Greg Smith
Mongoose
msprange said:
Thank you for the compliments Matt.
Fleet updates via S&P?
- Thread starter Foxmeister
- Start date
Thank you for the compliments Matt.
ATN082268 said:
I disagree - well, partly. Five _was_ too few, hence us expanding the group. However, you start hitting the law of diminishing returns as you up the number (and we have conducted playtests with a couple of hundred people before, as well as the much larger 'open' playtests we run from time to time).
Looking at what Greg's said I feel a bit sorry for them and us too because there are a few things that are horrendous Blue Stars Jump Point bombing springs to mind. I had :shock: twelve :shock: put four jump points on three of my four Narn escorts. After that they were behind my fleet, at no point did I stand the remotest chance of winning.
It was a complete waste of my valuable free time.
Allowing the playtesters one game to test something is not testing at all in my book & now I know why some things are so obviously wrong. Shame really.
It was a complete waste of my valuable free time.
Allowing the playtesters one game to test something is not testing at all in my book & now I know why some things are so obviously wrong. Shame really.
hiffano said:
I can't speak for Katadder, but you would be surprised how much wargaming goes on in Iraq
Greg Smith
Mongoose
There was even a con last year - Ziggurat Con.
I applaud the playtesters for their time and effort, I really do.
But it does get frustrating when you see things that are clearly crap. The abbai fleet has a number of issues, but you look at the shyarie, and you wonder what role it's supposed to play to be that weak. That the only answer I've gotten on it is that they had to worry about it's use in league fleets was laughable.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see some one in that group keeping a log of the philosophy of how the ship get where they are. Knowing why a specific ship gets where it is, is as important as playing it. As you can't go back and make changes without knowing why you got to the place your at first. Take the Demos/Vorchan debate that's ongoing. Why did anyone think you could just slap on an interceptor, increase range and call it even? There had to have been a reason.
Why did white stars go to front instead of bore... well we know there was an all whitestar fight and they couldn't boresight enough. Of course this fits with the show where they fire their pulse weapons a lot without firing their lasers... but eh... the battle in question 'showed' that the bore whitestar fleet wasn't viable (at least in the opinion of the testers at the time.)
Ripple
But it does get frustrating when you see things that are clearly crap. The abbai fleet has a number of issues, but you look at the shyarie, and you wonder what role it's supposed to play to be that weak. That the only answer I've gotten on it is that they had to worry about it's use in league fleets was laughable.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see some one in that group keeping a log of the philosophy of how the ship get where they are. Knowing why a specific ship gets where it is, is as important as playing it. As you can't go back and make changes without knowing why you got to the place your at first. Take the Demos/Vorchan debate that's ongoing. Why did anyone think you could just slap on an interceptor, increase range and call it even? There had to have been a reason.
Why did white stars go to front instead of bore... well we know there was an all whitestar fight and they couldn't boresight enough. Of course this fits with the show where they fire their pulse weapons a lot without firing their lasers... but eh... the battle in question 'showed' that the bore whitestar fleet wasn't viable (at least in the opinion of the testers at the time.)
Ripple
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Ripple said:
A log? A philosophy? That sounds rather grand.
Ripple said:
It was a case of X playtester thinks it is fine and Y thinks it is too good. And Matt is final arbiter. At least one playtester still thinks it is fine.
That is pretty much it. That is how playtesting works - make a change play games to try it out. Email the results, discuss with other playtesters, Matt makes a decision. Again another playtester thinks boresight Whitestars are fine.
Whether it fits with the show is another factor in playtesting, there was one playtester who knows every effects shot and every technobabble line from the show and was insistent that everything we did should fit in with that, while others were keener to keep it simple and playable.
The playtesters aren't a Borg-like unified mind. We're more like a committee.
Greg Smith said:
Your just trying to throw us of there aint ya Mr Smith! lol
On a more serious note reguards the whitestar, I think the number of AD/traits of the weapon are a factor to it's dislike. IF it is indeed to be changed and this is just something I have been think over I would change it from Tripple damage 2AD to Double Damage 4AD B arc Precise. That would bring it more in line with other ship's that are raid level and all those people who go I miss with 2AD and do nothing! Should at least be able to score a hit with 4AD. I think one of the worst factors is a Tripple damage crit really rips through a ship.
I can't see the argument on the WS boresight, heard many times it's not viable. but then neither is a 5 Var'Nic fleet. it's a fleet game, if someone takes 5 boresight whitestars then they get what they deserve, there is a fleet to choose from, and a wad of allies that would make this higly maneuvreable ship absolitely fine if it was boresighted. it still has those pretty devastating pulsars for forward arc
As You say Greg, everyone has different opinions, and some people will be more vocal than others, whilst some people may be too passive at times, always going to be a problem, and I suspect one that you would never overcome no matter how many people playtested.
