Playtesting - Your Methods
- Thread starter Tank
- Start date
TenaciousB
Mongoose
I'd play the game with the idea in mind to try and break it, not to just have fun. :wink:
High Sierra
Mongoose
bags of smoke, loads of aggression and straight up the middle.
if one of my ships is left standing at the end then its ok.
if one of my ships is left standing at the end then its ok.
Locutus9956
Mongoose
I will build a fleet wto test and play it against myself with several varying opposing fleets, each more than one time. I try to not put too much faith in results that were very heavily dice dependant (for example if the big ship gets blown up by a luck crit from a flight of starfuries thats not exactly a common occurence 
)
After that I'll take that same fleet and whack it up against real opponents to see how it does.
The thing is initially when playing games against yourself there are several issues to bear in mind.
1) try not to make moves that you wouldnt if you didnt know what was coming for the other side (I like to think I'm fairly good at 'compartmentalsing my thinking' and making decisions for one side without thinking about what I will do with the other side. In all honsety though this isnt actually all that different from how I normally play, ie try to work out what I would do in my opponents shoes and react accordingly)
2) dont play with grand overall plans in mind. If you know the opponents plan beforehand you will inherently move differently.
3) dont favour either side. Hard one this but try anyway!
4) Play each move based on the current situation. Simply put at every stage look at the table and effectively think as 'I have just come to this table and taken command in this situation what move should I make' This can help alot with 1)
Lastly though remember that no amount of playing with yourself (ooooher) can substitute for actual play against a real opponent. No matter how much of a tactical genius you think you are I can guarentee there will be tricks your opponent can throw up that you wouldn't think of!
And lastly and most importantly MAKE THE WARLOCK WAR LEVEL AGAIN!!!
(sorry just taking every opertunity to plug that little crusade of mine )
)After that I'll take that same fleet and whack it up against real opponents to see how it does.
The thing is initially when playing games against yourself there are several issues to bear in mind.
1) try not to make moves that you wouldnt if you didnt know what was coming for the other side (I like to think I'm fairly good at 'compartmentalsing my thinking' and making decisions for one side without thinking about what I will do with the other side. In all honsety though this isnt actually all that different from how I normally play, ie try to work out what I would do in my opponents shoes and react accordingly)
2) dont play with grand overall plans in mind. If you know the opponents plan beforehand you will inherently move differently.
3) dont favour either side. Hard one this but try anyway!
4) Play each move based on the current situation. Simply put at every stage look at the table and effectively think as 'I have just come to this table and taken command in this situation what move should I make' This can help alot with 1)
Lastly though remember that no amount of playing with yourself (ooooher
) can substitute for actual play against a real opponent. No matter how much of a tactical genius you think you are I can guarentee there will be tricks your opponent can throw up that you wouldn't think of!And lastly and most importantly MAKE THE WARLOCK WAR LEVEL AGAIN!!!
(sorry just taking every opertunity to plug that little crusade of mine )Play with a very clear idea in mind of just how powerful a ship should be for it's level, (so another Armageddon Skirmish level Saggi couldn't happen. At those stats, it should've been Raid) to make sure that no superpowerful ships are evident and that badly underpowered ships (al la Neroon) get bumped up a bit.
Purposefully set out to break every list and find the really "beardy" lists, such as the 10 Saggi list.
Endeavour to find the ships that will never see use (Drakh Fast Destroyer, Minbari Trolligan) and try to find what could be done to make people want to take them.
Look out for weird anomalies such as Hunters with 3" Fighter Dispersal Tubes and Drakh Cruisers with Anti-Fighter on ther big rear beam, and make sure Mongoose know well about them. Ok, so this is basically proofreading the playtest sheets, but still is a worthwhile job for a playtester.
Purposefully set out to break every list and find the really "beardy" lists, such as the 10 Saggi list.
Endeavour to find the ships that will never see use (Drakh Fast Destroyer, Minbari Trolligan) and try to find what could be done to make people want to take them.
Look out for weird anomalies such as Hunters with 3" Fighter Dispersal Tubes and Drakh Cruisers with Anti-Fighter on ther big rear beam, and make sure Mongoose know well about them. Ok, so this is basically proofreading the playtest sheets, but still is a worthwhile job for a playtester.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
My overall playtesting is to create a campaign of maybe 6 fleets, and play all the possible matches from it we can (so we don't always roll randomly, and sometimes choose where to move based on the battle that will ensue). That way we test individual ships in a variety of scenarios & against a variety of opposition, and test their viability in a campaign. Since most if not all the others are testing stand-alone battles with effectively unlimited fleet resources, testing the campaign application of ships, fleets & rules is also a necessity (I'm still not happy with the Carrier recovery rules).
