Consistancy in 2e?
- Thread starter sidewinder
- Start date
Burger said:Get a life, that is playground mentality.katadder said:as for yourselves, did i ever mention you by name? no so it could have been anyone
Notice the "definitely" bit. You don't even read your OWN posts properly!katadder said:
def·i·nite·ly /ˈdɛfənɪtli/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[def-uh-nit-lee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adverb
1. in a definite manner; unambiguously.
2. unequivocally; positively.
–interjection
3. (used to express complete agreement or strong affirmation): Are you starting your diet tomorrow? Definitely!
[Origin: 1575–85; definite + -ly]
i think you 2 should be playtesters 
if you can argue about nothing so hard then arguing about something you like would work too 
plus it means everyone could harass you as well
guess i should use debate rather than argue to be more polite, i love a good debate even if i agree with someone but have counter arguments i will throw them in to see what else they come up with.
if you can argue about nothing so hard then arguing about something you like would work too plus it means everyone could harass you as well guess i should use debate rather than argue to be more polite, i love a good debate even if i agree with someone but have counter arguments i will throw them in to see what else they come up with.
Captain Kremmen
Mongoose
I think having very competent gamers on the playtest like Katadder will greatly decrease the chance of major fleet imbalances.
Assuming they listened to what you had to say Katadder?
Cpt K
Assuming they listened to what you had to say Katadder?
Cpt K
lol thanks for vote of confidence. its not only listening to what one person says its coming to a consensus and everyone on the team is an experienced player, plus with tourney players like tank myself and triggy then hopefully we caught the most overpowered stuff.
the dag'kar at one point was looking like the new sagi until i showed it in a few games with pure dag'kar fleets (which raped both the ISA and minbos in 2-3 turns max with only 1 lost ship against either). it was said by some no one would take these fleets which is how i imagine the sagi got through originally but as was proved back then people will use whats there.
the dag'kar at one point was looking like the new sagi until i showed it in a few games with pure dag'kar fleets (which raped both the ISA and minbos in 2-3 turns max with only 1 lost ship against either). it was said by some no one would take these fleets which is how i imagine the sagi got through originally but as was proved back then people will use whats there.
An example for you:Jhary said:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=26736&start=77
Either the 2nd playtest group is being kept very, very quiet (so much for drawn from the forum?), or the 2nd playtest group will have to work really fast to test everything before the books hit the printers, or that is a broken promise right there. I guess we'll see.
katadder said:yep blame me
I assume from what you have stated that consensus was reached on them though. I would like to use the DagKar again as Raid level is naff at the moment for Narn.
CZuschlag
Mongoose
Indeed -- I can't imagine given the release date that rules themselves are up for debate in anything but loophole closure. Anything else would invalidate a lot of Tier 1 test work.
Playtest tier 2 would only be able to get at individual ships, and, even then, it's getting FAR too late.
In the Chicago area we might --- might! --- be able to summon up 16-18 players.
Functional testing would then occur by having a fleet of 5 each ship (possibly including a breakdown to get a Scout on the table) vs. 5 of another ship of the same priority. You' run each 1-ship fleet 3 time, minimum, using different players each time (to at least attempt to divide out for player skill variances within the playtest team). So each ship would need three tests. Then, take all the results for the Raid-level ships, put them in either a RPI or ELO calculation system (ELO is probably better with larger sample, RPI is probably better with a small sampler) and generate an RPI rankings. Ships at the top and the bottom end would then be eligible for edit.
Scouts themselves would be excluded (no reason to take a fleet full of scouts). Dedicated carriers, I'd exclude initially as the playtest group would likely need some time to adapt to the new fighter tactics the rules would suggest. I'd also do Armageddon ships last --- they're not used nearly as much over the table (our experiences).
To do this WAY TOO SPARSE unit test, we would need at least 3(number of games) x 1/2(2 players per game) x appx. 210 ships = 415 games to be able to make reasonable statements about the product's balance. With a team of 18 people, which the Chicago area MIGHT be able to summon up -- barely ---, that's 9 simultaneous games; we'd need about 415/9 = 46 sets of games and a big post-mortem meeting to be able to contribute with reasonable authority. If the target release date is August 20, and we fantasized that last-minute changes would only require 2 weeks before printing (not bloody likely!), we'd need 7-8 games per player, per week, to be able to help at this point. And this test would not even Begin to deal with:
--- Balance of Swarm Fleet vs. Big Ship
--- Fighter Balance
--- League Whole-Is-Better-Than-Sum-Of-Parts Phenomena
--- Refit and Duty Tables
--- Campaign Structure Changes
--- Typos
--- Clarifications
If the second wave of playtesters got the product in May or so, there could have been a lot of positive impact; but I think the clock has run out.
Playtest tier 2 would only be able to get at individual ships, and, even then, it's getting FAR too late.
In the Chicago area we might --- might! --- be able to summon up 16-18 players.
Functional testing would then occur by having a fleet of 5 each ship (possibly including a breakdown to get a Scout on the table) vs. 5 of another ship of the same priority. You' run each 1-ship fleet 3 time, minimum, using different players each time (to at least attempt to divide out for player skill variances within the playtest team). So each ship would need three tests. Then, take all the results for the Raid-level ships, put them in either a RPI or ELO calculation system (ELO is probably better with larger sample, RPI is probably better with a small sampler) and generate an RPI rankings. Ships at the top and the bottom end would then be eligible for edit.
Scouts themselves would be excluded (no reason to take a fleet full of scouts). Dedicated carriers, I'd exclude initially as the playtest group would likely need some time to adapt to the new fighter tactics the rules would suggest. I'd also do Armageddon ships last --- they're not used nearly as much over the table (our experiences).
To do this WAY TOO SPARSE unit test, we would need at least 3(number of games) x 1/2(2 players per game) x appx. 210 ships = 415 games to be able to make reasonable statements about the product's balance. With a team of 18 people, which the Chicago area MIGHT be able to summon up -- barely ---, that's 9 simultaneous games; we'd need about 415/9 = 46 sets of games and a big post-mortem meeting to be able to contribute with reasonable authority. If the target release date is August 20, and we fantasized that last-minute changes would only require 2 weeks before printing (not bloody likely!), we'd need 7-8 games per player, per week, to be able to help at this point. And this test would not even Begin to deal with:
--- Balance of Swarm Fleet vs. Big Ship
--- Fighter Balance
--- League Whole-Is-Better-Than-Sum-Of-Parts Phenomena
--- Refit and Duty Tables
--- Campaign Structure Changes
--- Typos
--- Clarifications
If the second wave of playtesters got the product in May or so, there could have been a lot of positive impact; but I think the clock has run out.