Playtesting - Your Methods

Davesaint said:
Some can be a little bit better, some can be a little bit worse. But it shouldn't be one is an awesome ship and the other is pants.

When I do playtesting I like to take a given race and nominate them as the control or baseline race. Then work from there.

Spot on! Agree with almost everything you have to say there.

Although it wouldn't do to have every ship at each PL, each race identical - where would be the fun in that? (Not saying you are suggesting that BTW). Ships can, and should ideally be, quite different at each PL...just fairly good choices nonetheless.

Every ship, every unit should have a purpose, a use in a certain context / environment or against a certain opponent that makes it a viable and cost effective choice for the commander.

It should be about trade offs, i.e. do I want firepower, armour, hits, speed etc more than something else? If most of one race's ships focus on firepower or one other trait, then that's fine. The "gaps" in their fleet characterize their ships, giving them a unique "flavour" and playing style (like boresights and heavy armour for the Drazi) - BUT choices that are there just for the sake of variety aren't really choices at all IMO.

From what I have seen of the Gaim (and to some extent the Psicorp) fleets, the playtesters have their work cut out for them looking at the stats but whatever they end up like, the new races will definitely have a different flavour all their own!

animus said:
Make it a game, balance the fleets, impose rules to PREVENT breaking the system if you need to (limit the number of specific ships that can be chosen for example) Proofread the books! People who don't know a Narn from a Psicop will buy and play this game if it's a good enough game. I'm not sure it's there yet.

Well said that man! Speaking as a player introduced to ACTA without having watched B5 at all, I agree 100% with his sentiments.

P.S. Everyone - chill the sarcasm and personal comments, its just a game we play for fun, and amusing as reading some of it is - it detracts from the points you're trying to make.

Yes different players get different things from the game and want to see different things from how playtesting is conducted. Fine. As I see it, these boards are the perfect place to vent how you feel about this aspect of the game or other so there's no need to take anything personally just sit back and have a Coke!
 
Lowly Uhlan said:
No one called you or anyone else the scum of the earth but I guess it wouldn't be the internet if people didn't get their feelings hurt when they're made to feel like they're not being taken seriously. Kind of like a little kid getting poked in the eye on the playground.

No, nobody called us scum of the earth, those are my own words, but it doesn't change the fact that Wulf seems to think that playing to win is a bad thing, and that he has dim views on people who play to win. I'm not getting hurt about not being taken seriously, I'm just angered by the fact that there are major issues with a game i really like, and some people are trying to deny these issues with arguments of choice.
Again, i have nothing against choice. I like choice, but when the choice is between a very limited number of ships that will win me the game, and several poor ships that will result in an almost definite loss, there really isn't much choice at all. Obviously I'm going to choose to try and win.

Lowly Uhlan said:
If you think that there isn't a major focus on playability and balance in CTA then you're reading some other version of the game that I've never seen. I guess that the game is so geared towards fluff and useless ships that you have a hard time winning games, building fleets pisses you off so much that you can barely stand it, whatever. If you don't think there's enough of a selection of competitive ships in the game then you need to have someone sit down and teach you how to play (you know, tactics, fleet selection, stuff like that).

No, no hard time winning games, but this is because i choose from the ships that will win games, not fluffy fleets that have a great "story" behind them, but that couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
And what game are you playing where everything is so perfectly balanced, because it certainly isn't ACTA, especially since Armageddon came out. Want an example... No way is the Neroon balanced against any other Armageddon level ship.

Lowly Uhlan said:
But you're obviously the only segment of players that should be represented. No fluff text, a maximum number of AD, Hull 5 or 6 on every ship, maximum amount of traits. Got it. If other players like campaigns, are really into B5's background, or play so many games that they'll different ships just because they don't normally play them (and maybe even win with them) they're wrong and we should just go straight to you for your stamp of approval. Got it. But obviously players that like campaigns don't like winning any way so forget about them.

Did I say I want the whole game to be based around the same ships with the same stats, just different names for their respective races? No. What I said was, I'd like the option of taking different ships, but so long as taking a greater diversity of ships is going to cause me to lose way more games than I win, then there really isn't such diversity or choice extant within the current system.

And again, how will balancing ships hurt Campaign players? If anything it will help make campaigns better, UNLESS you're playing truly fluff accurate campaigns, in which case there's no point playing the Campaign because you can forcast the results based on Fluff. However, if you want to play a fluff based campaign, but perhaps see if the Shadow War would have turned out differently, then balance within the lists is the Best Way Forward.
 
TenaciousB said:
Fourthed, on the side of thePirv, Hash and Burger!

I've often had the thought that the majority of the rules were put in because that's the way the playtesters like it, and thought "to hell with the guys who play pick-up games". Nice of you to confirm that, Wilf.


I'm sure you meant that in jest but it's not fair or right.
Amongst the playtesters I BELIEVE that Wulf is the only non-tournament player. He plays campaign games where the rest of us are more into "pick-ups" (not the truck....) so there is no Mongoose conspiracy on those lines.....
 
