Morpheus1975
Mongoose
Hey! Can anybody do a little playtesting for me?
Check it here.
http://www.star-ranger.com/StellarEmpires.htm
Check it here.
http://www.star-ranger.com/StellarEmpires.htm
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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
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.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.
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.![]()
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.....
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also forgot the increase in cost if you build a shadow cloud as a stationHash 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...+
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!
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