Armgeddon is just annoying.

[Davesaint]

Wulf, just asking for info - who were the other playtesters involved with armageddon? Matt reffered to a group called the "5 Good Men" - are you and the other testers these guys?

That's us, yes. I won't embarrass myself by mis-remembering who the other 4 are... :roll:

Wulf

There's only FIVE playtesters? That is truely shocking.


Dave

 

[emperorpenguin]

Wulf, just asking for info - who were the other playtesters involved with armageddon? Matt reffered to a group called the "5 Good Men" - are you and the other testers these guys?

That's us, yes. I won't embarrass myself by mis-remembering who the other 4 are... :roll:

Wulf

There's only FIVE playtesters? That is truely shocking.


Dave

Five groups remember and in fact for Armageddon there was at least one more US group

Besides SFOS had 30 groups AFAIK and look how balanced that turned out....

Too much feedback gets chaotic and harder to balance

 

[Davesaint]

That's us, yes. I won't embarrass myself by mis-remembering who the other 4 are... :roll:

Wulf

There's only FIVE playtesters? That is truely shocking.


Dave

Five groups remember and in fact for Armageddon there was at least one more US group

Besides SFOS had 30 groups AFAIK and look how balanced that turned out....

Too much feedback gets chaotic and harder to balance

Not enough groups means that there are not enough variety in playing styles to adaquitely playtest rules changes.

As a game designer I would rather have more feedback in the initial testing then less.

Dave

 

[emperorpenguin]

Not enough groups means that there are not enough variety in playing styles to adaquitely playtest rules changes.

As a game designer I would rather have more feedback in the initial testing then less.

Dave

Well all I can offer you by way of my opinion is that SFOS was very badly playtested, and that used a large number of playtesters.

SST only has 6 and that does well too.

 

[Davesaint]

Not enough groups means that there are not enough variety in playing styles to adaquitely playtest rules changes.

As a game designer I would rather have more feedback in the initial testing then less.

Dave

Well all I can offer you by way of my opinion is that SFOS was very badly playtested, and that used a large number of playtesters.

SST only has 6 and that does well too.

I agree with you that the quality of the playtesting in SFOS was subpar. If you have a group of 30 playteest groups that have never playtested before and don't understand how to playtest that is an issue. I am not saying that is what happened for SFOS. However, I would rather have a selection of about 15 or so groups who are trying to bend/break the designs using different tactics and styles of play, then only 5. When you get down to 5 groups you can have significant problems with a lack of different playstyles.

Dave

 

[Geekybiker]

Main problem with a small number of groups would be the limited number of games they can get through. Luck and averages and all that.

 

[H]

and with so few testers, are you likely to get bias? imaging if all the playtesters were EA? oh wait.. the saggi ;-) I'll be the first to admit, I would be trying to get the EA less stuff!

 

[emperorpenguin]

Main problem with a small number of groups would be the limited number of games they can get through. Luck and averages and all that.

Well considering i discharged myself against doctor's advice from hospital 9 days after badly breaking bones in a car crash to get home and playtest ACTA, I managed to play a huge number of games over the xmas and new year period, as did the other guys. The excellent balance in the tourney list was testament to that

 

[emperorpenguin]

and with so few testers, are you likely to get bias? imaging if all the playtesters were EA? oh wait.. the saggi ;-) I'll be the first to admit, I would be trying to get the EA less stuff!

Well we've a healthy mix, no one fleet dominates. Between ourselves and our gamers every fleet is covered several times over!

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I think some people might be (unpleasantly) surprised how few playtesters some game companies use... some test entirely in-house with just the single ref/GM!

Wulf

 

[emperorpenguin]

I think some people might be (unpleasantly) surprised how few playtesters some game companies use... some test entirely in-house with just the single ref/GM!

Wulf

and I know who GW uses, some of them are terrible at gaming! Doesn't inspire confidence!

 

[E Nicely]

Playtesters don't have Armageddon? So has Armageddon been playtested???

No we've never played CTA and paid Matt so we could put "playtester" in our sigs.

 

[lastbesthope]

Playtesters don't have Armageddon? So has Armageddon been playtested???

No we've never played CTA and paid Matt so we could put "playtester" in our sigs.

Just be sure that Ted gets his cut or there'll be trouble

LBH

 

[emperorpenguin]

Playtesters don't have Armageddon? So has Armageddon been playtested???

No we've never played CTA and paid Matt so we could put "playtester" in our sigs.

Just be sure that Ted gets his cut or there'll be trouble

LBH

doesn't he mug Matt for his lunch money?

 

[lastbesthope]

Too much effort, the local eateries send him the entire menu everyday on the off chance he gets hungry.

LBH

 

[E Nicely]

Well all I can offer you by way of my opinion is that SFOS was very badly playtested, and that used a large number of playtesters.

SST only has 6 and that does well too.

Right. I remember the proposed rules changes threads before SFOS on this board (that and Revised are the only CTA books I haven't playtested) and they were a mess. Too many cooks spoil the sauce. Playtesters with very little experience that think they can get an accurate read on the game as whole by only looking at stats, not knowing how SO's work on the table, only playing 1 or 2 fleets, ect., ect. will get involved if you let everyone get a shot at it.

And as far as differing playing styles in the US that were mentioned earlier-no one I've ever played with has come to the table saying they or any one else has a unbeatable fleet, they don't look at the other guy's fleet and get ready to concede if its' better, they don't use comparing stats on the internet as a substitute for actual gaming experience. Everyone comes to the table pretty confident they will win. Super-agressive play.

And I'm not saying *anyone* outside of the US is a bad player. There's some people over there I would love to play against.

 

[emperorpenguin]

Too many cooks spoil the sauce. .

I thought it was broth! :lol:

 

[E Nicely]

Too many cooks spoil the sauce. .

I thought it was broth! :lol:

We don't eat broth in the US :lol:

 

[TenaciousB]

well, if its groups of playtesters that were sought for, that's fair enough - I would like to offer a nice wee group from Northern Ireland, sho would love to put some input into this muched-loved game in the future.

 

[Pauly_D]

From what I've seen they're scattered around a bit, though. Wulf up north, I think there's one in the south of England somewhere...

yeh thats me

and about the questions of bias we all mostly play different fleets, i play Dilgar, Greg is the ISA master, Wulf plays Drazi, Gavin plays Centauri... and in everyones group they play against i'm sure all the fleets get covered by a lot of people, in the group i play against at least one person plays everys fleet