Davesaint said:
What needs to happen with play balance is to set a standard of what is average for a given PL and keep all of the ships in that PL roughly equivilent.

That can be a little difficult. If the Nova is average, what is the White Star? Even comparing the capabilities of a G'Quan and Primus can be subjective.

Some can be a little bit better, some can be a little bit worse. But it shouldn't be one is an awesome ship and the other is pants.

Absolutely. Each ship should have strengths and weaknesses. Balancing them is the tricky part. :)
 
Davesaint said:
When I do playtesting I like to take a given race and nominate them as the control or baseline race. Then work from there.

Dave
That's exactly the point of view I'm taking and part of the reason Mongoose have just taken on three successful tournament players - to know what is the median and try and see where all of the fleets and ships fall regarding this. Anything that falls to one side or the other should be looked at with closer scrutiny although not necessarily changed.
thePirv said:
Wulf Corbett said:
I said I did not playtest with the primary intent to break the game

But as a playtester that should be one of your main roles. I'm not deliberately misrepresenting you, you're doing a fine job of misrepresenting yourself, you don't need my help.
Rest assured, I'm taking the point of view of trying to break the game and the fleets in any way I can to try and ensure what's left is balanced and fair. Some matchups will still be one sided (in a rock paper scissors kind of way) but that's the way some of the core mechanics work. In general I'm striving for each fleet to have an equal chance of winning any given battle whilst maintaining as wide a variety of ship and fleet styles and functions as possible. After all this is a game of tactics, strategy and luck so the more (viable) options are viable to the player, the better.

Also, I'm a Babylon 5 fan first and foremost. That's what got me into the game in the first place. The fluff is hugely important, and I want to be able to recreate some of the epic moments and capture the feel of the show. By keeping the rules and fleets balanced we will hopefully help to keep the focus firmly on playing the game and enjoying the hobby (e.g. modelling, painting and collecting) and away from "which ships are broken?" :)

Triggy
 
Ooh, this therad started with a few ideas, perhaps it was always destined to go into the realms of antiplaytesters unfortunately. Also unfortunately, is the sarcasm and derogatory comments from a couple of said playtesters.

Guys, you are the voice of mongoose for this game, telling people they don't know how to win, or being blatantly sarcastic about them isn't going to win you any fans. Their are probolems with one or two ships, we all know that, and from some of your comments, you know that as well. Being overly defensive won't help, being sarcastic won't help, and telling people they need to learn to play the game won't help. If you are not going to post somehting polite and constructive, why post? it's just creating more emnity which when you are working on V2, you really don't need.
 
Greg Smith said:
Davesaint said:
What needs to happen with play balance is to set a standard of what is average for a given PL and keep all of the ships in that PL roughly equivilent.

That can be a little difficult. If the Nova is average, what is the White Star? Even comparing the capabilities of a G'Quan and Primus can be subjective.

Some can be a little bit better, some can be a little bit worse. But it shouldn't be one is an awesome ship and the other is pants.

Absolutely. Each ship should have strengths and weaknesses. Balancing them is the tricky part. :)

Actually, it isn't all that hard. What I would look at for baseline ships are the Iconic hulls for EA. I would use the Hyperion for Raid, Omega for Battle. Prob. the Rail Hyperion for Skirmish, and prob. the Hermes for patrol. Adjustments can then be made based off damage potentials, hull values, speed, defenses etc. Frankly speaking the WS right now is just about spot on. I had lobbied my group for 1 extra AD of pulsars, but the old tourney version is close enough.


Dave
 
emperorpenguin said:
I'm sure you meant that in jest but it's not fair or right.
Amongst the playtesters I BELIEVE that Wulf is the only non-tournament player. He plays campaign games where the rest of us are more into "pick-ups" (not the truck....) so there is no Mongoose conspiracy on those lines.....

To be fair, I know Mongoose is listening to the players - I was just making a sarky knee-jerk remark because I've been very much let-down with Armageddon, and I'm still waiting on my new Dilgar ships. :wink:

In all seriousness, I don't think it's right for some of the playtesters to come onto the forums and tell everyone else, people who have paid their money to the company, that their ideas are rubbish and to stop being so stupid (of course, I paraphrase). Everybody wants to see change for the better, and in sharing and trying out ideas, that's how positive changes will happen, instead of telling others to pipe down because they want trait X for their fleet.
 
Balancing unusual ships is very subjective. We are on the fifth version of the White Star. The 2e will have the sixth.

Shadow ships have gone through a similar number of variations.

Balancing 'standard' ships isn't neccesarily easier. If I asked the players on the board to compare the G'Quan to the Primus, I think results would be split evenly between which was better and whether they were equal.
 
Greg Smith said:
Balancing unusual ships is very subjective. We are on the fifth version of the White Star. The 2e will have the sixth.

Shadow ships have gone through a similar number of variations.

Balancing 'standard' ships isn't neccesarily easier. If I asked the players on the board to compare the G'Quan to the Primus, I think results would be split evenly between which was better and whether they were equal.

