Beams Why?

[Burger]

TBH I think you playtesters are given the data far too early on in the design process. From what I've seen you are more like unpaid game developers, rather than beta testers.

 

[katadder]

well the information could be classed as finished until it gets playtested and then goes bak to the drawing board, before a new version is released for playtesting.
cant playtest without all the info now can we?

 

[Triggy]

TBH I think you playtesters are given the data far too early on in the design process. From what I've seen you are more like unpaid game developers, rather than beta testers.

I'd agree with that description, even though I'm not unhappy with the position

 

[Greg Smith]

TBH I think you playtesters are given the data far too early on in the design process. From what I've seen you are more like unpaid game developers, rather than beta testers.

I'd agree with that description, even though I'm not unhappy with the position

I concur. I'm enjoying having an input into a game I love. It is an awful lot of work, though.

 

[emperorpenguin]

TBH I think you playtesters are given the data far too early on in the design process. From what I've seen you are more like unpaid game developers, rather than beta testers.

and is that a bad thing?
It is as Greg said a lot of work, but a labour of love

 

[Da Boss]

Thanks for all the hard works guys - lots of respect cos I doubt it is in any way easy!

 

[Triggy]

Thanks for all the hard works guys - lots of respect cos I doubt it is in any way easy!

Cheers!

It's hard to keep up with large updates of about one entire fleet a week at the current rate! Add on top of that consensus only coming after enough games have been played for disparate opinions to come together and yes, it is a lot of work

 

[MongooseMatt]

TBH I think you playtesters are given the data far too early on in the design process. From what I've seen you are more like unpaid game developers, rather than beta testers.

We have a cracking team working on CTA right now, and the ideas are coming thick and fast. The general process is my sending them rules or fleet lists that are heading in the direction I would like them to go in, and they get refined from there.

However, they also come up with their own ideas - some a little too far 'out there', some a little too complex. . . and some that hit the nail right on the head. Those are the ones I like, seeing a proposal that, as soon as I read, I just _know_ is right in concept. The new Narn Energy Mines suggested last week, for example. Nail right on the head. As a bonus, it is also the sort of tweak that will get (Narn) players hopping up and down in excitement - I am trying to get at least one such tweak into every fleet list so that, no matter what fleet you play, you'll get something really cracking, rather than just a 'ho hum' update.

Thanks to the hard work of these guys (and I have yet to work out a suitable reward, though one has been promised ), I am really getting the feeling that 2e will be _the_ definitive CTA. Everything it has been, and everything it could be. . .

Basically, I think people are going to love it

 

[Burger]

I'm sure what you say is true, and I know how much the playtesters love what they do, otherwise they wouldn't do it And of course I am grateful for the time they put in. I think the increased number of playtesters and the pre-release proof-reading will add greatly to the quality of 2e.

But I think there should maybe be a second tier of playtesters, who check for things that get "through the net"... such as the Sagittarius in Armageddon. I'm sure that it was playtested and about 12 different versions were tried with about 30 different rule sets and variations... and that is part of the problem... the playtesters know the new rules and the stats too well and study them for too long to spot what a fresh set of eyes could find.

 

[emperorpenguin]

I think Burger wants a job :wink:

 

[H]

uh oh.... another e-mine change.... I have to say the origional rules were bloody tough, then they went too weak, and then Advanced e-mines made no sense really, so I'll put my faith in whomever came up with it, unless it was a dastardly centauri player!!

 

[Burger]

I think Burger wants a job :wink:

Not really I don't want to be a flak target

 

[tneva82]

Basically, I think people are going to love it

I love it already just from premise of not having to buy n+1 books to get up to the date on current edition :lol:

Though all the goodies you have hinted at sounds great as well. Will be interesting to see what centauri's will be(concidering I bought bunch of centauri's alongside 3rd age EA...). Row upon row of ion cannons sounds like a nice idea. Can't help wondering range, fire arcs, AD's and traits they are going to get

 

[katadder]

I'm sure what you say is true, and I know how much the playtesters love what they do, otherwise they wouldn't do it And of course I am grateful for the time they put in. I think the increased number of playtesters and the pre-release proof-reading will add greatly to the quality of 2e.

But I think there should maybe be a second tier of playtesters, who check for things that get "through the net"... such as the Sagittarius in Armageddon. I'm sure that it was playtested and about 12 different versions were tried with about 30 different rule sets and variations... and that is part of the problem... the playtesters know the new rules and the stats too well and study them for too long to spot what a fresh set of eyes could find.

its not that some stuff gets through the net, its just that sometimes not all the players agree.
personally i dont like the new e-mines but atm they may not be changing, will have to wait and see, but if these e-mines do go though remember that i said here i am against them :lol:

 

[Reaverman]

but if these e-mines do go though remember that i said here i am against them :lol:

Until they bring out another rule book to amend them :roll:

 

[Locutus9956]

Which will in turn be updated in the next issue of S&P after that

 

[Reaverman]

Sorry, but my optimism of a 2e being the 'All singing, all dancing' soluton, is pretty low.

 

[emperorpenguin]

uh oh.... another e-mine change.... I have to say the origional rules were bloody tough, then they went too weak, and then Advanced e-mines made no sense really, so I'll put my faith in whomever came up with it, unless it was a dastardly centauri player!!

Erm yep I'm a Centauri player!

 

[emperorpenguin]

Will be interesting to see what centauri's will be(concidering I bought bunch of centauri's alongside 3rd age EA...). Row upon row of ion cannons sounds like a nice idea. Can't help wondering range, fire arcs, AD's and traits they are going to get

Well this is what Matt said in the "Progress on 2nd ed" thread

Centauri ships now have a tendency to mount rows and rows of Ion Cannon (generally Double Damage and Twin-Linked), and Matter Cannon are more prominent. Whereas the EA concentrate their to the sides, the Centauri go up front (think Vorchan and other smaller ships - the larger ones now follow suit). Side weaponry is proportionally lighter, and only the largest vessels will have firepower to their rear

 

[CZuschlag]

This isn't too far, now, from the Dilgar concept of rows upon rows of AP, DD weaponry -- in anything, Twin-Linking is better (vs. anything but Hull 6, and even then, it's very close). Will there still be enough of a differentiation between the new Centauri and the Dilgar, or will one sort of be subsumed in the other -- no real tactical differences to be found? This possibility is slightly worrisome to those of us who play Dilgar.

I'll just have to wait and see.

EDIT: The are CAF considerations, now that I think about it, but with CAF based on CQ check, that is Far less relevant than it used to be.