TL;DR: The current event bugs reveal fundamental QA process failures that harm player trust and game longevity. We need to stop accepting "alpha" as an excuse for basic testing oversights. edit: Credit to @Karga11 for documenting these critical freight elevator issues https://robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/3/thread/freight-elevator-issues-and-workarounds/ Hi everyone, at the risk of doxxing myself, I've been working in QA for nearly a decade across AAA and mobile live service games. After observing the community's frustration with the latest event, I want to break down what's happening from a QA perspective and why this matters What's going wrong The bugs plaguing this event aren't complicated at all, or things that evade a competent QA team unless the server experiences significant load. They're basic QA failures. When issues only surface with multiple players or after repeated playthroughs, it tells us one thing: insufficient test coverage. This is what should have been caught: Multiplayer interaction testing: Any event in an MMO should be tested with varying group sizes Regression testing: Running the same content multiple times to catch state-dependent bugs Load simulation: Testing how systems behave under player volume Edge case scenarios: What happens when players don't follow the "happy flow" This isn't advanced QA methodologies but QA 101 which is taught to any junior or intern QA's first day in the office. Why this is wrong (and very costly) Every bug that reaches players costs exponentially more to fix than catching it in QA: Development time: Devs must context-switch from new features to bug fixes, leading to rushed fixes and rushed features causing these issues to snowball Player trust: Each broken event erodes confidence in future content Community management: Resources diverted to damage control Technical debt: Quick fixes often create future problems More importantly, players become unpaid testers (tbf, we all already know this), which fundamentally changes the relationship between developer and community. The PTU Paywall problem There is one elephant in the room. PTU Wave 1 access is essentially paywalled. Only Evocati, subscribers and major backers get first access to test new content. This creates a massive blind spot in testing because: Limited player diversity: First wave testers represent a narrow demographic who may self-censor themselves to retain privileged access Insufficient feedback window: By the time broader PTU waves open, development decisions are largely locked in Echo chamber effect: High roller backers may be less critical or have different play patterns Volume limitations: Wave 1 simply doesn't have enough players to stress-test systems properly This results in critical bugs that would be caught with broader testing slip through. If CIG wants better quality control, PTU should open to all backers simultaneously. More testers means better coverage, more diverse scenarios, and catching edge cases that homogeneous groups miss. Example: The Freight Elevator Buglectric Boogaloo Here's exactly what should have been tested before this event was released. These issues were 100% preventable with proper QA coverage: State Management Testing: Test elevator state persistence when players leave/return to area (30km+ distance) Verify server-client state synchronization (elevator position, cargo status) Test elevator behavior with concurrent users across multiple sessions Validate terminal state when closed via 'X' vs walking away Load and Capacity Testing: Test with exactly maximum SCU capacity per elevator type Test with cargo exceeding capacity (should handle overflow without throwing errors) Test with various cargo arrangements (single layer, stacked, mixed sizes) Test small batches (4-6 boxes) vs full elevator loads Multiplayer Interaction Testing: Test elevator with party members vs non-party members Test chained contracts at same location with different players Test one player calling elevator A up while another sends elevator B down at the same outpost Test cargo visibility across different players on same shard Error State Recovery Testing: Test recovery from "Transferring to Warehouse" infinite spinner Test "Overloaded" error with various cargo configurations Test "Internal Error" scenarios with objects on/under elevator Test "Loading Contents" timeout and recovery methods Object Collision Testing: Test with ATLS placement and removal on elevator surface Test with small objects (medpens, equipment) on elevator housing Test with ship debris or bodies near/under elevator platform Test cargo grid-lock scenarios and destruction recovery Mission Integration Testing: Test missing mission cargo scenarios and alt-F4 recovery Test mission handoff and mission reward sharing between players Test abandoned missions and location accessibility Test shard-locking behavior with party systems All of the above expose integration testing gaps. Not edge cases. All of the above should be core functionality covered in Acceptance Criteria in User Stories, and all this should have been caught by QA in the first 6 hours of testing. What should be done Immediate solutions: Implement mandatory multiplayer testing for all events (assign more than 1 QA to this for the love of the Imperator) Establish minimum test iteration requirements (events should be run at least 5-10 times) Create automated regression suites for critical systems (ok, auto testing is really really hard for games in general. This is probably nice to have) Process improvements: QA sign-off should be required before any event goes live Test cases should be documented and repeatable Bug triage should prioritize player-facing issues Postmortem analysis after every major bug to prevent recurrence Open PTU access to all backers for broader test coverage Of course, all of the above will not be possible without management buy-in. I've had too many incidents where I'd write a comprehensive test suite which covered as much ground as possible only for the Producer to complain to my Project Manager that it was too long, and they couldn't understand anything. Or a Producer had a weird pet project that they wanted to be deployed at all costs. This industry is strange. The "Alpha" problem Here is one uncomfortable truth: Star Citizen functions as a live service game taking real money from players. When ships are sold for money, and the game is running time-limited events, the game is operating as a commercial product. Hiding behind "alpha" status while operating a live service creates a toxic dynamic: Players pay real money but receive janky experiences Community expectations become confused and frustrated Development standards remain artificially low Long-term player retention suffers Why this matters for the future Player retention is everything in live service games. Every broken event doesn't just frustrate current players. It prevents new players from sticking around and creates negative word-of-mouth (not like SC doesn't already have enough of it). The most successful live service games (Warframe, Path of Exile, Final Fantasy XIV) succeeded because they respected player time and money even during the early days, especially when FFXIV 1.0 died in a fire and returned as A Realm Reborn. They understood that player trust, once lost, is incredibly difficult to rebuild. CIG needs to make a choice: Either operate as a true alpha (limited testing, no money transactions, clear experimental disclaimers) or embrace live service standards (proper QA, player-first mentality, commercial accountability). Moving forward The community deserves better, and frankly, CIG has the resources to deliver better. With their funding levels, there's no excuse for basic QA oversights. What we need: Transparency about QA processes and standards Commitment to proper testing before content release Acknowledgment that paying players deserve functional content Investment in QA infrastructure and personnel The gaming industry has learned these lessons the hard way. Games like No Man's Sky, Final Fantasy XIV, and even Cyberpunk 2077 show that rebuilding player trust is possible, but it requires acknowledging problems and implementing real solutions. SC has incredible potential, but potential means nothing if players lose faith in the development process. Every broken event is a step backward from that potential becoming reality. We're not asking for perfection. We're asking for basic professional standards that match the commercial reality of what this game is, and can become for the future.