Greg,

I understand that we are on the 5th version of the White Star, but I have to believe that the change from the 5+ dodge to the 3+ dodge should have been recognized in playtesting as over the top. when you go from a 1/3 chance of making a given AD miss to a 2/3 chance, it should be pretty obvious.

As far as the Primus Vs. The G'Quan, pre-Armageddon, I would suggest that the majority of the vote would be for the Primus. The changes in the E-mine rules makes a big difference in the viability of the E-mine. However I will take the forward arc 6AD SAP DD Beams everyday including Sunday over the boresighted 3 AD SAP DD Beams of the G'Quan.

The thing I haven't understood is why ships with full forward arcs have more AD on their beams than the Boresighted beams. As a balancing factor, I would have gone the other way around as it is harder to gain a boresight arc than a forward arc.


Dave
 
Primus is slightly better then the G'quan... what is broken is that you would never see that fight.

the fight you would see would be the Tertius v. the G'Quan... which is an even uglier battler for the Narn
 
Davesaint said:
I understand that we are on the 5th version of the White Star, but I have to believe that the change from the 5+ dodge to the 3+ dodge should have been recognized in playtesting as over the top. when you go from a 1/3 chance of making a given AD miss to a 2/3 chance, it should be pretty obvious.

The point of the change was to make the WS more viable. Originally the ISA was intended as a fleet for more experienced players. The change in SFoS was intended to make it a more straightforward fleet to play, which it did.

In fact it achieved what the designers intended. Why should it have been recognised in playtesting? Why should it not have been seen by the designers? Surely they were succesful in their intention and so did not see a problem.

My point is it is not always easy to make every ship balanced for every player and every style of play.
 
Davesaint said:
The thing I haven't understood is why ships with full forward arcs have more AD on their beams than the Boresighted beams. As a balancing factor, I would have gone the other way around as it is harder to gain a boresight arc than a forward arc.

I've wondered that myself. Seems like an easy balance there. :wink:
 
Greg Smith said:
Davesaint said:
I understand that we are on the 5th version of the White Star, but I have to believe that the change from the 5+ dodge to the 3+ dodge should have been recognized in playtesting as over the top. when you go from a 1/3 chance of making a given AD miss to a 2/3 chance, it should be pretty obvious.

The point of the change was to make the WS more viable. Originally the ISA was intended as a fleet for more experienced players. The change in SFoS was intended to make it a more straightforward fleet to play, which it did.

In fact it achieved what the designers intended. Why should it have been recognised in playtesting? Why should it not have been seen by the designers? Surely they were succesful in their intention and so did not see a problem.

My point is it is not always easy to make every ship balanced for every player and every style of play.

Well, as a design flaw, the designer should have realized that the WS fleet would be popular to play due to their fluff and should have designed them accordingly from the get go.

The playtesters should have realized how significant the change in the dodge was for the survivablity of the ship. What I have seen traditionally from the game system is a tendency to overcorrect a needed change. You can see this in the whitestar and in the Sag. This is where I question the quality of the playtesting being done.

Dave
 
Give the playtesters a little bit of a break! The system for the most part is fantastic and most of the ships are very well balanced, just a few broken (in my opinion) ships in a very large fleet list is not bad going for a few playtesters!

I'm also glad that campaign play is tested as well as pick-up games personally as I actually *prefer* campaign play...although double RR costs for Shadows really hurts when everything goes up a PL level...+ Shadows fighters at 10RR a wing? Come on man, I ain't made of RR ;)

Sigh - seriously though it changes the way I play campaign games with shadows considerably (or does when I remember to do so anyway) as in I'll quite happily lose a game as long as I don't lose any ships...30RR to replace even one scout, 15RR if I lose a strategic point, no brainer!

That tangent aside, this thread was originally about suggestions to make playtesting work better...I think Mongoose have taken steps to do that by adding three excellent tourney players to the roster (yes Tank, I meant you too!), which combined with the honestly good job from the current playtesters in the most part, should improve things considerably.

I look forward to good things from ACTA v2 for all races :)
 
Hash said:
.....I'm also glad that campaign play is tested as well as pick-up games personally as I actually *prefer* campaign play...although double RR costs for Shadows really hurts when everything goes up a PL level...+
Also forgot the increase in cost if you build a shadow cloud as a station
 
Hash said:
Give the playtesters a little bit of a break! The system for the most part is fantastic and most of the ships are very well balanced, just a few broken (in my opinion) ships in a very large fleet list is not bad going for a few playtesters!

Thank you.
 
Davesaint said:
The playtesters should have realized how significant the change in the dodge was for the survivablity of the ship. What I have seen traditionally from the game system is a tendency to overcorrect a needed change. You can see this in the whitestar and in the Sag. This is where I question the quality of the playtesting being done.

Dave

the current crop of playtesters DIDN'T playtest that particular change to the White Star, we were brought on board after SFOS so we can't be held accountable for that thank you! :roll:

How many ships are there in this game? 200? I defy anyone to always get everything right when you have that many ships to playtest. The sagittarius was an example, singly no-one thought it overpowered but how do you have the time to playtest 200+ ships in every possible combination to ensure there will be no mistakes ever!? :?
 
Back
Top