Wulf
Wulf
Playtesting Tips:
1. Use a standard scenario, such as Call to Arms, Space Superioryity, or Annialation. Use the same scenario for your first dozen or so games. This allows a baseline for comparison. I prefer Call to Arms as it has no terrain.
2. Try to break the system. Look at the strongest and weakest fleets you can field at a given prioriry sytstem
3. Do not use a Campaign basis for playtest unless you are testing the campaign system itself. Most games tend to be pick-up battles or tournament play. Test to what your market is going to play
4. Look at Maximum and Average damage that a weapon system can do.
5. Use a variety of different players to run each given race. They should have different skill levels. NEVER playtest alone as this can allow personal bias into the playtesting.
6. Document as much as possible opinions, strategies, and battle information so that when the playtest reports go back to the designer you can provide clear and logical opinions as to what is good and what is bad regarding what you are testing.
7. Strive for Balance. In a minatures game, if a player has within a 10% varrience of a 50-50 chance of winning a given scenario, balance is likely acheived. This rewards people for developing good tactics on the tabletop.
8. Playtest with the base size/counter size that the game is going to be produced with. Thus if you have a FA Scale Warbird, base it to the 2" round base, not a 1" hex base that the mini came out with. This allows you to see how the game will be played by people who are buying the system for the first time.
Just my 2 cents.
Dave
1. Use a standard scenario, such as Call to Arms, Space Superioryity, or Annialation. Use the same scenario for your first dozen or so games. This allows a baseline for comparison. I prefer Call to Arms as it has no terrain.
2. Try to break the system. Look at the strongest and weakest fleets you can field at a given prioriry sytstem
3. Do not use a Campaign basis for playtest unless you are testing the campaign system itself. Most games tend to be pick-up battles or tournament play. Test to what your market is going to play
4. Look at Maximum and Average damage that a weapon system can do.
5. Use a variety of different players to run each given race. They should have different skill levels. NEVER playtest alone as this can allow personal bias into the playtesting.
6. Document as much as possible opinions, strategies, and battle information so that when the playtest reports go back to the designer you can provide clear and logical opinions as to what is good and what is bad regarding what you are testing.
7. Strive for Balance. In a minatures game, if a player has within a 10% varrience of a 50-50 chance of winning a given scenario, balance is likely acheived. This rewards people for developing good tactics on the tabletop.
8. Playtest with the base size/counter size that the game is going to be produced with. Thus if you have a FA Scale Warbird, base it to the 2" round base, not a 1" hex base that the mini came out with. This allows you to see how the game will be played by people who are buying the system for the first time.
Just my 2 cents.
Dave
By all accounts, the playtesters do report this sort of thing back to Mongoose. Oddly, what seems to happen over and over again is that these corrections are made and then the "wrong" version gets sent to the printers. Now I can understand this once or twice, but it seems like this issue is popping up on just about every publication they do. It's very strange.
For the playtesting side, I think something that could help is the use of tools like Vassal that could save the turn by turn moves and results so that the engagement can be analyzed after the fact by the folks in Mongoose. Might allow them to see trends from the players and adjust things accordingly.
The one thing I fear though is that you'll wind up with a general leveling of all ships so that they are all effective in all situations. So you might as well have just 6 ships for each race. 1 at each level. I realize that for many people this sort of thing already happens, but there are a few places where the ships have legitimately different roles and reasons for choosing them. The Nova Vs. the Hyperion is a perfect example. Both are Raid level choices, but both offer very different things. With the Nova you get lots of fighters and tons of AD to throw at an opponnet. It's slow, and the range isn't that great, but when it opens up it can produce some spectacular results. The Hyperion on the other hand has a very big gun sitting on its nose with some great range. No need to worry about interceptors and if you get those beam hits going it'll rip stuff to shreds in no time flat. Trouble is the thing is fragile so they tend to get blown up pretty quick unless you have a bigger target in the area to distract the enemy.