As You say Greg, everyone has different opinions, and some people will be more vocal than others, whilst some people may be too passive at times, always going to be a problem, and I suspect one that you would never overcome no matter how many people playtested.
Joe_Dracos
Mongoose
Well, I've just read through three pages of commentary. I'd have to say that when it comes to playtesting a game of this magnitude the task seems daunting. I've been mulling over some ships that I've created. I want to send in a signs and portents article outlining Mine warfare in ACTA. Even if each fleet got one minelayer and one minesweeper thats still alot of ships to playtest. Its going to take me a while.
Esentially, I agree with Matt. I could not do better. It would be a monumental task to go over every ship in the game and make sure its where its supposed to be and if it needs "tweeking".
I would be more likely to say that I think I could add a perspective on the matter however, but nothing more.
The number of playtesters is not important. Nobody will ever produce the perfect game (look at how many revisions 40k and fantasy battles have gone through).
The point is I guess, is that ACTA will be an ever changing and ever evolving entity. The day it stops changing is the day it is officially "dumped" for other projects.
Esentially, I agree with Matt. I could not do better. It would be a monumental task to go over every ship in the game and make sure its where its supposed to be and if it needs "tweeking".
I would be more likely to say that I think I could add a perspective on the matter however, but nothing more.
The number of playtesters is not important. Nobody will ever produce the perfect game (look at how many revisions 40k and fantasy battles have gone through).
The point is I guess, is that ACTA will be an ever changing and ever evolving entity. The day it stops changing is the day it is officially "dumped" for other projects.
Guess I was just saying that I would hope that one or two battles wouldn't overturn weeks of other testing with the whitestar thing, and that at least one or two other answers for the situation would be presented before resorting to changing stats.
ie in the whitestar case - fleet game... work better in larger numbers, whitestars work great in ambush/hyper drop scenarios (commonly seen in show), whole other fleet to fill out with, don't always fire the beam every time in the show...
Some track of the development might show where these kinds of things just fail to have any impact on the process. ShopKeepJon keeps asking every time the Abbai come around what they are supposed to be trying to accomplish, as most of us are scratching our heads trying to figure out not only how they got the way they are, but how to help them do SOMETHING well.
Ripple
ie in the whitestar case - fleet game... work better in larger numbers, whitestars work great in ambush/hyper drop scenarios (commonly seen in show), whole other fleet to fill out with, don't always fire the beam every time in the show...
Some track of the development might show where these kinds of things just fail to have any impact on the process. ShopKeepJon keeps asking every time the Abbai come around what they are supposed to be trying to accomplish, as most of us are scratching our heads trying to figure out not only how they got the way they are, but how to help them do SOMETHING well.
Ripple
Greg Smith
Mongoose
Ripple said:
A single battle didn't change something that was tried and tested. Something was changed, tested, found wanting and changed back, then time ran out.
That is true. But ambush type scenarios aren't well represented in standard games - and I imagine most players won't want to be on the receiving end of an ambush just so their opponent can use his Whitestars. Constraints on firing both weapons isn't currently something that exists in the game. Sometimes playability has to win out over the show.
Again it comes down to time constraints. There were thousands of emails and hundreds of word documents over the course of playesting 2e. We all had jobs as well as playtesting, while Matt has a company to run and other games to write.
Documenting the reason how and why each and every ship changed (and some changed half a dozen times or more) was not practical, nor neccesary at the time.
Guess we'll have to disagree on the necessary part. For me it's just like history... don't know it, you'll make the same mistake again and again.
Go back to the Demos... why did it get the interceptor and nothing to off-set it? Whitestar... why was it's operation as a single hull type in play so important that it was changed?
( Ambush type scenarios include any scenario that has hyperspace deployment. So not exactly hen's teeth we're looking at. )
I agree the time commitment could be an issue, but I would have been happy to volunteer to keep stuff current. I just don't think a committee design team without a secretary will be able to keep everything floating evenly along. Just too many wheels spinning there, but that's me.
Look at what happened to the bimith... no one seems to have run it much, or really thought out what it did in the fleet. Was there a score sheet somewhere with tallies of what ships had been in how many playtest reports, just so you knew if it had been run much, by different folks?
That's all I'm saying... there will always be gaps and lock of time to fill them... but keeping a record of what your doing that isn't 3000 individual entries can help spot them and at least prepare you for the next time you get a chance to run around with the spackle.
Might have helped spot that different teams were using different standards for 'in contact' with the fighters too... or maybe not... but it's just a tool I'm suggesting.
(on the whitestar thing... there was short run between me and someone else on the boards about the one battle changing it after it had been set for a couple of weeks or so... if that was in error, please don't jump on me... I can only report what I've seen from out here on the edges of the process... if I had been told there was more than one battle involved in it's 'testing' I likely would have been less disappointed, as no idea can be adapted to in a single fight)
Ripple
Go back to the Demos... why did it get the interceptor and nothing to off-set it? Whitestar... why was it's operation as a single hull type in play so important that it was changed?
