How much Influence do we as players wield?

[Wulf Corbett]

When it's a case of larger scale list changes that's the case (such as multiple ships being thought of as over/underpowered, even when there is a consensus between virtually every player). However, from what I've heard, even the playtesters aren't always agreed with on every issue :shock:

Well, of course not. If the playtesters agreed on every issue, it would be the same as only having a single opinion!

The views of the forum are addressed in playtest, and a number of issues are put to us for consideration, either amongst ourselves or by Matt. But in a number of instances, there has been no action afterwards, bcause we simply didn't believe it was needed.

Wulf

 

[thePirv]

BUT only having five playtesters is blatantly not working for ACTA, otherwise there wouldn't need to be constant rules updates and clarifications to rules that have been part of the game from day one.

There were never 5 playtesters, that would involve Erik jetting across the atlantic every day to play the remaining 4 of us.....

There were 5 guys with their own circle of gamers and players so you're looking more at (I'll hazard a guess 30) not taking into account Mongoose HQ
There are now 7 playtesting groups too

I realise that the playtesters obviously weren't playing each other but rather had their own groups, but the fact remains that it was just the 5 voices being heaard.
I'm glad to hear that this number has increased to 7, but i still don't think the current playtest situation is performing properly, otherwise constant corrections and FAQ/errata wouldn't be necessary, especially on something like Stealth, a core rule to the game from the beginning and only just resolved.

 

[emperorpenguin]

I realise that the playtesters obviously weren't playing each other but rather had their own groups, but the fact remains that it was just the 5 voices being heaard.
I'm glad to hear that this number has increased to 7, but i still don't think the current playtest situation is performing properly, otherwise constant corrections and FAQ/errata wouldn't be necessary, especially on something like Stealth, a core rule to the game from the beginning and only just resolved.

This is only my opinion BUT

The problem with stealth was that the Minbari ships were too hard, even once you beat stealth their ships were often as tough as yours. This happened in SFOS which had a really, really large number of playtesters...
Kind of spoils your argument

The current crop of playtesters have been at it since xmas, the first thing we did was the Tournament lists which weakened the Minbari so that WHEN you beat stealth it hurt them. When Armageddon came around we playtested what Matt presented for fixing stealth in such a way as to be compatible with SFOS.
So tell me how does that mean we're not up to the job?

There has been ONE faq/errata since we started and ONE rules update

 

[Ripple]

Cannot personally agree that there was one. The tournament pack was in effect an update/errata that was then replaced by Armeggedon. Arm. itself felt like a update release that just went on for several months because we got it in dribs and drabs and effectively reverted the earlier tournament list to SFoS.

While in a techincal sense the tournament pack was its own list and seperate from the core game in effect it was not and became at least in part the core list for many people. It represented a striving for balance in one direction that folks believed would at least in part be similar to the direction Arm. would go. That a totally new direction was chosen for certain base rules, fighters and stealth, the tourney direction for others, whitestars and no attempts at balance were made for yet others, Sulust/Sag. makes some players feel that the adjustment/playtest enviornment must be in some state of chaos as we cannot tell from one release to the next what direction Mongoose is going.

I am not saying that the playtesters caused this confusion, but that the playtesters come on and defend the process that seems so disorganized and random makes them part of the target of players dissatisfaction. You are an inherent part of the process that produced the confusion and therefore get part of the response to that process/confusion directed at you. As players, the playtesters are our only advocate in the process, and if we feel the process is not serving us well, we tend to want more or different advocates. Given we cannot vote, we go for a 'pack the court' approach and hope that if enough playtesters are chosen our views will somehow be represented closer to the ear of Mongoose.

Gah...too much...sociology flashbacks

Ripple

 

[thePirv]

Yes, I know SFOS had too many playtesters. I've already sad that i don't think there should be loads of playtesters, but a few more playtesters couldn't hurt and would probably be beneficial, especially if people were chosen who are going to go out of their way to find the really broken combinations such as the old Tourney Shadows 2 Hunters and a Scout, or the new Early EA 10 Saggi list so that these problems can be dealt with before a product is released.

Hell, just look at Gaelcon. The tourney at Gaelcon will be using SFOS Tourney lists because Armageddon wasn't out early enough. Except that in the Tourney list, the organisers have changed the Saggi to Raid level and the Shadow Hunter will be hull 5 in order to strive for some BALANCE

 

[Voronesh]

What i think might be missing, are some playtesters that have a tic or two about wargaming.

Like someone who applies statistics everywhere. The Sag stands out there like a beacon.

People who really try to break a game, poring over lists, until they find a combination/synergy that is way too good. Synergy with yourself like the Sullusts....

 

[Triggy]

Like someone who applies statistics everywhere. The Sag stands out there like a beacon.

People who really try to break a game, poring over lists, until they find a combination/synergy that is way too good. Synergy with yourself like the Sullusts....

He he, never tried that one

 

[Locutus9956]

speaking of that has anyone ever tried 10 Xixx? Its not the 10 Sagg fleet but it strikes me as potentially rather nasty Still at least in that case your fleet is made of carboard and much easier to kill

 

[thePirv]

Funny, i was thinking about the Abbai.

10 Miliani Carriers (i think that's what they are) or 15 of the Patrol level ship with the single dice Precise beam.

 

[Triggy]

Funny, i was thinking about the Abbai.

10 Miliani Carriers (i think that's what they are) or 15 of the Patrol level ship with the single dice Precise beam.

Actually a mix of 5 Milani and 10 Tiraca (with 2 being the Bisaria variant) is a fleet I've been looking at. It's pretty interesting and plays not quite how most people perceive the Abbai as a static, defensive fleet.

With the 10 Xixx - I've tried it (well, discussed it and had it tried against me) and it's ok - immensely powerful against some fleets (generally slower ones) as their super manoeuvrability keeps their weak hulls from being shot but against a longer ranged fleet (either on the guns or potentially in speed) they get shot up pretty quickly. It's fun and it keeps you on your toes though.

 

[katadder]

the 5 milani and 10 tiraca is a fleet i have used and am currently building, it has suprising amount of firepower.

 

[Voronesh]

No ofc i havent been thinking about you Triggy!!!

The 10 Xixx fleet has some serious firepower, but theyre made of paper and balsawood.

Its like a fleet of 5 hyps. In theory more firepower than 5 Sullusts, but the balsa construction kinda stops it.