If there were more situations like this where it comes down to philosophy of play (Brawl Vs. Snipe) instead of raw numbers then I think things would be more interesting.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Play as many scenarios of as many types as possible. Do not simply ignore the requirements of different scenarios because they don't suit you.Davesaint said:
Fair enough, but don't simply ignore the normal, most likely fleet choices in order to do so.
Always consider the effect of new ships, fleets or rules on the campaign game. Otherwise you will be ignoring a large part of the rules.
Fair enough.
Play with the players you have, don't just recruit random passer's by. Your regular player will, after all, be the likely customers for the product.
Fair enough, but a bit obvious.
Fair enough, but always take the actual scenario and victory conditions into consideration.
As there are no required base sizes, this is largely irrelevant, although it should be noted where it might be noticeable. It would be more relevant to ignore the official bases and play with counters.
Wulf
Obsidian said:
Totally, the only problem comes from the fact that a lot of these specialsed for certain roles ships often aren't as good at it as the bog standard brawler.
Prime example is the 2 Drakh Raid level ships. I've never known anybody to take a Fast Destroyer over a Light Cruiser. Perhaps this is because the Light Cruiser is slightly too powerful for it's level, or perhaps it's because the Fast Destroyer loses too much over the Light Cruiser to get a slight speed Increase. The Light Cruiser is capable of handling any situation where a Fast Destroyer might have been a logical choice.
Again, this comes down to having very clear ideas of what a ship should be capable of for it's level and either upgrading or downgrading ships to fit.
That's precisely the sort of problem I'm talking about. Stat wise in many of the lists one of the ships is just a blatantly obvious choice so you're left wondering "Why would anyone pick an X"? Omega Vs. Orestes for example. Who in their right mind would take an Orestes? I mean maybe if all those beam weapons were forward arc instead of bore you could look past all its other deficiencies, but as it stands the thing just stinks.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Why is that a problem? Why is choice and variety a problem?Obsidian said:
Wulf
angelus2000
Mongoose
Orestes isnt a terrible ship. dam/crew, hull, and speed are about right, it just need more weapons.
Wulf Corbett said:
Wulf,
If playtesting was done just with the counters supplied with the game, I would be ok with that.
As far as recruiting other players of different skill levels, this is important. When I am playtesting a minatures system, I tend to like to recruit other minatures games players to evaluate the system. Also, if you are basing a game on simplicity, it is often good to try the game out with people who are new to minatures gaming to see how quickly they can understand the basic premise of the game. This also allows you to see how clearly your rules system has been written. The other advantage to this is that if they enjoy the game, and feel that it is interesting and fun, they will tend to get into minature gaming.
As far as scenario choice, the reason to select a single scenario in early playtesting is to reduce the number of varriables involved in evaluating the given ships. One of the reasons I like scenarios like CTA for playtesting is that it removes stellar debris and JP/AJP as varriables. It allows for the testing of firepower under "ideal" situations. After a series of battles under Ideal situations, then you can add in terrain, Jump Points, etc.
As far as campaign play for playtest of ship design and balance, the only thing that really needs to be tested is what the refits/duties need to be, and how the experience points on a given ship effect it's play balance. Items that are greatly effected by experience points on the table top would be Dodge, steath, and scout funtion rolls. The refits and duties can be tested on a scenario by scenario basis by making adjustements at the time of playtest. To be honest, there are very few new ships in the game since the SFOS, with the exception of the Drakh and the Dilgar, that have had a significant effect on the campaign game. The exception would be the division of EA in Armageddon. The only other ship I would consider to be a big deal for campaign play would be the WS Carrier.
As far as the Victory conditions for a given scenario, they make no difference in the balance of a given races ships. Now if you are playtesting the given scenario, then yes, but the balancing of the ships should be done prior to scenario generation. A given race should not be balanced based on a random die roll regarding what scenario is generated.
Dave
Becasue there isn't a choice as thePirv has already pointed out. For some of the ships in the fleets it is a total no-brainer to the point where picking another ship doesn't give you different options, it just degrades your fleet's combat effectiveness. Tell me why you'd take a Fast destroyer over a Light cruiser? Speed is the big thing, but in game terms tell me what 4" of extra movement really gets you.
Give the thing moree AD in the front and 1 more hull and I have to decide between a ship that charges headlong into the enemy and gets shot up a bunch while leaving or a ship that is more versatile yet slightly weaker. Now I'm making a choice based on play style instead of stats alone.
Wulf, I didn't know you ran campaigns to playtest. Good idea and it sounds like a lot of fun.