( Ambush type scenarios include any scenario that has hyperspace deployment. So not exactly hen's teeth we're looking at. )
I agree the time commitment could be an issue, but I would have been happy to volunteer to keep stuff current. I just don't think a committee design team without a secretary will be able to keep everything floating evenly along. Just too many wheels spinning there, but that's me.
Look at what happened to the bimith... no one seems to have run it much, or really thought out what it did in the fleet. Was there a score sheet somewhere with tallies of what ships had been in how many playtest reports, just so you knew if it had been run much, by different folks?
That's all I'm saying... there will always be gaps and lock of time to fill them... but keeping a record of what your doing that isn't 3000 individual entries can help spot them and at least prepare you for the next time you get a chance to run around with the spackle.
Might have helped spot that different teams were using different standards for 'in contact' with the fighters too... or maybe not... but it's just a tool I'm suggesting.
(on the whitestar thing... there was short run between me and someone else on the boards about the one battle changing it after it had been set for a couple of weeks or so... if that was in error, please don't jump on me... I can only report what I've seen from out here on the edges of the process... if I had been told there was more than one battle involved in it's 'testing' I likely would have been less disappointed, as no idea can be adapted to in a single fight)
Ripple
Greg Smith
Mongoose
That all comes down to the format of the playtesting, something with which we have little control over. Each playtester doesn't neccesarily see the reports from every other tester.
You have to remember that everything that we playtesters do is dependant upon Matt, and he is as human as the rest of us.
You have to remember that everything that we playtesters do is dependant upon Matt, and he is as human as the rest of us.
<Snip Post>
Completely disagree. The more playtesters you have, the more likely you are to catch stuff like errors and unbalancing factors of a game. Do you (or anyone else) have a rationale for fewer the playtesters, the better?
Strawman argument. Nobody has suggested there is a way to produce a perfect game (just a better game).
Sincerely,
Andrew Norris
Joe_Dracos said:
Completely disagree. The more playtesters you have, the more likely you are to catch stuff like errors and unbalancing factors of a game. Do you (or anyone else) have a rationale for fewer the playtesters, the better?
Joe_Dracos said:
Strawman argument. Nobody has suggested there is a way to produce a perfect game (just a better game).
Sincerely,
Andrew Norris
ATN082268 said:
Yes, the Law of Diminishing Returns - as stated earlier in this thread, we have run playtests ranging from a dozen participants to a couple of hundred. We have run playtests in a range of formats, from set piece Q&As to the playtester/sub-developer arrangement we have with the Five Good Men. We have even, from time to time, released intentionally buggy texts to playtesters to measure their responses. With every step, we refine the playtesting process.
However, you cannot move away from a fundamental point. If GW (2,500-odd employees) and WotC (with, what, 150-odd these days?) are unable to release a game that does not need revision and errata, and we are not talking about new editions but bona fide fixes, then you will also see that duplicated in a company, like Mongoose, that has 1% of their staff numbers. You can scale this up too - think of computer games companies that have the capability to pour a million Pounds or more into a project (even seen a buggy computer game?) or international publishing houses (ever seen a typo in a novel?). The problem is that all those companies rely on one fallible factor.
We all use humans.
Now, you _can_ armchair design, and think 'well, I wouldn't have made that mistake.' Maybe not - but other issues would have arisen. You have to remember, the people who do this have many years of experience, and do this full-time, each day and every day.
You mentioned making games better, not necessarily perfect - I would have to ask, is that not what we have been doing? Compare 2e with the first CTA box set - better balanced, more comprehensive. . . a better game.
Your issue of numbers in the playtest has less relevance once you pass a specific point (diminishing returns again) but you also have to realise that whether we used 5, 50, or 500 playtesters, their work would pale into insignificance compared to the thousands who will end up buying the game, and spend potentially hundreds of hours each playing it. That is the other reason games companies produce new editions (the first is that any organic system that grows over time will need 'trimming' from time to time), refining what they have learnt in their own games, and from feedback from the largest pool possible, over an extended period of time.
We could include the entire CTA community in playtesting a new edition, and resolve all issues - but the game would never be released
Being glib about it, there is an old saying that films and novels are not so much finished as abandoned. The same factors can apply to games.
GW revise their games every X amount of years or so as part of their business strategy. It’s questionable if some of their revisions have been a positive move 2nd ed 40K to 3rd for example. Space Marine was one game they broke & have never been able to recover.
People are also getting pretty peeved at the extra pounds each 40K update costs as a Codex ‘update’ invalidates half your unit choices & requires you by new ones to make it competitive again. People with several armies suffer more, I now have three 40K armies none of which I can be bothered to update just so they can break them again.
