record the information that will be required for the Review process.

EDIT: Please see this thread.

[ç i p h é r]

A checklist like that would be great, Rusty. It would definitely simplify the standards review process and clarify what we need to have in order to streamline the review.

[Donrath]

Great idea, Rusty.

Don

[Rusty]

Alright. I'll check over what Standards will expect to be looking at come Review time again and then post an Excel sheet on the DMftp (assume that format is alright for all) which build teams can fill in as they progress. (It will be a prerequisite for being reviewed.) If anyone can think of anything I'm missing from there, now's the time to speak up.

[Castano]

Tdawg used a similar list system for Moonshaes when it was reviewed...it went smoothly once we got up and running....however having it set up before the mods are built would make it a lot easier as I could put the requested info in a noteboak and fill in the data as I build.