There's a whole lot of discussion via email throughout the playtesting. Initial kinks and imbalances get ironed out. We're probably up to 50 or 60 emails a day between all of us. Adding more playtesters was a good thing.
But emails are in no way a substitute for playing games. My method is pretty basic. New fleets first. I had a very interesting game of Psi Corps vs. the Gaim as soon as I had a full version of 2E for example. Then more of the new fleets, followed by new ships (whether brand new or ships that have been tweaked for whatever reason). Pretty basic. The fleets with new rules get more playtest games. Then there's the issue of rules changes (get ready for some in 2E), which are constantly being discussed in my gaming group and amongst the playtesters.
I've not playtested the campaign rules (during playtest, but I do love regular campaigns), there's a couple of other guys that pay a lot more attention to them and the campaign tables have always come out pretty good. I'm probably a lot more focused on ship balance vs. PLs. I'll let a few fleets take preference, other playtesters have their pet fleets. Like I said before it's good that we have more playtesters.
There's a whole lot of discussion via email throughout the playtesting. Initial kinks and imbalances get ironed out. We're probably up to 50 or 60 emails a day between all of us. Adding more playtesters was a good thing.
But emails are in no way a substitute for playing games. My method is pretty basic. New fleets first. I had a very interesting game of Psi Corps vs. the Gaim as soon as I had a full version of 2E for example. Then more of the new fleets, followed by new ships (whether brand new or ships that have been tweaked for whatever reason). Pretty basic. The fleets with new rules get more playtest games. Then there's the issue of rules changes (get ready for some in 2E), which are constantly being discussed in my gaming group and amongst the playtesters.
I've not playtested the campaign rules (during playtest, but I do love regular campaigns), there's a couple of other guys that pay a lot more attention to them and the campaign tables have always come out pretty good. I'm probably a lot more focused on ship balance vs. PLs. I'll let a few fleets take preference, other playtesters have their pet fleets. Like I said before it's good that we have more playtesters.
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
Because I want to? Because I like them? Because I ran out of Light Cruisers in my Campaign Fleet? For a change? For variety? To try out a specific tactic? Because I painted the mini a great new colour of puce?Obsidian said:
More and more I am convinced that the vast majority of problems in ACtA are caused by people who have virtually no interest in PLAYING the game, but only in WINNING it...
Wulf
Celisasu
Mongoose
Wulf Corbett said:
To a lot of people that is the point of the game. Well more precisely they want to play and win. Since ACTA isn't a historical simulator a lot of us are more interested in a balanced game where we have a reasonable chance of winning no matter what race and priority level is going on. Do we expect a perfect 50/50 chance assuming equal skill? Not really. That level of balance is impossible without perfectly equal(and thus boring) fleets. But I do believe it's reasonable for everything to at least be 60/40 assuming equal skill and that you're not using a lot of ships that'd be a bad choice in an engagement(for example a player using all Explorers in a 5 point battle should expect to lose unless his opponent is using an equally messed up fleet. Although where the EA got ten Explorers when it supposedly only has six will be one of the mysteries of the galaxy after that battle).
Now players can choose to just play with people who have the same gaming style if they want. For example you obviously prefer a more campaign oriented game with less emphasis on brutalizing your opponent. But a lot of us only play one off games and since those are pretty much only being played on the expectation that we have a chance of winning that means that the part of your last comment that I quoted is accurate(well other than the assumption that you can't be interested in both playing and winning).
Perhaps playtesters should include a mix of people who are playing for enjoyable campaigns and hard core win at all cost players?
Wulf Corbett
Mongoose
But also they want the whole game to be centred around THEIR ideas and THEIR way of playing. Their One True Way of gaming must rule. If it doesn't suit that style of gaming, it is Wrong and must be Changed.Celisasu said:
Now, I can see that some things just ARE wrong - the old versions of Shadows and Vorlons, for instance. But now we have pretty good versions, it's generally agreed, and suddenly we have shrieks of horror from those who are appalled that suddenly they can't play them in their 5 point Raid game. Probably the very same people who shrieked about how weak they were before...
We do. But when we reach a compromise, there will always be someone else who can only see weaknesses in ships that aren't optimised and munchkin enough for their game.
Unless and until Mongoose decide to come down firmly in favour of one type of gaming and gamer over another, playtesting and the final product will be a compromise. But there are some who can't accept a compromise, and must always see a clear winner.
Wulf
